Articles tagged by SNB
issued a statement expressing severe disappointment at the charges leveled against the firm by the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (CFTC), stating that they are “unprecedented and unwarranted”.
claims relate to when the Swiss National Bank (SNB) ...
A US court has granted a motion to
dismiss the legal complaints aimed at FXCM, and certain members of its senior
staff, in which the plaintiff alleged that they were mislead about the risks
associated with the firms’ agency business ...
Richard Preschern, CEO of Robosig and Co-Founder at FX Vision, talks to Profit & Loss deputy editor, Galen Stops, about the lessons he’s learnt from recent risk events.
Speaking about the volatility following the Swiss National Banks’ decision to pull its peg to the euro, Preschern comments: “What you understand is that the execution that you get during these events is nothing to do with what you model because the market is simply not there.
“So what you have to do in terms of risk management is look at your extreme points in terms of exposure because you just don’t know that you’re going to be able to get out, which is what causes a lot of wreckage in the market.”
Much has been made of the sharp drop in spot FX volumes in the recent BIS Turnover Survey, but, Colin Lambert asks, is what we are seeing merely a return to a longer term trend?
A regular theme in Profit & Loss over the past two years has been, since the traumatic events of January 15, 2015 around the Swiss franc peg, the return to relationship trading at the expense of the all-to-all model.
Analysis and data recently released by the Bank for International Settlements based upon its recent Triennial Central Bank Survey of FX Turnover appears to support the notion that the FX market is losing its infatuation with market share at all costs and is much more choosy about who it deals with.
A new paper uses trade repository data to forensically analyse the Swiss franc de-pegging and while Colin Lambert finds its conclusions are familiar, the paper offers other insights
The story is familiar to anyone in the foreign exchange business – on January 15, 2015, the Swiss National Bank shocked the markets with the announcement it was abandoning its Swiss franc ceiling to the euro at 1.2000. Chaos ensued as EUR/CHF collapsed over 40% before recovering sharply, after which the industry was left to rake over the ashes of what was to many a debacle.
Brandon Mulvihill, managing director, head of FXCM Pro, explains that there is still not enough clarity about the different prime-of-prime services being offered in the FX market, and warns that it is a mistake to believe that these firms are currently ready to fill the gap left by the tier one prime brokers.
Profit & Loss: Since “SNB Day” there have been a lot of firms touting prime-of-prime (PoP) services to the FX market. Many of them actually provide very different services. Two years on from SNB, do you feel like these differences are better understood by market participants?
When assessing which large tail risk events are likely to take place in 2017, speakers at Profit & Loss’ Forex Network London emphasised that there are other risk factors being overlooked that might have a greater impact on financial markets.
“Like last year, the tail risks this year are quite high compared to normal,” said Colin Harte, strategist and senior portfolio manger at BNP Paribas Investment Partners. “There are some quite material risks that – if they come to pass – could have a significant impact on markets.”
He noted, however, that many of the expected tail risk events from 2016 were less dramatic than expected in the end: sterling took an obvious hit after the Brexit result, but soon became range-bound again, while the Trump election victory actually led to a rally in the equity markets.
As access to credit has becoming increasingly constrained in the FX market, Noel Singh head of e-FX business development at Sucden Financial, explains that this is only factor at play in the evolving prime services space.
Questioned on the new credit reality in FX markets, Singh responded: “I think credit is only one aspect of the story and I think that post-SNB, when the top tier prime brokers lost money because their clients couldn’t make good the losses, that started it, but I think it’s now the concept of how much is the wallet worth to the prime broker.”
Although Dmitri Galinov, CEO of FastMatch, defends the controversial practice of last look in FX, he also claims that it will be eliminated within the next two years.
Explaining why last look has become such a hotly debated topic within the FX industry, Galinov explains that it is “a valuable tool” that enables liquidity providers to quote tighter prices to their customers.
The problem, as he puts it, is that “consumers want tighter prices but they don’t want last look”. For now, however, the two appear to be mutually exclusive, which is why this is a difficult issue for the industry to solve.
