83 FR 11570 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICC Rules, ICC Risk Management Model Description Document, ICC Risk Management Framework, ICC Stress Testing Framework, and ICC Liquidity Risk Management Framework

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 51 (March 15, 2018)

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 51 (Thursday, March 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11570-11573]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05295]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82853; File No. SR-ICC-2018-001]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order 
Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICC Rules, ICC Risk 
Management Model Description Document, ICC Risk Management Framework, 
ICC Stress Testing Framework, and ICC Liquidity Risk Management 
Framework

March 12, 2018.

I. Introduction

    On January 16, 2018, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the 
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to 
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ 
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change (SR-ICC-2018-001) 
to revise: (i) ICC's Clearing Rules to support the clearing of a new 
transaction type; and (ii) the ICC Risk Management Model Description 
Document, the ICC Risk Management Framework, the ICC Stress Testing 
Framework, and the ICC Liquidity Risk Management Framework to 
incorporate certain modifications to its risk management 
methodology.\3\ The proposed rule change was published for comment in 
the Federal Register on January 26, 2018.\4\ The Commission did not 
receive comments on the proposed rule change. For the reasons discussed 
below, the Commission is approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Capitalized terms used in this order, but not defined 
herein, have the same meaning as in the ICC Clearing Rules.
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-82542 (January 19, 
2018), 83 FR 3821 (January 26, 2018) (SR-ICC-2018-001) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    ICC proposed revisions to its Rules, Risk Management Model 
Description Document, Risk Management Framework, Stress Testing 
Framework, and Liquidity Risk Management Framework in order to provide 
for the clearing of a new transaction type, the Standard European 
Senior Non-Preferred Financial Corporate, and to provide for revised 
risk management practices.

A. Changes to ICC Rules

    ICC proposed amending Rule 26H-102, which sets forth the List of 
Eligible Standard European Financial Corporate (``STEFC'') Reference 
Entities, to include the Standard European Senior Non-Preferred 
Financial Corporate transaction type as an Eligible STEFC Reference 
Entity to be cleared by ICC.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Notice, 82 FR at 3821.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICC also proposed amending Rule 26H-102 to state that for a STEFC 
Reference Entity where the transaction type is the Standard European 
Senior Non-Preferred Financial Corporate, the STEFC Contracts Reference 
Obligation shall be determined in accordance with the Additional 
Provisions for Senior Non-Preferred Reference Obligations as published 
by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association. In addition, 
ICC proposed to incorporate certain conforming changes to Rule 26H-303 
and Rule 26H-315 to add references to the new transaction type.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Changes to ICC Risk Management Methodology

    As currently constructed, ICC's risk management methodology takes 
into consideration the potential losses associated with idiosyncratic 
credit events, which ICC refers to as ``Loss-Given Default'' or 
``LGD.'' ICC deems each Single Name (``SN'') reference entity a Risk 
Factor, and each combination of definition, doc-clause, tier, and 
currency for a given SN Risk Factor as a SN Risk Sub-Factor. ICC 
currently measures losses associated with credit events through a 
stress-based approach incorporating three recovery rate scenarios: A 
minimum recovery rate, an expected recovery rate, and maximum recovery 
rate. ICC combines exposures for Outright and index-derived Risk Sub-
Factors at each recovery rate scenario.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICC currently uses the results from the recovery rate scenarios as 
an input into the Profit/Loss-Given-Default (``P/LGD'') calculations at 
both the Risk Sub-Factor and Risk Factor levels. For each Risk Sub-
Factor, ICC calculates the P/LGD as the worst credit event outcome, and 
for each Risk Factor, ICC calculates the P/LGD as the sum of the worst 
credit outcomes per Risk Sub-Factor. These final P/LGD results are used 
as part of the determination of risk requirements.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICC proposed changes to its LGD framework at the Risk Factor level 
with respect to the LGD calculation. Specifically, ICC proposed a 
change to its approach by incorporating more consistency in the 
calculation of the P/LGD by using the same recovery rate scenarios 
applied to the different Risk Sub-Factors which are part of the 
considered Risk Factor. For each Risk

[[Page 11571]]

