What are central clearing parties (CCPs), how do they fail, and what happened to CCPs during past financial crises?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Central clearing counterparties (CCPs) are market infrastructures that interpose between buyers and sellers to guarantee the performance of trades and thereby reduce bilateral counterparty credit risk [1][2]. While CCPs generally increased transparency and reduced some contagion channels after 2008, they also concentrate exposures and can themselves become "too important to fail," creating a potential single point of systemic vulnerability if losses exceed their prefunded and callable resources [1][3].
1. What CCPs are and why regulators pushed them
A CCP becomes the buyer to every seller and the seller to every buyer, enabling multilateral netting, daily settlement of obligations, and standardized margining to mitigate counterparty credit risk — functions regulators emphasized after the Global Financial Crisis [1][2][4]. The G20 mandate to centralise clearing of standardised OTC derivatives and later laws such as Dodd–Frank and EMIR reflect this policy shift intended to make opaque bilateral OTC markets more transparent and resilient [1][5][4].
2. How CCPs manage risk: margins, default funds and waterfalls
CCPs manage member default risk primarily through initial and variation margins, mutualised default funds and pre-defined "waterfalls" of resources that allocate losses — first absorbing a defaulter’s collateral, then tapping default fund contributions and, in some designs, calling on surviving members [6][7]. International standards (PFMI) raised expectations that CCPs hold resources to cover at least the simultaneous default of their two largest participants when exposures are high or complex [3].
3. Mechanisms by which CCPs can fail
A CCP can fail if an extreme shock generates losses that exhaust both prefunded resources and any available callable contributions — a "fast burn" event that requires immediate action and can overwhelm resolution procedures [3][8]. Concentration of clearing among a few large CCPs and heavy overlap between clearing members and CCPs increases the chance that stress at members translates quickly into CCP losses and vice versa [9][5].
4. Past performance during financial crises: a mixed record
During the 2007–2008 crisis CCPs generally performed core functions and prevented some bilateral exposures from cascading, which supported the post‑crisis case for mandating central clearing [8][4]. Nonetheless, historical failures of CCP-like clearinghouses have occurred and informed reforms; the scale and integration of modern markets mean a contemporary failure would have broader spillovers than past, more localized collapses [10][11].
5. Empirical lessons and unresolved vulnerabilities
Research finds CCPs reduce bilateral counterparty exposures but also create a concentrated node whose monitoring and resolution are challenging; margining can screen weak participants yet procyclically amplify liquidity stress when markets move abruptly [1][9][6]. Authorities and academics therefore stress stress-testing, reverse stress testing (finding conditions that would cause CCP failure), and explicit resolution regimes because historical CCP failures are rare and hard to predict, but consequences of failure are severe and fast-moving [9][8][11].
6. Policy trade-offs and the current posture
Policymakers have tightened CCP risk management and proposed or enacted resolution frameworks to preserve critical functions without immediate taxpayer bailouts, recognizing that promises against bailouts lack credibility in a fast-burning crisis and that resilience must be the primary goal [3][11]. At the same time, growing concentration of clearing activity raises concerns about limited access options and systemic impact should a major CCP be stressed [5].
7. Bottom line
CCPs materially reduce bilateral counterparty risk and increased market transparency after 2008, but by concentrating exposures they create a high‑stakes node whose failure — though historically rare — could be rapid and systemic unless robust resources, monitoring, stress testing and credible resolution regimes are in place [4][1][11].