Archive for the ‘Regulation’ Category

OSFI Revises Rules for LRCNs; Finally Provides Information for Insurers

Friday, March 19th, 2021

The Office of the Superintendant of Financial Institutions Canada (OSFI) has announced:

OSFI has published an update to its July 18, 2020 capital ruling on the Limited Recourse Capital Notes (LRCNs). The revised ruling now addresses LRCN issuances from institutions of all sizes and across different industry sectors.

The revisions include a number of clarifications to the ruling’s conditions and limitations, which are part of OSFI’s prudent approach to assessing the quality and quantity of financial instruments used as regulatory capital. This is consistent with our mandate to protect the rights and interests of depositors, policyholders and financial institution creditors, while also allowing financial institutions to compete effectively and take reasonable risks.

The ruling continues to conclude that federally regulated financial institutions may recognize the LRCNs as regulatory capital subject to the capital treatment, conditions and limitations set out in the revised ruling. Should you have any questions, please contact

The new limits are set out in the appendix to the new rules:

LRCN Issuance Limitations by FRFI Sector
Note: For life insurers, the following limitations supplement and are subject to any existing capital composition limits set out in OSFI’s capital guidelines. P&C insurers and mortgage insurers should consult OSFI’s Capital Division in respect of the limitations applicable to any prospective LRCN issuances.

LRCN Issuance Cap Floor
AT1 Greater of $150 million, 0.75%
RWA, or 50% of the
institution’s aggregate net AT1
Lesser of 0.30% RWA or 20% of
the institution’s aggregate AT1
Life Tier 1 Capital
other than
Greater of $150 million or
12.5% of Net Tier 1 capital
5.0% of Net Tier 1 capital

The “Floor” has the following effect:

The Cap may be removed with the prior approval of OSFI’s Capital Division. In seeking this approval, a FRFI must demonstrate that it has issued institutional preferred shares and/or other Additional Tier 1 capital instruments (other than LRCNs) targeted towards institutional investors that, in aggregate, are no less than the applicable limit, or Floor, set out in the Appendix. If the FRFI’s outstanding institutional preferred shares and/or other Additional Tier 1 capital instruments issued to institutional investors were to subsequently drop below the Floor, the FRFI would not be permitted to issue additional LRCNs in excess of the Cap until it has re-established compliance with the Floor. The Floor will not apply where the LRCNs are issued exclusively to a FRFI’s affiliates.

IAIS Says No To DeemedRetractions

Thursday, November 14th, 2019

The International Association of Insurance Supervisors has released a bevy of documents related to the supervision of Internationally Active Insurance Groups.

Of these, the most important for our purposes is the “Technical Note on ICS Version 2.0 for the monitoring period” which states:

Principal Loss Absorbency Mechanism (PLAM): A distinction is made for mutual and non-mutual IAIGs. For non-mutual IAIGs, the 10% limit for Tier 1 Limited financial instruments will be maintained for Tier 1 Limited financial instruments that do not have a PLAM. An additional 5% allowance is granted to those Tier 1 Limited financial instruments that do have a PLAM. The limits are stated as a % of the ICS capital requirement.

For mutual IAIGs: A PLAM is not required as part of Tier 1 Limited capital resources and the limit for Tier 1 Limited capital resources is maintained at 30% of the ICS capital requirement

So that’s an end to the saga that began in February, 2011. As an investor, I’m shocked; as a taxpayer who will end up footing the bill if one of our outsized insurance companies goes down, I’m disappointed.

Update: An end? Or a new beginning? The Canadian Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions – which has disgraced itself throughout the negotiations for ICS 2.0 – has announced:

While broadly supportive of the goals of the Insurance Capital Standard (ICS), the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) did not support the ICS design proposed for a five-year monitoring period at the Executive Committee Meeting of the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.

OSFI’s view is that that the Standard in its current form is not fit for purpose for the Canadian market. Specifically, the proposed capital requirements for long-term products are too high to be compatible with OSFI’s mandate of allowing Canadian insurers to compete and take reasonable risks.

During the five-year monitoring period, OSFI will continue its work in trying to achieve an international capital standard for insurance companies that works for all jurisdictions.

Quick Facts

  • Canadian insurers will continue to be subject to the requirements of OSFI’s robust capital frameworks for federally regulated insurance companies.
  • An initiative of the IAIS, the International Capital Standard is a proposed common capital standard for large internationally active insurance groups.

So, maybe a PLAM for Tier 1 Limited capital resources is a bargaining chip …

Update: There hasn’t been much press coverage of this, but here are two articles:

Update, 2019-11-17: States and Feds Split on Major World Insurance Standards Deal

Update, 2019-11-18: OSFI rebuffs global capital rules for insurers.

FixedReset Prospectuses Are Imprecise!

Friday, September 13th, 2019

As we all know, FixedResets will reset their dividend every five years based on the Government of Canada Five Year yield (“GOC-5 rate” or “GOC-5 yield”) and therefore the prospectus for each issue needs to include information regarding exactly how that yield is determined.

The prospectus for ALA.PR.G (chosen because I can link to it!) contains typical language with respect to this process:

“Bloomberg Screen GCAN5YR Page” means the display designated as page “GCAN5YR” on the Bloomberg Financial L.P. service (or such other page as may replace the GCAN5YR page on that service) for purposes of displaying Government of Canada bond yields.

“Government of Canada Yield” on any date means the yield to maturity on such date (assuming semi-annual compounding) of a Canadian dollar denominated non-callable Government of Canada bond with a term to maturity of five years as quoted as of 10:00 a.m. (Toronto time) on such date and that appears on he Bloomberg Screen GCAN5YR Page on such date; provided that if such rate does not appear on the Bloomberg Screen GCAN5YR Page on such date, then the Government of Canada Yield shall mean the arithmetic average of the yields quoted to AltaGas by two registered Canadian investment dealers selected by AltaGas as being the annual yield to maturity on such date, compounded semi-annually, that a non-callable Government of Canada bond would carry if issued, in Canadian dollars, at 100% of its principal amount on such date with a term to maturity of five years.

I am not aware of any material differences in the definitions between prospectuses.

So this sounds pretty good, right? The GOC-5 yield will be calculated by an independent third party with no ambiguity and complete verifiability, right? Wrong.

As noted in the post Reset Calculation Oddity for 2019-9-30 / 2019-10-1, the following four issues had the GOC-5 rate underlying their dividends recalculated by their issuers on September 3:

Basis Comparison of Resets
Ticker Issue Reset Spread Announced Rate Implied GOC-5 Yield Screenshot
ALA.PR.G 306bp 4.242% 1.182% LINK
EFN.PR.E 472bp 5.903% 1.183% LINK
BAM.PF.F 286bp 4.029% 1.169% LINK
DC.PR.B 410bp 5.284% 1.184% LINK

The AltaGas screenshot shows they made a slight mistake: the time of the screenshot is 10:00:18, so they missed their proper time by 18 seconds, although they could argue that the prospectus only uses four significant figures and therefore their calculation is completely OK. However, each of the other screenshots shows a genuine effort being made to determine just what exactly the GOC-5 rate was at 10:00:00.00000 and each methodology resulted in a different answer.

