Payment systems

• a. RITS is the principal domestic payment system in terms of the aggregate value of payments. It handles time-critical, high value payments, and is used to settle payments from other systemically important FMIs. Between April 2017 and March 2018, it settled an average of over 47,000 real-time gross settlement (RTGS) transactions each day, with an aggregate daily value of around AUD 180 billion (11 percent of annual GDP).

• b. CLS Bank (CLS) is an international payment system for settling foreign exchange trades in 18 currencies, including the Australian dollar.

CCPs:

• c. ASX Clear Pty Limited (ASX Clear) is the CCP for ASX-quoted cash equities, debt products and warrants traded on the ASX and Chi-X markets, equity-related derivatives traded on the ASX market and OTC, and Chi-X quoted warrants traded on Chi-X. The daily average value of cash equity trades in the first half of 2018 was approximately AUD 5 billion (see FMI statistics in Annex III).

• d. ASX Clear (Futures) Pty Limited (ASX Clear (Futures)) provides CCP services for futures and options on interest rate, equity, energy and commodity products traded on the ASX 24 market, as well as AUD- and NZD-denominated OTC interest rate derivatives (IRD).

• e. LCH Ltd’s SwapClear service provides CCP services for OTC IRD.

• f. CME is licensed to provide CCP services for OTC IRD, and non-AUD IRD traded on the CME market or the Chicago Board of Trade market for which CME permits portfolio margining for OTC IRD.

SSSs and CSDs:

• g. ASX Settlement Pty Limited (ASX Settlement) is a SSS for ASX-quoted cash equities, debt products and warrants traded on the ASX and Chi-X markets. ASX Settlement also provides SSS services for non-ASX listed securities quoted on other trading platforms in Australia.

• h. Austraclear Pty Limited (Austraclear) provides SSS services for trades in debt securities, including government bonds and repurchase agreements.

• i. IMB Limited provides SSS services for trades in its own securities.

8. Australian authorities consider these FMIs to be systemically important in Australia, with the exception of CME and IMB. As for payment systems, the RBA considers size, interconnectedness, and substitutability in determining which systems are systemically important. ASIC and the RBA consider domestic CS facilities (CCPs and SSSs) to be of systemic importance given the central role that they play in financial markets. An exception is IMB Limited, given the very narrow scope of its clearing and settlement activities. The systemic importance of foreign CS facilities in Australia is determined based on a set of criteria, including the CS facility’s connections to the Australian financial system and the materiality of these connections. Based on these criteria, authorities do not consider CME to be systemically important for the Australian system at this juncture. Table 2 contains an overview of the size of financial resources held by the four CCPs active in Australia.

Table 2.

Australia: Financial Resources of CCPs, 2017 Average

(In millions of AUD)

¹This includes add-ons.

Source: RBA.

Table 2.

Australia: Financial Resources of CCPs, 2017 Average

(In millions of AUD)

	ASX Clear	ASX Clear (Futures)	LCH Ltd SwapClear	CME IRD Service
Initial Margin (excluding add-ons)	1,090 (cash 150; equity derivatives 940)	5,425	118,060	31,2051
Default Fund	250	650	7,908	3,540
Total	1,340	6,075	125,968	34,745

¹This includes add-ons.

Source: RBA.

View Table

Table 2.

Australia: Financial Resources of CCPs, 2017 Average

(In millions of AUD)

	ASX Clear	ASX Clear (Futures)	LCH Ltd SwapClear	CME IRD Service
Initial Margin (excluding add-ons)	1,090 (cash 150; equity derivatives 940)	5,425	118,060	31,2051
Default Fund	250	650	7,908	3,540
Total	1,340	6,075	125,968	34,745

¹This includes add-ons.

Source: RBA.

9. ASX Clear (Futures) is also systemically important for New Zealand banks. New Zealand financial institutions depend on the operations of ASX Clear (Futures) for the clearing of NZD IRD. Currently, New Zealand banks clear indirectly through direct clearing members of ASX Clear (Futures).

