Remarks by Lynn Patterson
Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada
Investment Industry Association of Canada and
Institute of International Finance
Toronto, Ontario
June 18, 2018
Rebooting Reference Rates
Introduction
Thank you and good afternoon.
My topic today is interest-rate benchmarks or reference rates and the work under
way here in Canada and globally to strengthen them.
Before I plunge in, let me take you back to the 1980s. Aside from the monstrous
shoulder pads in my suit jackets, the decade gave us several important
innovations. One of the most widely used was Windows. Not the kind you put in
your house, but the operating system for your computer. Microsoft released
Windows 1.0 in 1985. Most of us are now using Windows 10. Each new version
improved functionality and reliability.
The most widely used benchmark-the London Interbank Offered Rate
(LIBOR)-was first published in 1986, a year after Microsoft released Windows. It
has undergone only one material change in the past 30 years and was certainly
never originally designed to support what has become a US$350 trillion market.
Now, it is difficult to imagine modern financial markets without derivatives
isn't versatile enough to
enabled by benchmarks.1 However, just as Windows 1.0
support new computer programs that have been introduced over the past 30
years, many benchmarks are no longer suitable for the wide array of derivatives
markets they support. In addition, the scandals and mistrust related to the
1
Originally developed to facilitate cross-border lending between banks, LIBOR and other
benchmarks offer measures of prevailing interest rates on which standardized contracts can be
based. For example, an individual or firm may borrow money today and pay the lender interest
based on market interest rates, as measured by a financial benchmark, over the course of the
loan.
I would like to thank Paul Chilcott, Harri Vikstedt, Scott Kinnear and Sheryl King
for their help in preparing this speech.
Not for publication before 18 June 2018
12:45 Eastern Time
manipulation of benchmark rates for the financial benefit of individuals and
institutions have made their future use unpalatable.
Not surprisingly, then, these problems with benchmarks have undermined
confidence in their reliability and robustness. In response, global authorities are
working closely with the private sector to address them.
For many of you in this room, benchmark reform is probably a familiar topic, and
you understand the significant role these rates play in the functioning of markets.
But benchmarks, like Windows, are part of our day-to-day lives in one way or
another. How they function and how they may change matters a great deal not
just to your industry but also to most Canadians. Our financial wealth is
connected to benchmarks. For example, exchange-traded funds and mutual
funds may invest in products linked to benchmarks. And mortgage costs are
based on bank funding costs, which, in turn, include inputs priced off derivatives
contracts using benchmarks.
So, reforming this foundational element of our financial infrastructure is critical to
long overdue
both the financial industry and the broader economy. Indeed, we're
for an upgrade.
I'm going to
In my remarks today, discuss the work afoot to either validate,
I'll
enhance or transform various widely used benchmarks or create new ones.
start with an overview of the work under way globally and then focus on what is
being done in the United States and Canada.
The current state of play
Aside from our primary role in setting monetary policy to meet our inflation target,
our mandate at the Bank of Canada includes fostering the stability and efficiency
of the financial system.
Benchmarks contribute to the efficient functioning of markets and the stability of
the system. Getting them right matters.
The Bank of Canada is playing a role in these changes through our active
membership on the Financial Stability Board (FSB), which is leading the global
effort to coordinate benchmark reform. Central banks are trusted by market
participants and they keep a watchful eye on risks to financial stability, so it's
important that we be involved in this work.
To be effective, a benchmark should be robust, reliable and resilient to any
market stress. It also needs to be transparent and consistent with the principles
for financial benchmarks set out by the International Organization of Securities
Commissions (IOSCO).
These principles cover governance, quality and accountability. They stress that
benchmarks "should be based on prices, rates, indices
the data used to construct
or values that have been formed by the competitive forces of supply and demand
and be anchored by observable transactions."
The major upgrades that have taken place since 2014 have been guided by the
IOSCO principles as well as by improvements to LIBOR and other benchmarks
recommended by the FSB.