Four companies, four identically specified calculations, four different answers.

I will be the first to agree that the variance is minor: the spread between the highest and lowest measurement is only 1.5bp and that’s not a lot. On a typical issue size of $250-million, that comes to $37,500 annually or $187,500 over the full five years. On a per-share basis, a 1.5bp yield difference comes to $0.00375 p.a., slightly less than two cents over the full five years.

But that’s not the point. First, the prospectus should specify the yield to be used in a completely precise manner. To quote again from the representative language of the ALA.PR.G prospectus:

“Annual Fixed Dividend Rate” means, for any Subsequent Fixed Rate Period, the annual rate of interest (expressed as a percentage rounded to the nearest one hundred thousandth of one percent (with 0.000005% being rounded up)) equal to the sum of the Government of Canada Yield on the applicable Fixed Rate Calculation Date and 3.06%.

What’s the point of being so horrifyingly precise about the rounding of the Annual Fixed Dividend Rate when the underlying figure is nowhere near that precisely measured?

In addition, once this becomes widely known, what’s to prevent a company from determining the GOC-5 yield in as many ways as their Bloomberg users can invent and choosing the lowest answer?

Clearly, the Bloomberg methodology is not adequate for the task of determining a precise, public, third-party figure and the procedure needs to be changed. The first alternative that leaps to mind is the Bank of Canada’s bond yield reporting:

Selected benchmark bond yields are based on mid-market closing yields of selected Government of Canada bond issues that mature approximately in the indicated terms. The bond issues used are not necessarily the ones with the remaining time to maturity that is the closest to the indicated term and may differ from other sources. The selected 2-, 5-, 10-, or 30-year issues are generally changed when a building benchmark bond is adopted by financial markets as a benchmark, typically after the last auction for that bond.

Yes, it’s not quite the same thing and yes, there might be a perceived problem if the benchmark changes near the time of calculation (typically, new benchmarks will trade to yield less than the ‘off the run’ issues they supersede). I don’t care. I want something precise, public (certainly more public than a subscription to a Bloomberg terminal!) and prepared by an independent third party. If somebody has a better idea, let’s hear it.

IAIS SecGen Discusses ICS 2.0 Timeline

Monday, May 27th, 2019

The International Association of Insurance Supervisors released its May, 2019, Newsletter today, which was led by a piece from the Secretary-General, Jonathan Dixon:

Our committee meetings next month in Buenos Aires mark an important point in the IAIS’ journey to a global Insurance Capital Standard (ICS). The IAIS embarked on the development of the ICS to create a common language
for supervisory discussions of group solvency of internationally active insurance groups. In June, the focus of our committee discussions will shift from design to implementation issues.

The final round of field testing is now underway, with data due at the end of July. While some ICS design elements remain to be finalised this year, the IAIS remains committed to resolving those elements and beginning the monitoring period in 2020, while recognising that the ICS will continue to evolve during this period. This includes possible refinements and corrections of major flaws or unintended consequences identified during the monitoring period.

In June, we will discuss the overall framework for the monitoring period, including confidentiality safeguards around disclosure of the ICS results and modalities for considering unintended consequences, given that our intention has always been to undertake this work once the ICS is sufficiently developed. We will also further our discussions on the timelines, process and governance for developing comparability criteria and completing the comparability assessment of other solvency regimes relative to the ICS.

As we move towards November and the adoption of ICS Version 2.0 for the monitoring period, we will continue our constructive engagement with stakeholders in order to ensure that there is greater clarity on the process for finalising and implementing the ICS.

This is all consistent with previous schedules provided for ICS 2.0, which include the IAIS deliberations regarding the definition of Insurance company Tier 1 Limited Capital (which includes preferred shares); I take the view that rules comparable, if not identical to the bank NVCC rules will be imposed by OSFI at some point in the future.

IAIS Releases ICS 2.0 Consultation Comments

Friday, April 5th, 2019

The International Association of Insurance Supervisors has released the comments received to its 2018 ICS 2.0 Consultation. Assiduous Readers will remember that the comment period closed at the end of October, 2018 and included the following questions that are critical to the question of Deemed Maturities for Insurance issues:

The consultation document, downloadable from the above page, contains the critical (for our purposes) question:
173. The IAIS is considering whether to set an additional criterion requiring Tier 1 Limited instruments to have a principal loss absorbency mechanism (PLAM). Such mechanisms would provide a means for financial instruments to absorb losses on a going-concern basis through reductions in the principal amount and cancellation of distributions. Without such mechanisms these instruments might only provide going concern loss absorbency through cancellation of distributions.

Click for Big

The consultation document, and the files with respondents’ answers to the questions, may be downloaded from the IAIS Insurance Capital Standards page. The ‘critical questions’, ##52-54, are found in Section 6 Reference ICS – Capital resources (public). The IAIS notes that:

The IAIS received 56 submissions in response to the 2018 ICS Consultation Document of which 18 were requested by the respondents to be kept confidential. Therefore, the comments that are posted here publicly are a subset of those that the IAIS will be taking into account as it moves forward with the ICS.

Q52 Section 6 Is a PLAM [Principal Loss Absorbency Mechanism] an appropriate requirement for Tier 1 Limited financial instruments? Please explain any advantages and disadvantages of requiring a PLAM.

There were 17 responses, 8 yes and 9 no.

OSFI answered “No”:

A PLAM is one option considered to assess loss absorbency in a going concern. However, OSFI’s view is that PoNV (point of non viability) loss absorbency could also be considered. Specifically, the IAIS could consider loss absorbency on a going concern basis, as well as on a gone concern basis with contractual or statutory) PoNV triggers. It is possible that an insurer could fail before a PLAM trigger occurs due to the lagging nature of PLAM triggers. Moreover, PLAM triggers could have adverse signalling effects in respect of the financial condition of the issuer, which could precipitate non-viability.

This advocacy of ‘point of non viability loss absorbency’ is consistent with the NVCC rules OSFI has imposed on banks and with its answer to the 2016 consultation. Assiduous readers will remember that I consider the ‘adverse signalling effects’ of a PLAM trigger to be a feature, not a bug; high triggers are good things, and I’m not the only one who says so:

Moreover, high-trigger CoCos would presumably get converted not infrequently which, in terms of reducing myopia in capital markets, would have the merit of reminding holders and issuers about risks in banking.