10. The Direct Entry system, governed by the Australian Payments Network Limited’s (AusPayNet’s) rules, is the largest retail payment system. AusPayNet is a self-regulatory industry body that is responsible for rules and procedures for clearing and settling payments, including High Value Clearing Stream payments, direct entry payments, check payments and ATM transactions in Australia. Non-cash retail payments’ daily aggregate value between April 2017 and March 2018 was around AUD 70 billion. Direct entry payments, comprising credit transfers and direct debits, represented almost 90 percent of this value.

11. Card payments can be cleared domestically or through the international schemes. There are three main debit cards operating in Australia: the domestic eftpos system (which is managed by ePAL) and the international card schemes Mastercard and Visa. Most debit cards in Australia are ‘dual-network’ meaning they have a functionality that enables a payment to be processed via either eftpos or one of the two other networks. The international card schemes also offer their respective four-party (American Express, MasterCard, and Visa) and three-party (American Express and Diners Club) credit and charge cards in Australia.

12. The New Payments Platform (NPP) is a fast payments system launched in February 2018. The NPP enables close-to-immediate funds availability to payment recipients on a 24/7 basis, even where the payer and payee use different financial institutions. In order to support this functionality, the RBA has developed a Fast Settlement Service in RITS, which enables every single payment made on the platform, regardless of its size, to be settled in real-time in central bank funds, across each financial institution’s Exchange Settlement Account (ESA).

Regulation, supervision and oversight of FMIs (Responsibility A)

22. The RBA’s role as overseer of the RITS payment system is clearly described in the joint statement issued by ASIC and the RBA on implementing the PFMI in 2013. The statement outlines that oversight of RITS is a key element of the PSB’s responsibility for the safety and stability of payment systems in Australia under the RBA Act. Furthermore, the statement contains criteria to identify payment systems that are subject to RBA supervision: the payment system (i) is the sole payment system in the country or the principal system in terms of the aggregate value of payments; (ii) mainly handles time-critical, high-value payments; and (iii) is used to effect settlement in other systemically important FMIs. The RBA plans to monitor developments in other payment systems and periodically reviews whether other systems should be subject to PFMI assessments. This approach is not yet formalized.

23. The PSRA gives the RBA a legal basis for regulating and overseeing payment systems, which in practice is applied only to certain retail payment systems. The PSRA provides the RBA with a legal basis to oversee payments systems through designation and standard setting for payment systems. The RBA may use these powers only if it considers that it would be in the public interest to do so. The PSRA additionally empowers the RBA to require a participant in a payment system (whether designated or not) to give the RBA information relating to the payment system and its participants. To date, only certain retail payment systems have been designated under the PSRA, whereas other systems, for example the NPP, have not been designated.

24. The RBA considers CLS to be systemically important for the Australian financial system and conducts oversight through the CLS oversight committee chaired by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY). The RBA relies on the FRBNY for the oversight of CLS and participates as a member of the CLS Oversight Committee. The joint statement and PSRA do not currently cover oversight of foreign-based payment systems.

25. It is recommended that the RBA considers reviewing its approach to payment systems oversight, in particular by providing greater clarity as regards requirements for systemically and less systemically important payment systems. In line with approaches in other countries, the RBA could explicitly link the systemic importance of a payment system or service to (a selection of) requirements in the PFMI (as far as not done yet), review consistency of existing requirements with key concepts of the PFMI, and ensure that the oversight approach sufficiently allows addressing risks related to new developments in the payments industry. ⁹ This would improve transparency, add clarity to potential (privately operated) systemically important payment system providers, and could support the RBA in conducting its oversight responsibilities effectively. More specifically the RBA could consider:

• a. Outlining the criteria for determining whether a payment system will be deemed to be systemically important and required to meet the requirements of the PFMI.

• b. Creating a category of prominent, but less systemically important, payment systems which might be expected to meet some subset of the PFMI.

• c. Developing a formal approach for conducting a ‘horizon scanning process’ to avoid a situation in which a payment system that meets the criteria is not overseen.