Factor, ICC would continue to calculate an ``extreme outcome'' as the 
sum of the worst Risk Sub-Factor P/LGDs across all scenarios and would 
also, for each Risk Factor, calculate an ``expected outcome'' as the 
worst sum of all the Risk Sub-Factors P/LGDs across all of the same 
scenarios. Under the proposed changes, ICC would then combine the 
results of the ``extreme outcome'' calculation and the ``expected 
outcome'' calculation to compute the total LGD for each Risk Factor.\9\ 
ICC proposed to apply a weight of 25% to the extreme outcome component 
in order to implement certain requirements of relevant regulatory 
technical standards arising under the European Market Infrastructure 
Regulation.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id. at 3821-22.
    \10\ See Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 153/2013 
supplementing Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards on 
requirements for central counterparties. As a third-country central 
counterparty recognized by the European Securities and Markets 
Authority, ICC is subject to the requirements of the European Market 
Infrastructure Regulation and associated regulatory technical 
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICC also proposed to expand its LGD analysis to incorporate a new 
``Risk Factor Group'' level. Under the proposed changes, a set of 
related Risk Factors would form a Risk Factor Group based on either (1) 
having a common majority parental sovereign ownership (e.g. quasi-
sovereigns and sovereigns), or (2) being a majority owned subsidiary of 
a common parent entity according to the Bloomberg Related Securities 
Analysis. ICC noted that a Risk Factor Group could consist of only one 
Risk Factor.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Notice, 82 FR at 3822.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed revisions, ICC would calculate the total 
quantity LGD on a Risk Factor Group level, and account for the exposure 
due to credit events associated with the reference entities within a 
given Risk Factor Group. Where a Risk Factor Group contains only one 
Risk Factor, ICC would compute the LGD as the risk exposure due to a 
credit event for a given underlying reference entity. Moreover, under 
the proposed approach, ICC would sum the P/LGDs for each Risk Factor in 
a given Risk Factor Group, with limited offsets in the event the Risk 
Factors exhibit positive P/LGD. Using the results of the above 
calculation, ICC would obtain the Risk Factor Group level LGD. The 
proposed approach would also include a calculation which allows for the 
Risk Factor Group level LGD to be attributed to each Risk Factor within 
the considered Risk Factor Group.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to these changes, ICC also proposed changes to various 
components of its Risk Management Model Description Document. 
Specifically, the ``Loss Given Default Risk Analysis'' section of its 
Risk Management Model Description Document would be changed to 
incorporate the Risk Factor and Risk Factor Group LGD calculation 
changes described above. ICC also proposed certain conforming changes 
to other sections of the Risk Management Description Document to 
incorporate these methodology changes and reflect the Risk Factor Group 
analysis.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICC also proposed further changes with respect to the 
`Idiosyncratic Jump-to-Default Requirements' section of the Risk 
Management Model Description document. As currently constructed, the 
portfolio jump-to-default approach collateralizes the worst 
uncollateralized LGD (``ULGD'') exposure among all Risk Factors. Under 
the proposed changes, the portfolio Jump-to-Default (``JTD'') approach 
will collateralize, through the portfolio JTD initial margin 
requirement that accounts for the Risk Factor Group-specific LGD 
collateralization, the worst ULGD exposure among all Risk Factor 
Groups. The ULGD exposure for a given Risk Factor Group would be 
calculated as a sum of the associated Risk Factor ULGDs.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICC also proposed certain minor edits to the ``Portfolio Level 
Wrong-Way Risk and Contagion Risk Analysis'' section to update language 
and calculation descriptions to accommodate the introduction of the 
Risk Factor Group to the ``Idiosyncratic Jump-to-Default Requirements'' 
section.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, ICC proposed changes to the ``Guaranty Fund 
Methodology'' section. ICC's current Guaranty Fund Methodology 
includes, among other things, the assumption that up to three credit 
events, different from the ones associated with Clearing Participants, 
occur during the considered risk horizon. ICC proposed expanding this 
approach to the Risk Factor Group level by assuming that credit events 
associated with up to three Risk Factor Groups, different from the ones 
associated with the Clearing Participants and the Risk Factors that are 
in the Risk Factor Groups as the Clearing Participants, occur during 
the considered risk horizon.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other proposed changes to the Risk Management Model Description 
Document included clarifications to the calculation for the Specific 
Wrong Way Risk component of the Guaranty Fund. Currently, for a given 
Clearing Participant, the Specific Wrong Way Risk component of the 
Guaranty Fund is based on self-referencing positions arising from one 
or more Risk Factors. ICC proposed clarifying this approach to be based 
on the Risk Factor Group level instead.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICC proposed certain conforming changes to its Risk Management 
Framework, Liquidity Risk Management Framework, and Stress Testing 
Framework, to reflect the LGD enhancements described above. With 
respect to the Risk Management Framework, ICC proposed revisions to the 
``Jump-to-Default Requirements'' section to note that the worst LGD 
associated with a Risk Factor Group is selected to establish the 
portfolio idiosyncratic JTD requirement. ICC also proposed revisions to 
the ``Guaranty Fund'' section of the Risk Management Framework to 
reflect the Risk Factor Group LGD enhancements related to ICC's 
Guaranty Fund calculation.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding its Stress Testing Framework, ICC proposed changes to its 
stress testing methodology to incorporate reference entity group level 
changes (also referred to by ICC as the Risk Factor Group level). 
Currently, ICC utilizes scenarios based on hypothetically constructed 
(forward looking) extreme but plausible market scenarios augmented with 
adverse credit events affecting up to two additional reference entities 
per Clearing Participant affiliate group. ICC proposed expanding its 
adverse credit event analysis to include up to two additional reference 
entity groups, and also proposed that the selected Risk Factor Group 
for stress testing purposes must contain one or more reference entities 
displaying a 500 bps or greater 1-year end-of-day spread level in order 
to be subjected to credit events. ICC also proposed changes to its 
reverse stress testing, general wrong way risk, and contagion stress 
testing analyses, to be at the Risk Factor Group level, and proposed 
removing Risk Factor level references under its Recovery Rate 
Sensitivity analysis to be consistent with the proposed changes related 
to Risk Factor Groups.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, with respect to ICC's Liquidity Risk Management Framework, 
ICC proposed changes to base the liquidity stress testing methodology 
on the reference entity group level (also referred to as the Risk 
Factor Group