Broadly speaking, Europeans were in favour of PLAM, although some expressed concerns about complexity: China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission (CBIRC); European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA); Insurance Europe; Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin); General Insurance Association of Japan; Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) & Financial Services Commission (FSC); Legal & General; Association of British Insurers. Comments included EIOPA’s remark:

Requiring a PLAM, i.e. write-down or conversion features, provides a means for the principal of a financial instrument to absorb losses on a going-concern basis. Without such mechanisms these instruments only provide going concern loss absorbency through cancellation of distributions.

Naysayers were dominated by American regulators and firms: Dai-ichi Life Holdings, Inc., American Council of Life Insurers, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies; Prudential Financial, Inc.; American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCI); MetLife, Inc; Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI); and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). The Americans have a high degree of concern regarding the continued eligibility of “surplus notes”, as exemplified by the response of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies:

PLAM is an addition to the discussion that NAMIC strongly opposes. NAMIC does not see any value in a PLAM requirement. It is simply a way to further complicate the ICS 2.0 providing no value. It seems to be designed to reduce the value of allowing surplus notes to qualify as Tier 1 capital resources.

The elephant in the room is AIG and the European bank bail-outs that left Tier 1 noteholders unscathed, at least relatively. How can anybody say with a straight face that loss absorbency via cessation of dividends is sufficient in the face of those memories?

Q53 Section 6 If a PLAM requirement is not introduced, what amount should be included in ICS capital resources for instruments that qualify as Tier 1 Limited, to reflect going concern loss absorbency? Please explain.

OSFI’s answer is a disgrace:

Capital composition limits address the concerns related to loss absorbency of Tier 1 Limited instruments and therefore their full face amount should be included in the ICS capital resources.

In other words, OSFI would have us believe that since Limited Tier 1 Capital is a limited proportion of the insurers’ high quality capital, it doesn’t really matter whether it’s actually high quality or not. Disgusting.

EIOPA and BaFin stepped into the breach:

Without a PLAM requirement, it is difficult to see how the principal of an instrument absorbs losses in a going concern basis.

Interestingly, the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI) stated:

In support, PCI cites the response of OSFI-Canada to a similar question in the prior ICS consultation

and quoted in full the dovish response to the 2016 consultation … including the grudging support for a NVCC solution.

Others stated that cessation of distributions worked just fine, e.g., American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCI):

Tier 1 Limited instruments already provide loss absorbency on a going concern loss basis through cancellation of distributions. Reducing the principal amount of these instruments is only necessary during resolution.

Q54 Section 6 Are there other criteria that could be added to enhance the ability of financial instruments to absorb losses on a going concern and / or on a gone concern basis? Please explain.

OSFI had nothing to say. BaFin and EIOPA had identical answers again:

• In T1, mandatory cancellation of distributions on breach of capital requirement (i.e. a lock-in feature).
• In T2, mandatory deferral of distributions and redemption of principal on breach of capital requirement (i.e. a lock-in feature).
• Requirement for early repurchase (within 5 years from issuance) to be funded out of proceeds of new issuance of
same/higher quality (all tiers).

I don’t quite understand this response. Does “cancellation” mean cancellation forever and ever on T1, as opposed to a temporary “deferral” on T2? How about redemptions? Would such instruments have any rights if the issuer actually did go bankrupt ten years later? And I don’t understand what they mean by an early purchase requirement at all.

So, there you have it. I don’t find anything particularly surprising here; there might be some meaning behind the heavy American participation in this consultation, but an outsider such as myself would be foolish to speculate on just what that meaning might be.

DBRS: Canadian Banks’ Trends Now Stable on Bail-In Approval

Wednesday, April 25th, 2018

DBRS has announced that it has:

changed the trend to Stable from Negative on the Long-Term Issuer Ratings, Senior Debt Ratings and Deposits ratings of the Bank of Montreal, The Bank of Nova Scotia, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and the National Bank of Canada. These actions result from the publication by the Minister of Finance of the final rules related to the Bank Recapitalization Regime (the Bail-in Regime). DBRS notes that the Stable trends on the long-term ratings of The Toronto-Dominion Bank and Royal Bank of Canada were unaffected. For these domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs) to which the Bail-in Regime is applicable, DBRS has created a new obligation named Bail-inable Senior Debt. This new obligation rating reflects the senior debt that these banks will begin issuing once the Bail-in Regime goes into effect on September 23, 2018. Lastly, DBRS has downgraded the legacy Subordinated Debt ratings of these D-SIBs by one notch.

The revision of the trend to Stable from Negative for the affected long-term ratings reflects DBRS’s view that a downgrade of existing senior debt for the D-SIBs is now unlikely. It is anticipated that systemic support would still be sufficient to add a notch for such support until the D-SIBs issue adequate amounts of Bail-inable Senior Debt to meet their total loss-absorbing capacity (TLAC) requirements. Once an adequate level of bail-inable debt has been issued, the likelihood of future systemic support would be much lower. Accordingly, the notch of support would then be withdrawn. However, the new Bail-inable Senior Debt creates an additional buffer that better protects all senior obligations that cannot be bailed in under the regulation. Therefore, DBRS does not expect to downgrade any long-term ratings of existing senior obligations of the D-SIBs.

When issued, DBRS will rate the new Bail-inable Senior Debt at the level of each bank’s Intrinsic Assessment (IA), reflecting the risk of a D-SIB being put into resolution.

The downgrades of the legacy Subordinated Debt ratings reflect the structural subordination to the Bail-inable Senior Debt.

This has been telegraphed for a long, long time:

S&P Revises Bank Outlook to Stable on Federal Complacency

Saturday, December 12th, 2015

Standard & Poor’s has announced:

  • •We continue to evaluate the likelihood, degree, and timeframe with respect to which the default risk of systemically important Canadian banks may change as a result of the government’s progress toward introducing a bank bail-in framework.
  • •We now expect that the timeframe could be substantially longer than we had previously assumed. We see the absence of the topic from the new government’s Dec. 4 Speech from the Throne as recent, incremental evidence in this regard.
  • •We now do not expect to consider the removal of rating uplift for our expectation of the likelihood of extraordinary government support from the issuer credit ratings (ICRs) on systemically important Canadian banks until a point beyond our standard two-year outlook horizon for investment-grade ratings, if at all.
  • •When and if we remove such uplift, the potential ratings impact will also consider uplift for additional loss-absorbing capacity, as well as any changes to our stand-alone credit profiles on these banks.
  • •As a result, we are revising our outlooks on all systemically important Canadian banks to stable from negative.

On Dec. 11, 2015, Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services revised its outlooks on the Canadian banks that it views as having either “high” (Bank of Montreal, The Bank of Nova Scotia, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Royal Bank of Canada, The Toronto-Dominion Bank), or “moderate” (Caisse centrale Desjardins and National Bank of Canada) systemic importance, to stable from negative (see ratings list). The issuer credit ratings (ICRs) on the banks are unchanged.