26. The Corporations Act clearly outlines the criteria for CS facilities to be subject to supervision in Australia. It defines a CS facility, requires that a CS facility can only operate under a license provided by the Minister, and permits the imposition of conditions on a license. The Minister can grant an exemption to a CS facility from the licensing requirement. In granting an exemption, the Minister takes into account factors, which are set out in ASIC’s Regulatory Guide 211, and include the nature and scale of the facility’s activities, the profile of its participants, and the financial products for which it provides services. The division of responsibilities between ASIC and the RBA regarding CS facilities is clearly outlined in the Corporations Act. The MOU provides for arrangements to handle overlap in responsibilities, which in practice are managed through cooperation and coordination (see Responsibility E).

27. The RBA also considers critical service providers (CSPs) in its supervisory approach. Under the FSS, CS facilities are expected to scrutinize critical service providers against the oversight expectations for CSPs (PFMI Annex F). The key CSP for RITS is the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT), an international interbank messaging system, as the failure of SWIFT would severely impair the ability of members to effect third-party payments, as well as the management of Austraclear settlements via the RITS Automated Information Facility (that uses SWIFT messages). The RBA is represented in the SWIFT Oversight Forum, and through it receives information on the oversight activities of the National Bank of Belgium and the SWIFT Oversight Group.

Powers and resources (Responsibility B)

28. The RBA uses its internal governance structure for oversight and operations of RITS to induce change within RITS operations or enforce corrective action. Oversight activities are located in the Payments Policy Department, whereas RITS operations are conducted within the Payments Settlements Department. Both departments report to different managers within the RBA’s organizational hierarchy with reporting lines converging at the level of the Deputy Governor. Assessment findings are discussed within the PSB, which is chaired by the Governor and largely comprised of independent board members. This process helps induce changes in RITS’s arrangements consistent with the recommendations. The publication of assessment reports may further induce changes. The two departments have established information-sharing arrangements, which include information on material developments. The Payments Policy Department also has access to a wide range of RITS data, such as on RITS activity, liquidity usage and availability, and incidents.

29. RBA powers for other payment systems, which are designated under the PSRA, are available as specified in the PSRA. The PSRA allows the RBA to obtain information from payments system participants, to designate a payment system, and to set access regimes and standards for designated payment systems. The PSRA also specifies the fines that apply if certain rules are breached.

30. Information powers for CS facilities are clearly outlined in the Corporations Act. A licensed CS facility is obliged under section 821C of the Corporations Act to give such assistance to ASIC or the RBA as reasonably is requested in relation to the performance of the regulators’ respective functions. This assistance may include access to books and records or provision of other relevant information. In addition, the ASIC Act gives ASIC inspection and investigation powers, including the power to inspect books, require the production of documents, and summon individuals to appear before ASIC and answer inquiries.

31. Enforcement powers for CS facilities rest with the Minister and ASIC. ASIC has powers to undertake an assessment of a CS facility’s compliance with its obligations under the Corporations Act, whereas the RBA has the power to assess compliance with the FSS. The Minister has powers to require a special report, as well an audit report on the special report. If the Minister considers that a CS facility licensee is not complying with its obligations as a CS facility licensee, the Minister may give the licensee a written direction. ASIC also is empowered to give the licensee a direction in writing, either at its own instigation or at the request of the RBA. A direction issued by the Minister or ASIC is enforceable by court order. As a final resort, the Minister has the power to suspend or cancel a license where the CS facility licensee has breached one or more of its obligations under the Corporations Act. In 2016, the Minister delegated her role to ASIC for more timely consideration of decisions.

32. It is recommended that the legal basis for ASIC’s and RBA’s supervisory enforcement powers for CS facilities be strengthened and independence from the Minister be increased. Under the current provisions, RBA has no independent enforcement powers. The RBA may request that ASIC issue a direction; however, ASIC is not required to do so. Furthermore, the Minister may overrule ASIC’s decision to make or to revoke a direction and the Minister can still exercise the powers that they have delegated should they deem it necessary. Although there is no evidence of such intervention by the Minister, the power of the Minister weakens ASIC’s enforcement powers and could constrain both ASIC and the RBA in carrying out their supervisory responsibilities. It is therefore recommended to strengthen the legal basis for directions powers and ensure sufficient independence from the Minister in day to day supervision. The mission recommends that RBA is granted enforcement powers independently from ASIC.