The FSB is also urging countries to develop new benchmarks based on
shortterm, risk-free (or near risk-free) observable rates or, where they already exist, to
promote more active use of them. Such benchmarks would be a better fit for
many derivatives transactions.
Market participants, together with central banks and other authorities, have been
actively pursuing this "twin track" approach of strengthening existing benchmarks
and developing alternatives.
A risk-free rate would help accomplish two goals. First, it would reduce the
dependence on any individual benchmark. Second, it would allow counterparties
to select benchmarks that might more closely match the exposures they want,
enabling them to better meet the needs of some derivatives markets.
cost of
For example, LIBOR is meant to represent a bank's funding. It can vary
according to a number of factors, such as an increase in underlying rates or a
deterioration in the creditworthiness of banks-as we saw during the global
financial crisis. Imagine a sovereign issuer wanting to take a fixed-rate bond and
issuer's
swap it to a floating-rate liability. Since such an creditworthiness does
not fluctuate with that of the banking system, using a benchmark with a
shortterm rate that is not influenced by the creditworthiness of banks would be more
appropriate.
Some of the alternatives that have been identified are new, while others are
existing rates that are being, or have been, enhanced. In all cases, they are
overnight rates. Now, many jurisdictions are exploring whether they need to
develop term risk-free benchmarks, say for one- or three-month maturities, for
use in mortgages and cash markets and perhaps also for some derivatives. This
might help the transition from LIBOR-type benchmarks, where term rates are
more widely used than overnight rates. For this to happen, such benchmarks
would have to be consistent with the IOSCO standards.
The pace of all this work accelerated last summer thanks to Andrew Bailey, Chief
Financial Conduct Authority
Executive of the United Kingdom's (FCA), which
regulates LIBOR. He announced that LIBOR might be sustainable only until the
end of 2021. After that date, the FCA will not persuade or compel banks to
submit LIBOR rates. This means markets need to be ready to transition to
alternative benchmarks.
This announcement came as a surprise to those who had not been closely
following benchmark developments. Now, roughly a year later, there appears to
be wider market acceptance of what needs to be done, and progress is
continuing despite the significant complexities.2
Progress in the United States
I'll focus on recent developments in the United States
because the US-dollar
LIBOR is one of the most widely used benchmarks, and Canadian investors and
issuers have material exposure to it.
Consider the sheer size of the market that references USD LIBOR. In 2016,
notional contracts priced off USD LIBOR totalled nearly US$200 trillion. The
lion's share of that
exposure-95 per cent-was in derivatives, primarily interest
rate swaps. Another US$8 trillion in cash products was based on USD LIBOR-
everything from floating-rate notes to consumer loans.
The work to develop an alternative to LIBOR in the United States is being led by
the Alternative Reference Rate Committee (ARRC), which is composed of
dealers, asset managers, issuers, exchanges, regulators and official institutions.
In April, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York began publishing the Secured
Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR), which it concluded is a reliable benchmark for
new US-dollar derivatives.
SOFR is an overnight rate based on the Treasury repo market. It covers multiple
segments of this market, including tri-party, dealer-to-dealer and centrally cleared
bilateral repos. Based on US$800 billion in daily transactions, SOFR adheres
closely to the standards set out by IOSCO.
To establish SOFR as a widely used benchmark, an entire ecosystem of
products needs to be built around it to encourage trading and generate liquidity in
SOFR-related products. This work has begun. Futures contracts for SOFR
started trading in May, with all primary dealers pledging to support that market.
Trading has been light so far but is expected to increase as more market
participants revamp their systems. Some time this summer, overnight index
swaps referencing SOFR will begin trading, and they will be accepted for clearing
through central counterparties later this year. Of course, greater market adoption
will require buy-side involvement-the engagement of asset managers and
issuers is critical. The next step may be the identification of a term rate based on
SOFR. It is possible that this could be developed through the futures market.