We believe that the potential negative ratings impact of a declining likelihood of extraordinary government support, at least within our standard two-year outlook horizon, has subsided. This reflects our updated view that there could be an extended implementation timetable–2018 or later–for the proposed Canadian bail-in framework. Importantly, at the point we would consider removing any uplift from the likelihood of extraordinary government support from our ratings, we would also consider the potential ratings impact of any uplift for additional loss-absorbing capacity (ALAC), as well as any
changes to our stand-alone credit profiles (SACPs) on these banks. In our view, the extended timetable introduces some potential that either the presence of ALAC or fundamental changes in credit quality at individual banks might come into play more than under the previously contemplated timetable.

We had revised our outlooks on systemically important Canadian banks to negative chiefly in reaction to the former government’s “Taxpayer Protection and Bank Recapitalization Regime” consultation paper of Aug. 1, 2014, as we then expected a bail-in regime could be fully implemented by 2016 (see “Outlook On Six Big Canadian Banks Revised To Negative Following Review Of Bail-In Policy Proposal,” published Aug. 8, 2014, on RatingsDirect). A number of subsequent developments have caused us to re-evaluate this expectation:

  • •In its April 2015 budget proposal, the former government affirmed its intention to introduce a bank bail-in regime in Canada, but it provided only very limited additional information relative to what it had outlined in its 2014 consultation paper; nor did the government make substantial subsequent public statement on the topic; nor did it specify timing for the announcement of its fully-developed (post-consultation) legislative proposal.
  • •The Oct. 19 federal election changed the party in government to Liberal (center-left), from Conservative (center-right). The former government’s proposed bail-in regime did not feature prominently in election debates.
  • •The new government’s Dec. 4 Speech from the Throne made no mention of the proposed bail-in framework, nor were any of the legislative priorities enumerated therein closely related, in our opinion. We believe this indicates the introduction of a bail-in framework is not among the immediate priorities of the new government.

Moreover, with Canada experiencing no government bank bail-outs, nor large bank failures, for decades, we believe the political incentive to rapidly end “too-big-to-fail” is less in Canada than in the U.S. and several EU countries, which are jurisdictions under which we have already removed uplift for our expectation of the likelihood of extraordinary government support from our ratings (see “U.S. Global Systemically Important Bank Holding Companies Downgraded Based On Uncertain Likelihood Of Government Support,” and “Most European Bank Ratings Affirmed Following Government Support And ALAC Review,” both published Dec. 2, on RatingsDirect). We will take this factor into consideration as we continue to evaluate our view on the likelihood of extraordinary government support in Canada relative to not only the U.S. and Europe, but also other jurisdictions where we maintain a government support assessment of “supportive” or “highly supportive” under our criteria (such as for many countries in Latin America and Asia-Pacific; see “Banking Industry Country Risk Assessment Update: November 2015,” published Nov. 27).

We now believe the procedural hurdles to passing legislation and related regulations (the latter after passage of the former) for a bail-in regime will alone require a minimum of one-to-two years, after the new government decides on a final legislative framework to propose to Parliament. Considering all of this, we now expect the eventual date for initial implementation of the bail-in regime (that is, banks issuing bail-inable debt) could be in 2018 or later.

In addition, and in contrast to bail-in frameworks outlined by U.S. authorities or in European countries like Germany, Canadian officials’ statements have made clear that only debt issued or renegotiated after an initial implementation date would be subject to conversion. It will take some time for the banks to issue or renegotiate bail-inable debt. We believe this means it could take several years after the initial implementation date before we would consider a Canadian bail-in regime effective, so as to provide a viable alternative to the direct provision of extraordinary government support.

As well, and again in contrast to the U.S. and EU jurisdictions, Canadian governments have made no attempt to limit their ability to provide direct extraordinary support to their banks, if needed. We expect bailing in senior creditors to be the first Canadian policy response in the face of a crisis. At the same time, we believe Canadian governments would be likely to consider all policy options, in such a circumstance. It is therefore not certain that the introduction of a bail-in regime would of itself result in our revising our government support assessment on Canada to “uncertain” from the current “supportive” and the removal of rating uplift for our view on the likelihood of extraordinary government support from our ICRs on systemically important Canadian banks. Rather, our decision would depend, among other factors, on the details of the eventual bail-in regime, including the extent to which bail-inable and unbail-inable senior debt is distinguishable.

Partly to honor G-20 and other international commitments, the Canadian government will, we expect, present a finalized legislative proposal for the bail-in framework in 2016 or 2017. However, we expect an implementation date that could be in 2018 or later, and we think it could take at least one and possibly several years more for substantial bail-in eligible debt to be in place. With a runway that long, the potential ratings impact from removing uplift for the likelihood of extraordinary government support is beyond our standard two-year outlook horizon for investment-grade ratings, and could by then be more meaningfully affected by either ALAC uplift (from the bail-inable debt, assuming our related criteria are met) or SACP changes, than under the previously contemplated timetable.

When the government presents the detailed provisions of the framework, along with a more specific timeframe, we will review the applicable notching for various bank liabilities, taking into account the framework’s implications on different instruments. We expect that issue ratings on new bail-inable instruments will be at a level that is notched in reference to banks’ SACPs, while ratings on non-bailinable senior debt may continue to incorporate rating uplift above the banks’ SACPs, based on our expectation of the likelihood of extraordinary government support, or ALAC.

Our outlooks on the systemically important Canadian banks are stable, based on our reassessment of the likelihood, degree, and timeframe with respect to which the default risk of systemically important Canadian banks may change as a result of the government’s progress toward introducing a bank bail-in framework. We believe that the likelihood of extraordinary government support will continue to be a factor in systemically important Canadian bank ratings throughout the current outlook period.

Moreover, we believe these banks will continue to exhibit broad revenue diversification, conservative underwriting standards, and strong overall asset quality. Our current view is that the impact of low oil prices on their profitability and credit quality will be contained, given the modest direct exposure of the banks to the oil and gas sector, and the limited knock-on impact so far on consumer credit in regional economies affected by low oil prices.

On the other hand, we continue to monitor a number of key downside risks to our ratings on these banks, including low margins, high Canadian consumer leverage, residential real estate prices we believe are at least somewhat inflated in some parts of Canada, a Canadian macroeconomic outlook that is very tentative, and the higher-risk nature of certain recent foreign acquisitions.

The August 2014 imposition of Outlook-Negative was reported on PrefBlog, as was the federal consultation on the recapitalization regime. As far as I can tell, the comments received on the consultation paper have not been published; I believe this is because Canadians are too stupid to understand smart stuff like legislation and parliament and all that – if given a pile of comments to work through, we’d probably try to eat them.