[[Page 11572]]

level). Currently, ICC utilizes scenarios based on hypothetically 
constructed (forward looking) extreme but plausible market scenarios 
augmented with adverse credit events affecting up to two additional 
reference entities per Clearing Participant affiliate group. ICC 
proposed expanding its adverse credit event analysis to include up to 
two additional reference entity groups. Similar to the Stress Testing 
Framework, ICC also proposed that the selected Risk Factor Group for 
liquidity stress testing purposes must contain one or more reference 
entities displaying a 500 bps or greater 1-year end-of-day spread level 
in order to be subjected to credit events. ICC also proposed adding 
additional language to the Liquidity Risk Management Framework 
detailing the rationale behind the selection of the 500 bps threshold 
to be consistent with its Stress Testing Framework.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a 
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that 
such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the 
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such 
organization.\21\ For the reasons given below, the Commission finds 
that the proposal is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act, 
and Rules 17Ad-22(b)(2) and (b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that 
the rules of a registered clearing agency be designed to promote the 
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions 
and, to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and 
transactions, to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which 
are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is 
responsible and, in general, to protect investors and the public 
interest.\22\ The proposed rule change will provide for the clearance 
and settlement of the Standard European Senior Non-Preferred Financial 
Corporate, a new type of transaction that is similar to contracts 
already cleared by ICC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Separately, as described above, the proposed rule change would also 
provide for certain revisions to ICC's risk management methodology with 
respect to ICC's LGD methodology. These changes entail (i) 
incorporating a more consistent approach with respect to ICC's recovery 
rate scenarios through the application of the same recovery rate 
scenarios to risk factors that form part of the same Risk Factor Group, 
(ii) combining the results of the ``expected'' and ``extreme'' P/LGD 
outcomes in order to calculate the total LGD for each Risk Factor, 
(iii) expanding ICC's LGD analysis to a new Risk Factor Group level, 
(iv) revising the calculation of the Uncollateralized Loss Given 
Default to incorporate the Risk Factor Group level LGD approach, and 
(v) modifying ICC's Guaranty Fund Methodology to expand the credit 
event analysis to include the Risk Factor Group approach.
    Based on a review of the Notice, the Commission believes that the 
Standard European Senior Non-Preferred Financial Corporate transaction 
type is substantially similar to other contracts cleared by ICC. As 
such, the Commission believes that ICC's existing clearing 
arrangements, and related financial safeguards (including as further 
modified by the proposed rule change), protections and risk management 
procedures will apply to this new product on a substantially similar 
basis to the other contracts currently cleared by ICC.
    Moreover, the Commission believes that the proposed changes to 
ICC's risk management framework described above will enhance the manner 
by which ICC considers and manages the risks particular to the range of 
contracts it clears, including the new Standard European Senior Non-
Preferred Financial Corporate contract, because such changes will 
enable ICC's ability to more accurately consider the particular risks 
of each type of security-based swap (``SBS'') product it clears. 
Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is 
intended to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of 
securities transactions and derivatives agreements, contracts, and 
transactions, as well as to assure the safeguarding of securities and 
funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for 
which it is responsible and, in general, to protect investors and the 
public interest, and is therefore consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) 
of the Act.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2)