Many trade groups are collaborating in this work, which goes beyond just
selecting a new benchmark and developing markets that reference it. For
example, fallback provisions are an important transition element. These
provisions are a contingency written into financial contracts in case the current
benchmark is no longer viable. Fallbacks, or contingency plans, are a feature of
many things we consume in everyday life-everything from backup electrical
generators in case the power goes out to a guaranteed rental from your
dealership if your new vehicle needs repairs. Given the uncertainty that LIBOR
will continue to exist beyond 2021, it just makes sense to have appropriate
fallback provisions written into financial market contracts to allow these products
to transition smoothly to new benchmarks.
The International Swaps and Derivatives Association is working on fallback
language for derivatives contracts, while ARRC is helping to draft appropriate
language for cash products.
Although considerable progress has been made, reform still has a long way to
go. And as William Dudley, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York,
emphasized in a recent speech, we have a compressed time frame to get the
so "we need aggressive action to move to a more durable and
work done,
resilient benchmark regime."
benchmarks
Canada's
What about Canada's benchmarks?
In 2014 my colleague Timothy Lane gave a speech on benchmark reform that
highlighted the work being done in Canada and the rationale for it proceeding at
a different pace from that of our global peers. This is partially due to differences
between our main benchmark, the Canadian Dollar Offered Rate (CDOR), and
LIBOR.
CDOR is used for derivatives, floating-rate notes and loans. At the end of 2017, it
was referenced by more than $13 trillion in financial instruments.
Like LIBOR, CDOR is based on submissions from a panel of banks, but there are
major differences between the two.
Just to remind you, LIBOR is a borrowing rate based on estimates of the cost of
unsecured borrowing transactions between banks. The volume of this borrowing
has been declining, which means that LIBOR has become more reliant on the
judgment of experts rather than actual transactions.
In contrast, CDOR is a bank lending rate and was originally developed by the
banks themselves to facilitate the calculation of a benchmark rate for the
Banker's Acceptance (BA)
market.
CDOR is the rate at which submitters are willing to lend their balance sheet to
corporate clients with existing BA lines of credit. These BA lines are being drawn
down daily, and BA volumes have been continuously growing.
BAs were first developed in 1962 as an alternative source of short-term funding
for corporate borrowers. They are an unconditional order from a corporate client
to draw funds against their established line of credit at a Canadian bank to be
paid back in full at a fixed date in the future. Now, BAs make up the largest
portion of money market instruments issued by non-government entities,
accounting for around 25 per cent of the total money market. In 2017, an average
of about $76 billion in BAs was outstanding.
A paper we published today on our website reviews the evolution of the BA
market.
Since 2014, and in keeping with the IOSCO principles, CDOR has been
strengthened in a number of ways. Thomson Reuters has been appointed the
administrator and is responsible for the calculation and distribution of the rate.
Thomson Reuters has also formed an oversight committee for CDOR to regularly
review its definition, scope and methodology. And the Office of the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions is now supervising the governance and
risk controls surrounding the submission processes at the panel banks.
Although CDOR does not have the same vulnerabilities as LIBOR, it is being
used in derivatives markets where the notional value of contracts is a multiple of
volumes in the underlying BA markets and where a risk-free rate may better suit
the needs of many users.
Fortunately, we already have a risk-free overnight rate. Let me introduce you to
CORRA, the Canadian Overnight Repo Rate Average, which has been in place
since 1997. It measures the average cost of overnight collateralized funding and
is an important reference rate for overnight index swaps, which investors use if
they want, for example, to hedge interest rate risk related to Bank of Canada rate
decisions.
CORRA is based on actual transactions and is calculated from on-screen trades
through interdealer brokers. As with CDOR, CORRA is now administered by
Thomson Reuters.
So, in Canada, we have a different starting point and have made further
enhancements to comply with the IOSCO principles.
Canadian alternative
we be satisfied that this is enough? We don't know the answer to this
Should
question yet, but to help work through the issues we recently set up the
Canadian Alternative Reference Rate Working Group (CARR).3
We know a risk-free rate is a better fit for most derivative-related exposures.
Recall the example I mentioned earlier of issuers who want to hedge their
interest-rate liabilities from a fixed to a floating rate. If other currencies move
primarily to using risk-free rates as their benchmark, specifically term risk-free
rates, market participants may want to have the same option in Canadian dollars.
