Interest rate hedging has been an essential element of most real estate finance transactions in recent years.
Typically the borrower enters into a swap with the lender which transforms all or part of a Libor linked loan into a fixed rate transaction. In some cases, the borrower may be permitted to hedge with a counterparty other than the lending bank.
All this may change as a result of a draft regulation on derivative transactions which was published by the European Commission in September and amended by the Council of Europe in a series of compromise proposals. The following is based on the latest compromise proposal.
Summary
• Borrowers which are “financial counterparties” will be required to clear swaps through a central counterparty (CCP).
• Borrowers which are “non financial counterparties” whose volume of trades exceeds a threshold will also be required to clear swaps through a CCP.
• Swaps with other borrowers will be subject to as yet unspecified risk management rules.
• Hedging through a borrower swap may be replaced by fixed rate loan agreements hedged by the lender with another financial institution.
• Borrowers risk losing the flexibility currently available.
Who does the draft regulation affect?
The regulation will apply where a financial counterparty or a non-financial counterparty whose volume of derivative trading has exceeded an as yet unspecified threshold enters into a derivative contract with a counterparty which comes within either category.
Financial counterparties are firms providing investment services, credit institutions, insurers, life insurers and reinsurers, collective investment firms, occupational pension firms and alternative investment funds managed by alternative investment fund managers (the last under the European directive of the same name).
Non-financial counterparties are any other undertakings which are established in the European Union.
The clearing obligation will also apply to financial counterparties and non-financial counterparties which have exceeded the threshold if they enter into derivative contracts with non-EU counterparties who would be subject to the clearing obligation if they were established in the EU.
Which derivative contracts are affected?
Derivative contracts affected by the regulation will include interest rate swaps, caps and collars used in real estate finance.
A class of derivative will be subject to compulsory clearing only if the European Securities and
Markets Authority (ESMA - one of the new European super regulators) has determined that
it is “eligible”. The current version of the draft regulation applies the clearing obligation only to derivatives entered into on or after the date when the regulation comes into force.
What do financial counterparties have to do?
A financial counterparty will be required to:
• clear “eligible” derivative contracts through a CCP where the other party is:
o another financial counterparty or
o a non-financial counterparty which has exceeded the threshold or
o a non EU counterparty which would be subject to the clearing obligation if established in the EU; and
• report all derivative transactions to a trade repository.
What do non- financial counterparties have to do?
A non-financial counterparty will be required to:
• clear eligible derivative transactions through a CCP where the other party is
o a financial counterparty or
o another non-financial counterparty which has exceeded the threshold or
o a non EU counterparty which would be subject to the clearing obligation if established in the EU;
but only when its overall positions excluding contracts “that are objectively measurable as reducing risks directly related to the commercial activity of that counterparty” exceed a “clearing threshold”;
• inform the appropriate authority when its overall positions in derivatives exceed an “information threshold”;
• when the information threshold has been exceeded, report all derivative transactions to a trade repository.
Clearing through a CCP can be done either by direct membership or as a client of a member. The rules of the CCP will amongst other things require its members to comply with collateralisation of each trade on a mark to market basis.
CCPs typically require collateral in the form of cash, government debt securities or performance bonds from acceptable banks.
Who determines the thresholds?
The key issues for real estate finance transactions will be the level of the threshold and the criteria for determining whether a derivative contract directly relates to the commercial activity of the counterparty.
The information and clearing thresholds will be determined by the Commission on the basis of
drafts to be submitted by ESMA by 30 June 2012. Under the Council's latest compromise proposal the Council will also determine the criteria for establishing which derivative contracts are objectively measurable as reducing risks directly related to commercial activity.
Derivatives which are not cleared through a CCP
Financial counterparties and non-financial counterparties must have in place procedures and arrangements to measure, monitor and mitigate operational and credit risk in relation to derivatives which are not cleared through a CCP (presumably because they have not been designated as eligible for clearing or the counterparty is not required to clear).
These include timely use of electronic confirmations, daily mark to market (or where market conditions do not permit this mark to model) of outstanding contracts, exchange of appropriately segregated collateral and proportionate holding of collateral. The Council's compromise proposal adds a requirement for both types of counterparty to segregate collateral "in accordance with their agreement" if requested by the other party.
The obligation to provide for exchange of collateral applies equally to a bank as to an unregulated borrower.
The Commission will have power to adopt regulatory standards specifying the maximum time lag for issue of a confirmation and risk management, collateralisation and capital requirements. ESMA and other competent authorities must submit drafts of these standards by 30 June 2012.
These standards will no doubt have a significant effect on the availability of swaps and other derivatives outside the scope of compulsory clearing.
Penalties
Member states are required to provide for penalties for infringement of the clearing and information rules in the Regulation including at least administrative fines by 30 June 2012.
Conclusions for real estate finance transactions
If the regulation is implemented in its present form fixed rate loans hedged by the lender with another financial institution may increasingly replace borrower hedged Libor loans. Factors which will influence this include:
• reluctance of borrowers who are required to clear through a CCP to collateralise swaps otherwise than through conventional security on real estate
• the more favourable regulatory capital treatment proposed under Basel III for exposures of banks to CCPs.
• the impact of the regulatory standards which the Commission will adopt in relation to derivatives which are not subject to compulsory clearing.
Any increased costs resulting from the need to put the swap through a clearing house will inevitably be passed on to the borrower.
The regulation is still in draft form so there may be scope for lobbying to set out a clear framework for transactions which are not subject to compulsory clearing. For example, it should be made clear, if possible, that a bank can take collateral in the form of real estate or other tangible assets and that a rigid relationship between mark to market values and collateral is not appropriate in real estate and other secured lending transactions.
Andrew Seager
Senior Associate