Issues affected are:







Update On OSFI Insurer Regulation

Thursday, December 10th, 2015

OSFI Assistant Superintendent Neville Henderson gave a speech to the 2015 Life Insurance Invitational Forum:

Domestic Insurance Capital Standards

On the domestic front, we are still on track to implement OSFI’s new life insurance regulatory capital framework in 2018. The new capital framework will provide a superior risk based assessment methodology for determining capital requirements. The new test will make use of more current analysis and methodologies as well as explicitly taking into account mitigating actions and diversification benefits. It will allow our capital requirements to remain state of the art compared to those of other jurisdictions.

The capital changes in the new framework are explicitly calibrated to a consistent level of conditional tail expectation (CTE) across the various risks. Actuarial valuation of insurance company liabilities are explicitly intended to include conservative margins with the degree of conservatism varying across risks.

To help ensure that this approach results in consistent capital measures across companies, OSFI has asked the Canadian Institute of Actuaries and the Actuarial Standards Board to consider certain issues with a view to updating actuarial standards and /or guidelines if required.

To avoid double counting and inconsistent treatment of different risks, this new framework will include margins for adverse deviations as an available capital resource.

While we are awaiting the results of Quantitative Impact Study (QIS)7, we are in the process of planning to conduct two framework runs, one in 2016 followed by another one in 2017. These “test drives” will allow us to validate the new capital test and help insurers gear up for the updated regulatory compliance requirements under the new framework.

We should also have a final guideline ready for issue in July 2016, following input from the industry on the draft. Any anomalies uncovered in the testing will be taken into consideration prior to implementation. This will allow time for industry feedback and enable insurers to plan and prepare their systems for implementation of the framework in early 2018.

Global Insurance Capital Developments

While work continues on the domestic front, there are also developments in standards for internationally active insurers.

The International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) is refining the Basic Capital Requirement (BCR) and Higher Loss Absorbency (HLA) requirements for Global Systemically Important Insurers (GSIIs) for implementation in 2019. Work in this area is aimed at mitigating or avoiding risks to the global financial system.

To eventually replace the BCR, the IAIS is developing an internationally agreed upon risk based capital test. The Insurance capital standard (ICS 1.0) for the broader list of Internationally Active Insurance Groups (IAIG) will be ready by the end of 2016, for implementation in 2019.

OSFI looks carefully at the Canadian marketplace and Canadian requirements before deciding whether to adopt international standards. We will take ICS into consideration as we fine tune our current capital tests. The work we do on the OSFI life insurance framework already includes many of the changes stemming from these international standards and we don’t expect ICS 1.0 to be as sophisticated as our current Minimum Continuing Capital and Surplus Requirements (MCCSR) capital test. Consequently, we do not foresee a need to implement any significant changes.

The significant changes will likely come as ICS 2.0 is finalized. It may bring sufficient worldwide convergence for OSFI to start thinking about implementation.

The important thing about ICS is that this is what will determine whether or not preferred shares must be convertible into equity (or have other pre-bankruptcy capital loss absorption features) in order to be counted as Tier 1 capital. This proposal is outlined in the Consultation Paper “Risk-based Global Insurance Capital Standard” which is available in a ludicrously inconvenient manner, paragraph 92 with associated question 25:

92. The IAIS is considering a requirement for a principal loss absorbency mechanism to apply to Tier 1 instruments for which there is a limit. This principal loss absorbency mechanism would provide a means for such instruments to absorb losses on a going-concern basis through reductions in the principal amount in addition to cancellation of distributions.

Question 25. Should Tier 1 instruments for which there is a limit be required to include a principal loss absorbency mechanism that absorbs losses on a going-concern basis by means of the principal amount in addition to actions with respect to distributions (e.g. coupon cancellation)? If so, how would such a mechanism operate in practice and at what point should such a mechanism be triggered?

OSFI’s response to this question is available in the document “Compiled Responses to ICS Consultation 17 Dec 2014 – 16 Feb 2015”, which is also available in a ludicrously inconvenient manner:

No, OSFI does not support the inclusion of a principal loss absorbency mechanism on Tier 1 instruments for which there is a limit. Tier 1 instruments must be able to absorb losses on a going concern basis, which these instruments do through coupon cancellation.

Despite this, I expect that OSFI will adopt whatever ends up being in ICS, as in this way any future criticism will be deflected to the international body and they will be able to keep their jobs and continue angling for future employment with those whom they currently regulate.

OSFI’s response to this – and other – questions has never been explained to the Canadian public as far as I know, because we’re disgusting taxpayer and investor scum, not worth the dirt underneath our own fingernails.

Further discussion of the capital standard and my reasons for believing that the NVCC rule will be applied to insurers and insurance holding companies are provided in every edition of PrefLetter.

CSA To Commence Crippling Canadian Corporate Bond Market

Friday, September 18th, 2015

The Canadian Securities Administrators have announced that they have:

published for comment CSA Staff Notice 21-315 Next Steps in Regulation and Transparency of the Fixed Income Market, which describes the CSA’s plan to enhance fixed income regulation.

The Notice sets out the steps CSA staff are taking to improve market integrity, evaluate access to the fixed income market and facilitate more informed decision making among market participants.

The CSA Staff Notice can be found on CSA members’ websites. The 45-day comment period will close on November 1, 2015.

Naturally the CSA can’t put actual links on the press release announcing their existence. That would be too simple, but after some poking around we find on the OSC website CSA Staff Notice and Request for Comment 21-315 Next Steps in Regulation and Transparency of the Fixed Income Market:

On April 23, 2015, staff of the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) published a report titled The Canadian Fixed Income Market 2014 (the Report).{2} The Report presented a fact-based snapshot of the $2 trillion fixed income market in Canada, with particular emphasis on the $500 billion in corporate debt outstanding.{3} The Report also highlighted the following:

1. fixed income data available is limited and fragmented across a number of sources, which makes it difficult to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the fixed income market;

2. the secondary fixed income market is a decentralized, over-the-counter market where large investors have significantly more bargaining power than small investors;

3. there is limited adoption of electronic trading and alternative trading systems, especially for corporate bonds; and

4. direct retail participation in the primary and secondary fixed income market is low and retail investors typically access the fixed income market by purchasing investment funds.

The purpose of this notice is to set out the CSA staff’s plan to enhance fixed income regulation to:

1. facilitate more informed decision-making among all market participants, regardless of their size;

2. improve market integrity; and

3. evaluate whether access to the fixed income market is fair and equitable for all investors.

Each of these steps is discussed in the sections below.

The report was discussed on PrefBlog in the post The Canadian Fixed Income Market: 2014.

It is noteworthy that not one of the objectives involves answering the question “What is the corporate bond market for?”. If this question was ever asked and it was decided that the purpose of the corporate bond market was to give Granny a good place to invest her $5,000 in a single particular bond at a good price then the other objectives make sense. If, however, the purpose of the market is to give corporations access to debt funding that is less constraining and cheaper than bank funding, so they can invest money, help the economy grow and create jobs, then other conclusions might be drawn.

However, CSA staff already has jobs, currently on the public payroll and quite often with the banks afterwards, so job creation by other corporations is hardly a meaningful concern.