CARR is co-chaired by the Bank and a private sector participant. The group will
look at potential enhancements to CORRA, such as whether the rate could be
calculated using a wider range of transactions, instead of just those occurring on
interdealer broker screens. These enhancements might include dealer-to-client
3
This initiative came out of our work on the Canadian Fixed-Income Forum, an industry group
that the Bank of Canada launched in 2015.
trades. We expect that CARR will have a recommendation to bring forward on
enhancements to CORRA by the end of the year.
From the outset, we wanted a diverse group to participate in CARR, people
active in the marketplace, with deep expertise. We now have 21 members, some
of whom are from banks, pension funds and investment firms. Because of the
importance of ancillary products and exchanges where transactions are cleared,
the Canadian Derivatives Clearing Corporation, the London Clearing House4 and
the Montréal Exchange are observers. We feel this provides a full perspective on
the market. The working group is currently meeting monthly.
In addition, we want and need feedback from a wide range of stakeholders,
including various Canadian regulatory authorities. We will likely set up targeted
round-table discussions and other subgroups to solicit broader input. We will be
exploring a range of topics, from the type of products that use interest-rate
benchmarks to the wording of the fallback provisions in Canadian cash products
referencing CDOR. All of this will give us a greater appreciation of the impact
these changes will have on multiple stakeholders. The demands will be high over
the balance of this year and next as we assess appropriate options for Canada
while keeping informed of international developments. We will share our findings
widely.
If a new risk-free term benchmark is developed, market adoption will be critical.
For that to happen, we need pension funds, asset managers, banks and
infrastructure providers to use it. Just as new functionality in each Windows
upgrade prompts the development of new computer programs, a new benchmark
will gain broader acceptance with the development of other ancillary products,
such as futures.
Challenges ahead
Let me turn now to the challenges that lie ahead, some of which are related to
the global interconnectedness of markets.
Like our economy, where cross-border trade plays an important role, there is a
large volume of cross-border financial flows, which are critical to our financial
system. So we have to work in lockstep with authorities elsewhere. Many
crosscurrency products reference benchmarks like LIBOR and CDOR. How quickly
can markets for them adapt to using these new benchmarks or curves based on
And if some benchmarks survive and others don't, will there need to be
them?
common approaches governing the use of interest rate benchmarks in foreign
exchange markets?
There are also major issues around transition. Many contracts using benchmarks
expire relatively quickly. But some have much longer maturities. For those, the
transition could be much more complicated because the nature of their
exposures might change.
Then there are the challenges we all face within our organizations. Transitioning
to new benchmarks means adapting our trading and risk systems and back-office
processes. We all know how long systems changes can take. That means
starting work relatively soon, or as soon as we know what reference rates we will
be using in the future. As we begin to trade in these products, we will need to be
patient-liquidity may take some time to build.
Conclusion
The work under way on benchmarks is complex and requires a great deal of
coordination among countries, central banks and market participants. The Bank
of Canada is committing significant resources to this effort, as are private-sector
market participants. The stability of financial markets is an important part of our
mandate, and benchmarks play a key role in the efficient functioning of markets.
My goal today is to ensure we're all on the same page in terms of
the work on
The Bank of Canada's website has a
benchmarks here and globally. page where
you can follow our work as we post key findings and updates from our meetings.
I hope that those of you who are not already involved will participate in some of
our subgroups and comment on our work.
You will also want to think about the readiness of your own organizations. The
2021 LIBOR deadline isn't that far away. I realize I am giving you more work to
do, but it is important that you keep up with these developments and ensure you
are operationally prepared.
Reference rate reform is a necessary and huge global undertaking. Getting this
right is critical for maintaining trust in the financial system. While we certainly
don't anticipate the need to
reform benchmarks as frequently as Windows is
updated, we are clearly in need of new versions. Ongoing monitoring by
regulators, central banks and market participants alike will ensure that this
cornerstone of our financial market infrastructure remains robust and resilient for
years to come.