Over the past few years, some FX prime brokers have gone from aggressively competing for market share to off-boarding clients and increasing their fees. What happened to make the pendulum swing so dramatically, and is it due for another reversal? Galen Stops reports.
Relatively speaking, it wasn’t all that long ago that banks were aggressively trying to build out their FX prime brokerage (FXPB) businesses and competition was fierce. This precipitated a race to the bottom in terms of fees by some FXPBs. Numerous market sources claim that Morgan Stanley was at the forefront of this race, although they note that a number of major FXPB players were not far behind.
The notoriety of me busting a Saturday Night Fever move on stage at Profit & Loss Stockholm last week is growing, therefore I will subtly(!) shift the direction of the conversation – but retain its musicality – by noting that I don't remember “Ebeneezer Goode” by The Shamen being a number one single in the UK. Equally I don’t think I have ever listened to “Tubular Bells II” by Mike Oldfield. I was, however, very busy the week both hit the top of the charts.
So we’ve just published our Q3 edition of Profit & Loss magazine, which includes our prime services special report, and I wanted to share some thoughts about one segment of it.
When I first started the report I was very negative on the prospects for FX prime brokers, over the eighteen months or so I’d heard so many complaints about credit constraints, about offboarding – I don’t think that was even a phrase that I’d heard prior to SNB – and the general retrenchment of FXPBs.
Now obviously SNB was a catalyst for a lot of these issues, but really it just exacerbated a trend that already existed and this was caused by the introduction of new regulations that made it more expensive for banks to offer FXPB services to a lot of clients.
Galen Stops takes a look at some of the potential risk concerns associated with the prime-of-prime model in FX.
I n a recent survey conducted by Profit & Loss 57.25% of respondents said that they think the trend towards more firms using prime-of-primes (PoPs) rather than traditional FX prime brokers (FXPBs) could increase the impact of a shock event.
This is in contrast to 27.48% who said that it won’t and 15.27% who think the impact of a shock event would be unaffected by this change. The logic underpinning this concern is based on the fact that risk is increasingly being pushed towards less well-capitalised institutions.
Inaugural financial markets research from the JP Morgan Chase Institute studies trading behaviour around three major market events, and while the findings will not come as a surprise to most FX market participants – active traders were much more involved in the market than passive investors or corporate hedgers – they should prove useful to central banks as they come to terms with a changing market structure.
The research, FX Markets Move on Surprise News, was written by Diana Farrell, Kanav Bhagat and Chen Zhao at the Institute and looks at three specific surprise events, the Swiss National Bank’s decision to remove the EUR/CHF floor in January 2015, the Brexit vote in June 2016 and the 2016 US presidential election.
The January 3 flash event in FX markets continues to fuel the news cycle and in this week’s podcast, Colin Lambert and Galen Stops discuss the real impact of algos – widely cited as a major factor in the event – in markets. For once they agree on a central theme in the debate, including Lambert (very reluctantly) shooting down one of his own arguments with Stops last year on trend following, but as always there’s room for divergent views.
A new research report from JP Morgan Chase Institute highlights the impact of central bank communication choices on financial market volatility.In the report, Does the Timing of Central Bank Announcements Matter?, the authors analysed data around the Swiss National Bank’s (SNB) decision to remove the EUR/CHF floor in January 2015, and found evidence that the timing of the decision increased subsequent market volatility.This latest research builds on a previous paper released by JP Morgan in June 2018, in which it found evidence that many hedge funds had predicated trading strategies on the belief that the SNB would maintain the EUR/CHF floor at 1.20.
To channel my inner Shakespeare, “to re-paper or not re-paper – that is the question”. I could continue with something like, “whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to stand by the price and wear the loss, or run crying to the authorities and try to get it cancelled” but that kind of loses poetic effect. Anyway, what I want to say is why do markets let people get away with rank stupidity and lack of operational discipline by letting them re-paper trades?