33. Furthermore, it is recommended that authorities are granted additional powers to support fair and effective competition between/among infrastructures. Competition between trading platforms, e.g., between ASX and Chi-X, necessitates a legal and regulatory framework that supports and ensures a level playing field. The CFR’s regulatory expectations for ASX’s conduct in providing access to its monopoly cash equity CS services require transparent and non-discriminatory treatment and terms and conditions, including pricing, that are fair and reasonable.¹⁰ Treasury, in cooperation with ASIC, the ACCC, and the RBA, is well-advanced in pursuing legislative changes to make the regulatory expectations legally enforceable. ASIC would be provided with rule-making powers, whereas the ACCC would be granted an arbitration power that would provide for binding resolution of material disputes between ASX and a user seeking access to ASX CS services (including ASX Clear and ASX Settlement). In case of potential competition between post-trade infrastructures, the RBA would be involved from a financial stability perspective.

34. ASIC has sufficient staff resources to fulfill the responsibilities under its supervision mandate. ASIC’s Market Infrastructure team is responsible for supervising and assessing the operations of licensed CS facilities, financial markets, trade repositories, credit rating agencies, and benchmark administrators, as well as considering new license applications. The team sits within the broader Market Integrity Group, which also includes Market Supervision and Market Enforcement. The Market Infrastructure team currently is comprised of 32 people directly involved in markets infrastructure, of which the CS facilities team has at least five members, including a senior manager and at least one technical senior specialist with appropriate experience, skills, and knowledge.

35. The RBA also has sufficient staff to fulfill the responsibilities under its supervision and oversight mandate. A team of 21 people in the Payments Policy Department is responsible for FMI oversight and policy development, with 17 staff members involved in regulation and oversight of CS facilities. The RBA has also established arrangements to seek advice on specific issues from technical experts (e.g., legal, IT) in other areas of the RBA. The team has appropriate experience, skills, and knowledge to perform its duties. The department also has developed its own FMI training program, with sessions on a range of relevant topics.

Transparency (Responsibility C)

36. The RBA is transparent regarding its oversight requirements, and publicly discloses its policies and regulations related to payment systems. RBA’s high-level objectives with regard to payment systems are outlined in the RBA Act. This Act, the joint statement, the PSRA, the RBA’s policies, PSB reports, assessment reports (including ratings), explanatory texts, and a range of other information are disclosed to the public through the RBA’s website.

37. ASIC and the RBA are transparent in their supervisory requirements, and publicly disclose their policies and regulations regarding the CS facilities. The Corporations Act, ASIC’s Regulatory Guide 211, CS facility licensees, the FSS, the joint statement on implementing the PFMI in Australia, as well as assessment reports (including ratings), media releases, explanatory texts, and a range of other information are disclosed to the public through the RBA website and the ASIC website.

Implementation of the PFMI (Responsibility D)

38. ASIC and the RBA have publicly adopted the PFMI. The joint statement outlines that ASIC and the RBA are committed to apply the PFMI in their supervision and oversight of all FMI types. Authorities also have adopted additional guidance regarding the PFMI, such as the guidance on cyber resilience for financial market infrastructures issued in June 2016, recovery of financial market infrastructures—revised report issued in July 2017, and resilience of central counterparties, issued in July 2017.

39. The authorities apply the PFMI through detailed assessments and day-to-day supervision and oversight activities. The PFMI are reflected in the FSS, with the FSS being more specific on certain requirements, for example, on recovery and orderly wind-down, financial resources, and the requirement that CCP services should be provided by a legal entity that is separate from those providing services that could expose the CCP to unrelated risks. Authorities have conducted one full assessment against the PFMI in 2014, and plan to repeat this on a five-year basis. On an annual basis the RBA conducts an assessment against the FSS, reflecting the majority of PFMI requirements. ASIC uses the PFMI in its thematic assessments, for example, on cyber resilience of CS facilities. Furthermore, the authorities use the five responsibilities to conduct self-assessments of their regulation, supervision, and oversight of FMIs in Australia.