    The Commission further finds that the proposed rule change is 
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2). Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) requires, in 
relevant part, a registered clearing agency that performs central 
counterparty services to establish, implement, maintain and enforce 
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to use margin 
requirements to limit the registered clearing agency's credit exposures 
to participants under normal market conditions and use risk-based 
models and parameters to set margin requirements.\24\ As described 
above, the proposed changes would (i) amend the manner in which ICC 
calculates its Risk Factor-level LGD, (ii) expand the LGD analysis to 
the Risk Factor Group level, and (iii) amend the approach to 
calculating the Uncollateralized LGD to incorporate the Risk Factor 
Group level approach. Specifically, ICC would calculate, for each Risk 
Factor, an extreme outcome as the sum of the worst Risk Sub-factor P/
LGDs across all scenarios, and an expected outcome as the worst sum of 
all Risk Sub-factor P/LGDs using the same scenarios, and then add the 
two components to determine the total LGD for each Risk Factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The LGD analysis would also be modified to group individual Risk 
Factors into Risk Factor Groups, and would result in the total LGD 
being the sum of the P/LGDs for each Risk Factor within the Risk Factor 
Group. The Commission believes that by making these changes, ICC will 
augment its ability to more accurately consider the risks associated 
with the SBS products it clears, including the Standard European Senior 
Non-Preferred Financial Corporate transaction type.
    As a result, the Commission believes that the proposed rule changes 
will enable ICC to more accurately determine and collect the amount of 
resources necessary to limit its credit exposures under normal market 
conditions, including credit exposures resulting from clearing the new 
transaction type, through the use of risk-based models. Therefore the 
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 
17Ad-22(b)(2).\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(b)(3)

    The Commission further finds that the proposed rule change is 
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(b)(3). Rule 17Ad-22(b)(3) requires, in 
relevant part, a registered clearing agency that performs central 
counterparty services for SBS to establish, implement, maintain and 
enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to 
maintain sufficient financial resources to withstand, at a minimum, a 
default by the two participant families to which it

[[Page 11573]]

has the largest exposures in extreme but plausible market 
conditions.\26\ As described above, the proposed rule change would 
amend certain assumptions in ICC's Guaranty Fund Methodology, and the 
calculation of the Specific Wrong Way Risk component, by incorporating 
the new Risk Factor Group level analysis. Specifically, ICC would 
expand its current approach to assume that credit events used in the 
guaranty fund analysis occur at the Risk Factor Group level, and would 
also base the specific wrong-way risk component of its guaranty fund 
methodology on the Risk Factor Group approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with the changes to the LGD approach, the Commission believes 
that the proposed changes to ICC's Guaranty Fund Methodology will 
permit ICC to consider the particular risks associated with the 
products it clears, including the Standard European Senior Non-
Preferred Financial Corporate transaction type that will be cleared as 
a result of the proposed changes to ICC's Rules described above. As a 
result, the Commission believes that the proposed changes will enable 
ICC's to more accurately measure the risks of associated with the 
products it clears and thereby improve ICC's ability to collect and 
maintain the level of financial resources necessary to address the risk 
of default by its participants. Therefore, the Commission finds that 
the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(b)(3).\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the 
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and 
in particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act,\28\ and 
Rules 17Ad-22(b)(2) and (3) thereunder.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \29\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2) and (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 
\30\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ICC-2018-001) be, and hereby is, 
approved.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \31\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission 
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and 
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-05295 Filed 3-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P