As they are on the public payroll, they have very prudently not commenced crippling the government bond market:

NI 21-101 sets out transparency requirements for government debt securities. Specifically, marketplaces and inter-dealer bond brokers are required to report order or trade information, or both, to an information processor. However, an exemption from these transparency requirements is in place and was recently extended until January 1, 2018, through amendments to NI 21-101. As indicated in the notice published with the amendments,{9} no other jurisdiction has mandated transparency for government debt securities. The extension was granted in order to allow CSA staff to monitor international developments, including the expected implementation of the transparency regime that will be established across the European Union by the new Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) and the Markets in Financial Instrument Regulation (MiFIR) adopted by the European Commission,{10} and to determine whether the NI 21-101 transparency requirements for government debt securities should be implemented or whether changes are appropriate.

It is laughable that CSA staff boasts about the wonders of public dissemination of information via SEDAR without permitting direct links to these public documents, but the funniest part of this diktat is their lip service to liquidity:

As noted above, it is CSA staff’s goal to achieve transparency for trades in all corporate debt securities by the end of 2017. We have considered how to achieve this goal in light of:

• the fact that IIROC will be implementing the IIROC Debt Reporting Rule in two phases (described below); and

• concerns that have been raised globally about a decrease in the liquidity in corporate debt markets, and the potential impact of additional transparency on liquidity.{19}

It is intended that transparency for all corporate debt securities will be phased in over the next two years in two phases, as follows:

• in Phase I (expected to occur in mid-2016), IIROC, as an information processor, will disseminate post-trade information for all trades in the Designated Corporate Debt Securities and for retail trades{20} for all other corporate debt securities reported to IIROC; and

• in Phase II (expected to occur in mid-2017), IIROC will disseminate information for all trades in all corporate debt securities and for new issues of corporate debt.

Footnote 19 reads: Specifically, concerns have been raised globally about a potential decrease in the liquidity of the fixed income markets due to a number of factors, including an increase in corporate bond issuances coupled with, some believe, decreases in dealers’ inventories resulting from changes in regulation. We have also heard these concerns raised by Canadian buy-side and sell-side firms during our discussions regarding liquidity and transparency.

Oh, isn’t that just the sweetest thing you can imagine! They’ve “heard these concerns” and, of course, having heard them we can rely on our Wise Masters to have made the correct decision. Just what these concerns were and just why certain decisions were made is none of your business – not only are you mere investor scum but you’re not even government employees, so dry up and blow away, vermin.

I have written about liquidity ant transparency many times on this blog and provided some of the links in my review of the OSC literature survey that is being used as cover for the CSA’s shenanigans. The short version is: increasing transparency leads to markets with a narrower bid-ask spread, but less depth. This has been shown time and time again by academics studying all sorts of markets. Naturally, the regulators are focussing on a definition of liquidity that emphasizes the bid-ask spread; Granny will be able to trade her $5,000 worth of bonds much more cheaply. Investors who trade corporates in $1-million+ sized chunks, however, experience a sharp decline in liquidity. This, naturally, increases the risk of flash-crashes and ‘crowded-trades’ as retail dumps ETFs … but who cares? That will merely give the regulators another excuse for some crocodile tears and another expensive study.

Institutional level liquidity is not a joke and it’s not trivial. When investments are more volatile and less liquid, you want to get paid more for holding them. That is to say, you demand more yield. It is the issuers who are paying that yield and increases in this yield increase their costs, and make building that new factory just that much less attractive.

But nobody cares and the regulators can’t even be bothered to ask ‘What is the corporate bond market for?’.

I’ve had it with this sham. However, for those who are interested, there was a story in the Globe about this issue titled Canadian regulators unveil new system to report corporate bond trading data. The plan has been greeted with rapturous applause from non-investors.

Coming up next: industry regulators take on the Ontario Food Terminal. It is disgusting that purchase of food at wholesale prices is restricted! Let’s see some FAIRNESS!!!

Update, 2015-9-19: Other press mentions have been Canada to Boost Corporate Bond Market Transparency by 2017 and CSA seeks comments on enhancing fixed-income transparency. The former article is notable for the paragraph:

“The steps we have set out to enhance regulation in the fixed income market will improve market transparency and better protect investor interests,” Tracey Stern, head of market regulation at the Ontario Securities Commission, said in an e- mailed statement. “With increased transparency, investors will be in a better position to assess the quality of their executions.”

Do I really need to point out that the concept of judging “quality of their executions” is a concept that applies only to brokered trades, while virtually all bond transactions are done on a principal basis? It would appear that I do.

Scapegoat For Flash Crash Isolated!

Tuesday, April 21st, 2015

Assiduous Readers will remember the highly politicized SEC Flash Crash Report. It’s taken five years, but they’ve finally isolated a scapegoat who spends his spare time rubbing his hands together and cackling about the triumph of evil:

NAVINDER SINGH SARAO was a futures trader
who operated from his residence in the United Kingdom and who traded primarily through his company, Nav Sarao Futures Limited.

“Layering” (a type of “spoofing”) was a form of manipulative, high speed activity in the financial markets. In a layering scheme, a trader places multiple, bogus orders that the trader does not intend to have executed-for example, multiple orders to sell a financial product at different price points-and then quickly modifies or cancels those orders before they are executed. The purpose of these bogus orders is to trick other market participants and manipulate the product’s market price (in the foregoing example of bogus sell orders, by creating a false appearance of increased supply in the product and thereby depressing its market price). The trader seeks to mislead and deceive investors by communicating false pricing signals to the market, to create a false impression of how market participants value a financial product, and thus to prevent legitimate forces of supply and demand from operating properly. The trader does so by creating a false appearance of market depth, with intent to create artificial price movements. The trader could then exploit this layering activity by simultaneously executing other, real trades that the trader does intend to have executed, in an attempt to profit from the artificial price movements that the trader had created. Such layering and trading activity occurs over the course of seconds, in multiple cycles that the trader repeats throughout the trading day. Given the speed and near simultaneity of market activity in a successful layering scheme, such schemes are aided by custom programmed, automated trading software.

Beginning in or about June 2009, SARAO sought to enrich himself through manipulation of the market for E-Minis. By placing multiple large-volume orders on the CME at different price points, SARAO created the false appearance of substantial supply in order to fraudulently induce other market participants to react to his deceptive market information. SARAO thus artificially depressed EMini prices. With the aid of an automated trading program, SARAO was able to all but eliminate his risk of unintentionally executing these orders by modifying and ultimately canceling them before execution. Meanwhile, he exploited his manipulation to reap large trading profits by executing other, real orders.