40. RBA’s oversight of RITS has been effective in enhancing RITS’s observance of the PFMI. The Payments Policy Department and the Payments Settlements Department organize monthly meetings attended by the two departments’ senior management, and quarterly working-level meetings. These formal review points, combined with ad hoc engagement, provide opportunities to discuss material developments and identify oversight priorities. The mission found that the oversight activities of the Payment Policy Department are comprehensive and that the governance structure within the RBA supports independent oversight and is effective in inducing change. In case of disagreement between the two departments, the issues are escalated, in some cases to the level of the Governor. In crisis events the Assistant Governor responsible for the Payment Policy Department is part of the crisis management team.

41. Supervision of CS facilities is also effective with supervisory expectations having increased importantly in recent years. Authorities meet quarterly on a technical level, every six months at a strategic level, and every year with the ASX Board. The adoption of the PFMI and follow-up CPMI-IOSCO guidance increased the level of supervisory requirements and engagement with CS facilities. The annual FSS assessments are comprehensive with authorities following up on detailed findings. The annual deep dive themes are thorough and allow for a good understanding of the risks and gaps in compliance with the PFMI/FSS. The annual assessments started with deep dives into financial risks and more recently into operational risks, whereas for the coming year legal risks will be subject to a deep dive analysis. The mission found that, for example, ASX has strengthened its financial risk management following RBA assessments and is in the process of following up on requirements from both ASIC and the RBA regarding operational risk. Box 1 illustrates authorities’ supervision and oversight on two topical issues, cyber resilience and new technologies.

42. Consistent application of the PFMI across FMIs is promoted through the FMIRC within the RBA. Following its self-assessment against the five responsibilities, the RBA created the FMIRC as a senior-level internal review committee to review day-to-day oversight activities. The FMIRC reports to both the Executive Committee and the PSB. Its main responsibilities concern review, and for CS facilities, approval of the staff’s routine oversight and supervisory decisions, including the interpretation of the PFMI, review of an FMI’s progress in meeting the RBA’s recommendations, review of the FMI assessments, and for CS facilities, approval of the assessments. For RITS, the approval of the assessments is the responsibility of the PSB. Consistency is further supported by the publication of detailed assessment reports, including assessments of each relevant FMI’s observance of the Principles.

Cooperation among authorities (Responsibility E)

43. Cooperation among domestic authorities is strong. ASIC and the RBA cooperate effectively with respect to their responsibilities under the Corporations Act based on their prescribed responsibilities, and more generally under the RBA-ASIC MOU. Although there is overlap, inconsistencies and gaps are avoided through frequent and constructive communication and coordination. The two authorities consult each other as part of their assessments, and typically organize joint meetings with CS facilities, or otherwise brief each other on the outcomes of the meetings. More broadly, the mission found that the CFR typically facilitates constructive coordination among authorities.

44. MOUs covering the relationships between the ACCC and RBA and ASIC need to be updated to better support information sharing among authorities. The RBA works with the ACCC under an MOU that sets out aspects of how the two agencies will work together in relation to payments systems. The relevant legislation sets out that the ACCC has general responsibility for competition, while the RBA has specific responsibilities in relation to payments systems, including the ability to impose an access regime or set standards for designated systems.

45. Designation of a payment system under the PSRA by the RBA does not, by itself, remove that system from the ACCC’s jurisdiction. The MOU discusses how the two agencies will share information and coordinate policy in relation to payments systems. ASIC also has an MOU with the ACCC detailing cooperation arrangements. Both MOUs should be updated to reflect more recent cooperation on competition for CS facilities (ASIC and the RBA) and trading platforms (ASIC), in particular to facilitate the sharing of information among authorities.

