The Committee also considered the possibility of a default by the clearing house itself, e.g., that the clearing house is not able to meet a participant's net claims or the clearing house loses some or all of the collateral that an out-of-the-money participant has posted. Generally, this type of exposure may be associated with operational risks, mismanagement, or fraud. Setting specific capital requirements for these contingencies would be inconsistent with the Capital Accord, which does not address these risks in a non-multilateral setting. These risks should be addressed through the process of approval and oversight of the multilateral netting scheme and through the ongoing adherence to sound risk management practices.

However, the Committee has considered the potential treatment of: (1) a clearing house structure that neither collateralises the exposure that its members present nor allocates the losses back to the surviving members, and, (2) a clearing house that allocates only a part of the losses (taking into account any collateral arrangements) to the surviving members. The capital charge for a participant in such clearing houses could continue to be assessed bilaterally with respect to each of the other participants, it could be calculated as a participant's net exposure to the clearing house, or it could be calculated as a combination of the net bilateral exposures to the other participants and the clearing house. The Committee notes that further consideration would be necessary concerning the treatment of such structures for capital adequacy purposes, should they arise in the future.