Matt Levine of Bloomberg – who I respect greatly as a reporter who really puts a lot of intelligence and sweat to work when writing his columns – writes a wonderful column regarding the indictment:

So straightforward that one of the biggest puzzles here is why it took so long — and the help of a whistleblower — for regulators to figure it out. They came tantalizingly close:
As reflected in correspondence with both SARAO and an FCM he used, the CME observed that, between September 2008 and October 2009, SARAO had engaged in pre-opening activity — specifically, entering orders and then canceling them — that “appeared to have a significant impact on the Indicative Opening Price.” The CME contacted SARAO about this activity in March 2009 and notified him, via correspondence dated May 6, 2010, that “all orders entered on Globex during the pre-opening are expected to be entered in good faith for the purpose of executing bona fide transactions.” The CME provided a copy of the latter correspondence to SARAO’s FCM, which suggested to SARAO in an email that he call the FCM’s compliance department if he had any questions. In a responsive email dated May 25, 2010, SARAO wrote to his FCM that he had “just called” the CME “and told em to kiss my ass.”

Emphasis added because come on: The futures exchange wrote to Sarao on the day of the flash crash, telling him to stop spoofing, and he called them back “and told em to kiss my ass.” And then regulators pondered that reply for five years before deciding that they’d prefer to have him arrested in London and extradited to face criminal spoofing charges. One conclusion here might be that rudeness to regulators really works.

It’s a tempting idea!

The CFTC claims that Sarao basically started his spoofing career by causing the flash crash, and then went ahead and kept spoofing for another five years without much interruption. I guess he got more subtle at it? Not very subtle though; he was a consistently large trader, “placing, repeatedly modifying, and ultimately canceling multiple 200-, 250-, 300-, 400-, 500-, 550-, 600-, and 900-lot sell orders,” versus an average order size of seven contracts. He also seems to have had some patterns (like putting in orders for exactly 188 or 289 contracts that never executed) that you’d think would make him easier for regulators or exchanges to spot.6 If regulators think that Sarao’s behavior on May 6, 2010, caused the flash crash, and if they think he continued that behavior for much of the subsequent five years, and if that behavior was screamingly obvious, maybe they should have stopped him a little earlier?

Also, I mean, if his behavior on May 6, 2010, caused the flash crash, and if he continued it for much of the subsequent five years, why didn’t he cause, you know, a dozen flash crashes?

And Mr. Levine closes with the key point:

I have always been impressed and puzzled that low-tech spoofers have much success ripping off whomever they rip off. It’s such a minimal fraud; it’s just saying that you want to sell when you don’t want to sell.10 It’s always surprising that that could have a major effect on markets. John Arnold has argued here at Bloomberg View that spoofing only hurts front-running high-frequency traders, while others point out that “algorithmic trading tools are used by a wide class of traders,” including long-term investors like Waddell & Reed who use algorithms to try to avoid the front-running HFTs. But the FBI’s and CFTC’s theory here is far more troubling: It suggests that existing algorithms are not just dumb enough to give spoofers some of their money, but dumb enough to give spoofers so much of their money that they destabilize the financial markets. It’s not especially confidence-inspiring to read that a guy with a spreadsheet can trick everyone into thinking that the market is crashing, and thereby cause the market to crash.

Well, if the extremely well-paid hard-nosed deep-thinking portfolio managers at Waddell & Reed have their naivety and incompetence exploited by someone who plays the game a little better than they do, you won’t find any tears here.

I hadn’t read the argument linked with “others point out” before, but it doesn’t impress me:

Even if we exclude cases such as this one and legalize the submission of spoofed orders with the proviso that they stay live for less than 100ms, there are plenty of unsophisticated market participants who would still be harmed. These days, algorithmic trading tools are used by a wide class of traders. There is an entire industry, possibly larger than that of vanilla HFT, focused on creating and marketing these tools. Tremendous volume is executed via algorithms on behalf of traditional long-term traders.[2] I’m not an expert on such algorithms, but my impression is that they tend to be much less sophisticated than a lot of vanilla HFT, and thus more likely to be tricked by spoofing. A basic example of one such execution algorithm would be a peg order, which is priced in a very simple fashion somewhere in between the best bid and ask. If a spoofer alters the best bid then a peg order will change its price in response, leaving the user open to losses.

The open question here is: why should anybody in his right mind care about unsophisticated market participants? If they show up at a gunfight with a boxing glove, that’s their problem; the sooner they go bankrupt and go on welfare, the better, as far as I’m concerned. If they are placing orders with no other thought than ‘Golly, I guess I’ll do whatever the rest of the market is doing’ then they are contributing to market inefficiency and harming the market’s price discovery function. So screw ’em; give a medal to the guys who punish ’em. Markets and market regulation should concentrate on the best interests of fundamental traders; any help, succor or encouragement given to techno-weenies is misplaced.

The other major argument in the linked objection is:

Say that you wanted to change this definition to allow spoofing with the intention of damaging order-anticipation strategies. Could you do so in a fashion that didn’t also allow other kinds of nasty manipulation? I don’t see how. Manipulation via self-trading is probably a behavior that everybody agrees should be prohibited. When a manipulator trades with themselves, they can do so risk-free at an arbitrary price, giving other traders a false sense of the market price.[3] Self-trading can be extremely damaging to market integrity. But which group, I wonder, is most hurt by self-trading? One could argue that so-called “front-runners” are. For example, say Apple stock is currently trading at $100, and a manipulator trades 10 million shares with themselves at $90. There could be order-anticipation algorithms, ‘predicting’ selling to come, that react to this and sell Apple stock.[4] There could also be strategies that take this as a signal that there will soon be selling across the entire sector, and sell stocks in related companies. These algorithms fall under Arnold’s definition of “front-running,” and would be expected to lose money when the manipulator decides it’s time to push Apple stock back to $100. Does that mean we should celebrate the manipulator? No.[5]

That’s a big leap of logic in the last word there! I will certainly celebrate the manipulator: he’s punished a few stupid rat-turds who aren’t trading on fundamentals. Good for him!

To his credit, the guy at Mechanical Markets does address my view in his footnote:

[5] If you’re a long-term investor, this scenario seems great, right? You can buy Apple stock at a $10 discount. So, if you thought the stock had an intrinsic value of $105, you’re getting a real bargain. In practice though, I’d imagine that you would hesitate to start buying stock in such a scenario. At least until you had confirmed that the price wasn’t plummeting because of some news that you hadn’t heard yet. By the time you could rule out any news, the manipulator would have pushed the price back to $100.

He who hesitates is lost! Many limit orders entered by fundamental traders during the manipulation phase will be executed prices more attractive than would otherwise be the case. In the long run, fundamental traders who pursue incredibly sophisticated strategies like “paying what they consider a fair price for their purchases” will scoop up all kinds of money from the empty-headed game-players.

But, of course, the Boo-Hoo-Hoo Brigade is in full cry:

“It’s incumbent upon regulators not to be asleep at the switches,” said Donald Selkin, who helps manage about $3 billion as chief market strategist at National Securities Corp. in New York. “They have been, time and time again.”