46. Cooperation in times of crisis needs to be enhanced through a dedicated communication framework for CS facilities that is regularly tested. ASIC has developed a market wide industry crisis communication framework. The RBA has a crisis communication framework for payment systems. In addition, authorities need to enhance their crisis communication framework that includes communication in case of incidents that affect CS facilities. The CFR could be used to facilitate effective communication and coordination if an FMI was in financial or operational distress. The CFR could, for instance, provide a forum to discuss the implications for a distressed FMI’s participants, financial markets, and the public at large. Such a framework could leverage lessons learned in developing CFR communications arrangements to manage crises in prudentially-regulated entities. The framework needs to be regularly tested to identify and solve potential barriers to communicate and coordinate effectively during a crisis.

47. International cooperation typically is facilitated by an MOU and allows for information sharing and crisis management with foreign authorities. RBA’s participation in the CLS and SWIFT oversight committees provides the RBA with information about the observance of these systems with the PFMI. In addition, through these fora the RBA could identify issues that could be relevant for FX settlement involving the AUD and messaging services for RITS, CLS, other FMIs, and participants. The RBA and ASIC also cooperate with the Bank of England, the European Securities and Markets Authority, and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission in relation to the supervision of LCH Ltd, the ASX CCPs, and CME. For resolution and crisis management, Australian authorities participate in the Crisis Management Group (CMG) for LCH Ltd.

48. A cooperation arrangement with New Zealand authorities is in place for ASX Clear (Futures), which could be consolidated through a multilateral MOU that includes all relevant agencies. Cooperation arrangements exist between the RBA and Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ), and between ASIC and the New Zealand Financial Markets Authority (FMA). For clarity reasons it is recommended to consolidate the relationship agreements between the Australian and New Zealand authorities, for example, by including the FMA and ASIC in the RBNZ/RBA MOU for CCPs located in Australia. This will ensure that all authorities are able to receive the same information at the same time.

Systemic risk

55. ASX Clear’s systemic risk related to its central role in the equity market is generally well managed through governance and risk management frameworks, but improvements on certain aspects are warranted. As sole CCP for equity markets in Australia, ASX Clear is critical for the functioning of domestic equity markets. Although credit exposures are short term (settlement is on T+2) compared to derivatives clearing, its interconnectedness with the broader financial system (35 participants, including the 4 domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs), large foreign banks, 2 trading platforms, 1 SSS) and its efficiencies through multilateral netting, would create liquidity and credit stresses among its participants in case of its failure. It is therefore of systemic importance that ASX Clear manages its credit, liquidity, operational, and other risks in a prudent manner. The mission found that ASX Clear operations generally are reliable, however, additional steps are warranted to increase compliance with the PFMI. This is discussed in the remainder of this section.

56. The potential procyclicality of ASX Clear’s margins and collateral haircuts is limited through conservative haircut setting. In setting haircuts, ASX Clear uses a 20-year historic period, which included the high volatility observed during the 2008 global financial crisis, and a 99.9 percent confidence level. The calibration of haircuts is intended to ensure that they remain relatively stable during stress circumstances, and as such prevent the exacerbation of volatility, liquidity strains, and general financial distress. Procyclicality could be addressed more comprehensively through the annual validation process for margin models.

Legal risk (Principles 1, 8)

57. ASX Clear has a sound legal basis for its clearing activities. The Corporations Act, PSNA, and the ASX Clear rules govern novation, netting, and collateral arrangements, as well as default procedures, and the enforceability of related rights and obligations. ASX Clear currently has no overseas clearing members and does not accept non-domestic collateral. If ASX Clear allows access to non-local clearing members or accepts non-domestic collateral it should identify and mitigate potential conflicts of law through legal opinions, in line with good international practices.

