Minnesota Law Review

Substituted Compliance and Systemic Risk: How to Make a Global Market in Derivatives Regulation

International financial regulators have sought to contain the systemic risk of OTC derivatives transactions by introducing mandatory clearing. In the absence of a global financial regulator, however, this regulatory approach must be implemented by national actors. Fearing the prospect of regulatory arbitrage, regulators have sought to impose global uniformity through either multi-lateral efforts at harmonization or unilateral assertions of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Either approach, however, may compromise the ultimate goal of containing systemic risk.

This Article argues that regulatory uniformity, however achieved, threatens to exacerbate the problem of systemic risk. Because the benefits of mandatory clearing are not as great as is sometimes claimed, the adoption of mandatory clearing on a globally uniform basis will leave the world financial system less safe from systemic collapse than a regulatory approach that permits more flexibility and variation. This Article, therefore, proposes a regulatory super-structure that would encourage a diversity of regulatory approaches aimed at containing the systemic risk of OTC derivatives transactions, offering practical guidance on how such an approach could be adopted on either a national or international basis.

International financial regulators have sought to contain the systemic risk of OTC derivatives transactions by introducing mandatory clearing. In the absence of a global financial regulator, however, this regulatory approach must be implemented by national actors. Fearing the prospect of regulatory arbitrage, regulators have sought to impose global uniformity through either multi-lateral efforts at harmonization or unilateral assertions of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Either approach, however, may compromise the ultimate goal of containing systemic risk.

This Article argues that regulatory uniformity, however achieved, threatens to exacerbate the problem of systemic risk. Because the benefits of mandatory clearing are not as great as is sometimes claimed, the adoption of mandatory clearing on a globally uniform basis will leave the world financial system less safe from systemic collapse than a regulatory approach that permits more flexibility and variation. This Article, therefore, proposes a regulatory super-structure that would encourage a diversity of regulatory approaches aimed at containing the systemic risk of OTC derivatives transactions, offering practical guidance on how such an approach could be adopted on either a national or international basis.

International financial regulators have sought to contain the systemic risk of OTC derivatives transactions by introducing mandatory clearing. In the absence of a global financial regulator, however, this regulatory approach must be implemented by national actors. Fearing the prospect of regulatory arbitrage, regulators have sought to impose global uniformity through either multi-lateral efforts at harmonization or unilateral assertions of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Either approach, however, may compromise the ultimate goal of containing systemic risk.

This Article argues that regulatory uniformity, however achieved, threatens to exacerbate the problem of systemic risk. Because the benefits of mandatory clearing are not as great as is sometimes claimed, the adoption of mandatory clearing on a globally uniform basis will leave the world financial system less safe from systemic collapse than a regulatory approach that permits more flexibility and variation. This Article, therefore, proposes a regulatory super-structure that would encourage a diversity of regulatory approaches aimed at containing the systemic risk of OTC derivatives transactions, offering practical guidance on how such an approach could be adopted on either a national or international basis.

:: View PDF

News & Events

  • Fall Submissions Open – Headnotes

    The Minnesota Law Review: Headnotes fall submissions period is open. For more information, please visit our submissions page. Share this: on Twitter on Facebook on Google+

  • Vol. 97 Piece Quoted in Mother Jones Article

    A recent Mother Jones article predicting how the Roberts Court would resolve King v. Burwell draws on How Business Fares in the Supreme Court from Volume 97. You can read the article here. Share this: on Twitter on Facebook on Google+

  • Welcome to De Novo

    For nearly one hundred years, the Minnesota Law Review has been a leader amongst academic legal publications. When Professor Henry J. Fletcher launched the journal in 1917, his goal was simple. It was to “contribute a little something to the systematic growth of the whole law.” Since then, the Law [...]

  • Minnesota Law Review Alum Remembered 45 Years After Death

    Minnesota Law Review alumnus Tom Cranna was honored at the Annual Banquet this Spring, 45 years after his death. Mr. Cranna was remembered for his contributions to the journal, the school, and the positive impact he had on his family and friends. The Devil’s Lake Journal published a memorial which [...]

  • Follow MLR on Twitter!

    The Minnesota Law Review is proud to announce that we are now on Twitter. Follow us @MinnesotaLawRev for information and updates concerning the petition period and deadlines, the opening and closing of article submissions, our 2014 Symposium: Offenders in the Community, and all other news concerning our authors and publications. [...]

Newsletter

cforms contact form by delicious:days