“Things like this don’t build a lot of confidence,” said Timothy Ghriskey, the chief investment officer at Solaris Asset Management LLC in New York, who helps manage about $1.5 billion. “It’s a risk that regulators are always going to be a step behind. That’s why they should be more aggressive.”

“It’s ridiculous, it’s the government at its best — inept,” Rick Fier, director of equity trading at Conifer Securities LLC in New York, said in a phone interview. “It really is just another one of many things to deal with, it’s extremely frustrating. We’ve seen flash crashes and we’ll see them again and it’s definitely disconcerting.”

“The [high-frequency trading] term’s just become meaningless at this point; it’s just a boogie-man,” said Dave Lauer, president of Kor Group, a market structure lobbying and research firm.

“There are high-frequency market-makers, there are high-speed proprietary traders who don’t care about making markets and I do think there are predatory high-speed traders and manipulative high-speed traders,” Lauer said. “What this guy was doing was using computers in a manipulative, high-order-volume manner.”

no more than 20 trading days when volatility was high.

“On the surface, the headline isn’t comforting, but perhaps it provides the avenue to prevent something of this nature from happening again,” said Walter Todd, who oversees about $1 billion as chief investment officer for Greenwood, South Carolina-based Greenwood Capital. “I’m glad we know definitively how it happened, but at the same time, the headline isn’t a great thing.”

Go have lunch with a client, guys, if that’s all you’re good for.

Update: Here’s more argument in favour of ditching the completely artificial spoofing and layering rules – look at just just who Navinder Singh Sarao is and how he did it:

Sarao, 36, has no record of having worked at a major financial firm in the U.S. or the U.K. At the time of the flash crash, Sarao was renting space from a proprietary-trading firm in the City of London and clearing his transactions through MF Global Holdings Ltd., the now-defunct firm headed by Jon Corzine, said a person with knowledge of the matter.

That picture, according to U.S. authorities, belies a years-long history of lightening-quick computer trading that netted Sarao $40 million in illicit profits.

By all accounts, the flash crash was more than a mere technical glitch. It raised fundamental questions about how vulnerable today’s complex financial markets are to the high-speed, computer-driven trading that has come to dominate the marketplace.

Sarao’s computer screen almost always flashed futures data tied to the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index and his interactions were typically limited to workers installing new trading algorithms, said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

When he started his allegedly manipulative trading in 2009, Sarao used off-the-shelf software that he later asked to be modified so he could rapidly place and cancel orders automatically. At one point, he asked the software developer for the code, explaining that he wanted to play around with creating new versions, according to regulators.

So he wasn’t an expert trader, using his years of industry experience to exploit infinitesimal little bugs in standardized software, or his deep knowledge of trade-matching and clearing to exploit some bizarre mismatch in the interface between various systems.

He was one guy, using slightly modified off-the-shelf software, who broke one rule. And a rule, by the way that I feel is probably bent many, many times per day despite a very expensive army of regulators devoted to enforcing the silly thing.

If the US financial system is so vulnerable to one guy breaking one silly rule then we’ve got a problem that will not be fixed by doubling the number of regulators who check out trade cancellations and try to decide just what the intent was when each order was originally placed. If the rule is so vulnerable to exploitation and so unenforceable: get rid of it. Unleash the real players in the industry to detect and enforce a level playing field, with spoofing algorithms, spoofing detection and counter-exploitation algorithms, spoofing cloaking algorithms, anti-spoofing-cloaking algorithms … the whole nine yards. And bring some sanity back to the world.

Update, 2015-4-22: Zero Hedge is irritated:

While we eagerly await for the SEC to retract its official 104 page report summarizing the “Findings regarding the market events of May 6, 2010” in light of “recent developments”, and as we follow the shift in the official narrative to the outright bizarre, in which the entire Flash Crash is now blamed on just one man (as opposed to just Waddell & Reed as per the previous narrative), we learn that the latest scapegoat for a broken, fragmented and manipulated market, Navinder Sarao, is not quite so eager to go to minimum security prison in the US for doing what leads to a slap on the wrist when someone like Citadel or Virtu does it, and will challenge the CFTC’s attempt to pin everything on him.

As previoisly reported, Sarao engaged in what every other HFT firms on a daily basis: namely spoofing. However, because he is a foreigner, he was easy prey for the US “justice” system, and as a result it is he that has been picked as a scapegoat (perhaps because the official investigation into Virtu, Citadel and the other HFT firms revealed something so dramatic it needed an easy and available cover up).

Eric Scott Hunsader of Nanex, whose work has been quoted admiringly on PrefBlog in the past, has posted a series of tweets:

If this futures trader *was* spoofing during Flash Crash, it means the CFTC completely missed what should have been easy to spot

Flash Crash Brit was just one of many #HFT ass-hats in the market on 5/6 contributing to a fragile system

We spotted the Flash Crash Brit years ago – red/yellow on this eMini chart is from his algo on 5/6

What Singh Sarao is being accused of is as common as Oxygen. I can’t stress this enough.

It is wrong to say Sarao caused flash crash. He contributed to causing it, yes, but it was Barclay’s leak that sent it down

Why didn’t the CME say anything about Sarao for what.. 5 years now?

How did Andrei Kirilenko (CFTC) miss Sara’s spoofing while analyzing a week’s worth of AUDIT TRAIL DATA??

Why is Sarao (DOJ flash crash spoofer) being singled out from so many other #HFT spoofing algos?

When I 1st saw Sarao’s algo in Summer 2010, I thought it was Tradebot because it stopped when Cummings said they pulled the plug

“Exploratory Trading” – another #HFT strategy used by top firms to manipulate eMini’s $ES_F

What really caused Flash Crash: Someone LEAKED that a mutual fund was selling 75K eMini’s via participation algo. Wall St pounced

Sarao turned off his algo at 14:40:12. The market flash crash began 2 minutes 32 seconds later at 14:42:44 – an eon in market time

Detailed forensic evidence on the flash crash:

FT Alphaville has some harsh words:

In a series of moves variously known as “layering” or “spoofing,” Sarao allegedly created the appearance of substantial supply in the market which didn’t actually exist — sparking a short-lived 600 point fall over in the Dow Jones Industrial Average in the space of five minutes.

Except you know, instinctively, that this is nonsense. It’s pure financial keystone cop-ery. This is a laughable piece of regulatory grand-standing from the Americans, which the British authorities look like fools for going along with.

The S&P futures market, across its various guises, is colossal. It is dominated by robot traders and other, highly capitalised professionals. The simple idea that a chap in West London, playing around at home with an off-the-shelf algo programme on his PC while his parents are off at the gurdwara, can up-end the entire US equity market is comical.

Or rather, if there’s any truth here at all, the guys under arrest should be those at the top of the CME and other key pieces of US market infrastructure.