58. Although the PSNA provides a firm statutory foundation for finality of settlement, the rules of ASX Settlement should more clearly define the point at which settlement is final. The operating rules of ASX Settlement are the relevant rules for settlement of transactions cleared by ASX Clear. The rules currently describe the payment and security delivery rights and obligations of participants at the time of settlement in CHESS at T+2 (i.e., 11.30 a.m.), as well as the last opportunity for settlement participants to revoke a transaction. The rules do not, however, explicitly describe the point at which settlement is final. Including the exact point that settlement is final is required by the PFMI to quickly ascertain positions of the clearing participants in a resolution scenario.

Governance and overall risk management approach (Principles 2, 3)

59. ASX is implementing and fine-tuning its group-wide enterprise risk management (ERM) model but should consider addressing CCP-specific risks more directly. The ERM is implemented at the group level, and although counterparty credit risks are included as a risk type reviewed by the ASX Board, along with, for example, strategic risk, CCP-specific risks could be marginalized in the overall scheme. Although the two ASX CCPs have individual boards that review risk information and external Risk Consultative Committees, the CCPs do not have CCP-specific internal risk committees. Rather, risks are discussed in the Audit and Risk Committee at the ASX Ltd Board level. Also, as a result of the group-wide risk management approach and the sharing of services and staff provided by ASX Operations Pty Limited to the CCPs, each CCP does not have its own dedicated staffing, including risk management staffing. ASX should consider establishing CCP-specific internal risk committees, dedicated CCP-specific risk management and staffing, risk management systems, and resolution-friendly shared services agreements that account for intra-group inter-dependencies. An option could include a separate risk committee for each of the CCPs with a dedicated ERM for each of the CCPs, and inclusion of critical staff and systems within each of the CCP legal entities. Such a separation would also make it simpler when considering safe and effective competition issues in the equity market.

60. ASX Clear’s recovery plan should more comprehensively address intragroup interdependencies. The recovery plan currently identifies a few interdependencies with other subsidiaries of ASX Ltd. This should be extended to a more comprehensive analysis of dependencies within the group, such as dependencies on parent funding. The recovery plan could define scenarios where all subsidiaries are simultaneously impacted by the same event, or where participants default against multiple subsidiaries, particularly where participants provide additional services to ASX (e.g., liquidity, investment).

Credit and Liquidity Risk (Principles 4, 5, 6, 7 and 16)

61. The credit risk management of ASX Clear has recently been strengthened and is generally in line with the PFMI. As a first layer of the risk waterfall, ASX Clear collects initial margin and additional margins for clearing participants’ equities and equity derivatives positions. Potential additional losses in case of a participant’s default are covered by default fund assets. Margin period of risk (MPOR) assumptions have been evaluated and more conservative assumptions have been included. The credit stress testing methodology takes into account the CPMI-IOSCO 2017 guidance on CCP resilience, including appropriate historical, forward looking and other scenarios. ASX conducts daily stress tests, as well as back testing and sensitivity analysis. Robust independent validation ensures that ASX’s models accurately identify and mitigate credit risks.

62. Operational capacity to make intraday margin calls, however, needs to be strengthened to prevent uncollateralized exposure from accumulating. While ASX Clear can call intraday margin for equity options five times per day, the current CHESS system does not support intraday netting during the day, which impedes monitoring of real time intraday exposures and calls for intraday margin for cash equities. ASX Clear nevertheless is able to estimate the netted exposures for cash equities three times per day and, subject to an AUD 100 thousand minimum threshold, can call for additional initial margin based on intraday stress test exposures. More frequent and accurate intraday margin calls for cash equities should be introduced once the CHESS replacement system has been implemented.

63. House and client cash equity positions need to be segregated at the clearing level. The current CHESS system does not support segregation of house and client cash equity positions. Although legal provisions are in place to prevent the use of clients’ assets for house purposes, operationally segregated accounts at ASX Clear will facilitate compliance with these requirements in normal circumstances, as well as the porting of client positions during stress events.

64. Improvements to ASX’s collateral policy would further benefit the stability of the risk framework. ASX Clear eligible collateral is comprised of cash (AUD) and domestic equities. ASX Clear accepts only stocks in the S&P/ASX200 index, consisting of the 200 largest companies listed on the ASX, as well as exchange-traded funds that meet certain minimum liquidity criteria. Cash is mostly used to cover cash equity exposures, whereas equities are mostly used to cover equity derivatives exposures. Conservative haircuts are applied to non-cash collateral. The absence of concentration limits on equity collateral, could, however, impair ASX’s ability to liquidate such assets quickly without significant adverse price effects. Although this collateral can be easily liquidated in normal times, liquidation could be challenging or even impossible in stressed circumstances. Enforcing conservative concentration limits could reduce these liquidation risks. An additional difficulty with this equity collateral is that these securities are not collateral eligible for posting at the RBA’s liquidity facilities. Therefore, it is recommended that ASX consider extending eligible collateral to government and semi-government bonds.

65. ASX Clear should increase and diversify its qualifying liquid resources to move the use of Offsetting Transaction Arrangements (OTAs) to a later stage in the waterfall. The liquidity stress test cover 2 exposure calculation (the liquidity needs following the default of the two ASX Clear clearing participants and their affiliates that generate the largest aggregate payment obligation to the CCP) is performed daily to estimate ASX Clear’s liquidity shortfall in extreme but plausible circumstances. A shortfall would be covered by the prefunded default fund assets (A$250 million) and a committed liquidity facility from ASX Ltd (A$150 million) of which A$100 million is backed by a committed liquidity facility from a commercial bank. To the extent that prefunded resources are invested in assets other than cash, these are only counted as AUD qualifying liquid resources if they are invested in securities that are collateral eligible for posting at the RBA. Remaining liquidity needs would be covered by OTAs, which would allow ASX Clear, through a predefined allocation mechanism, to repo securities due to a defaulting participant back to the participant delivering the securities until a later point in time (involuntary repo). The mission recommends reconsidering this approach and considering including other types of liquidity resources, such as commercial credit lines in addition to the prefunded resources/parent funding and OTAs. One of the benefits of commercial credit lines is that they provide more transparency upfront to liquidity providers and participants regarding the size of contingent liabilities relative to OTAs. Although OTAs have the advantage of being a reliable source of liquidity for ASX Clear, one challenge would be the mechanical allocation of liquidity shortfalls among members, which could create additional liquidity pressure in stress events, and they therefore should be used judiciously. Given constraints in Australia’s financial system, such credit lines could be sourced from a syndicate of banks or from nonbank financial institutions. OTAs could be used later in the liquidity resource sequence. Finally, the committed bank credit line that parent ASX Ltd has could be further diversified to mitigate its liquidity risk as well.

66. Liquidity risks of the investment portfolio are appropriately limited through investments in only liquid government bonds and unsecured cash is subject to counterparty limits. ASX’s unsecured exposure to any single counterparty is limited to its capital to cover investment risks, which is ring-fenced from ASX’s other capital.

Operational risk (Principle 17)

67. ASX has significantly increased its IT resources to manage both the upgrades to its current IT governance and risk management framework and the CHESS replacement project; it is recommended to further strengthen operational resilience in line with authorities’ requirements. Following recent incidents across the group, ASX has, at the instigation of ASIC and the RBA, commissioned an independent external review of ASX’s technology, governance, and operational risk and control framework. The review recommended a range of changes to ASX’s technology governance and operational risk management practices. ASX is responding to these recommendations under the oversight of ASIC and the RBA. For example, ASX hired additional resources and ring-fenced the teams responsible for this and the CHESS replacement project to ensure that neither project would be under-resourced due to resources allocated to the other projects.

68. The reliability of the CHESS system is high (99.9 percent availability), but the system should be modernized. The CHESS system has been a well-functioning and stable system since 1994, but the technology is old and needs to be replaced. As an input into its decision to replace CHESS with a system that uses DLT, the ASX Board considered the results of two external security assessments of the prototype platform that DA had developed. Although the assessments were limited by the current state of the platform, neither assessment found significant deficiencies with respect to the claims that DA has made regarding the security of the platform. ASX intends to commission further security reviews of the DA platform prior to implementation.