Saturday 18th April 2015
NEWS TICKER FRIDAY APRIL 17TH 2015: -On June 9, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission will host a workshop to examine competition, consumer protection, and economic issues raised by the proliferation of online and mobile peer-to peer business platforms in certain sectors of the economy, often referred to as the “sharing economy.” The workshop will take place in Washington, D.C., at the FTC’s Constitution Center conference space. Peer-to-peer platforms, which enable suppliers and consumers to connect and do business, have led to the emergence of new business models in industries that have been subject to regulation. The FTC’s sharing economy workshop will explore how regulatory frameworks can accommodate new sharing economy business models while maintaining appropriate consumer protections and a competitive marketplace. “We are seeing a dramatic growth in products and services that are built on peer-to-peer platforms, such as ride-sharing and property rentals, as more entrepreneurs harness the power of technology to reach more consumers,” says FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez. “The resulting business models have great potential to benefit our economy and consumers. Through our workshop, we want to better understand the competitive impact of these new business models, as well as their interactions with existing regulatory frameworks.” - he Straits Times Index (STI) ended 6.42 points or 0.18% lower to 3525.19, taking the year-to-date performance to +4.76%. The top active stocks today were Keppel Corp, which declined 2.01%, DBS, which gained 0.91%, SingTel, which gained 0.23%, UOB, which gained 0.38% and ComfortDelGro, with a 1.70% advance. The FTSE ST Mid Cap Index fell 0.30%, while the FTSE ST Small Cap Index rose 0.06%. The outperforming sectors today were represented by the FTSE ST Utilities Index, which rose 1.60%. The two biggest stocks of the Index - United Envirotech and Hyflux – ended 5.12% higher and 2.09% lower respectively. The underperforming sector was the FTSE ST Basic Materials Index, which slipped 1.82%. Midas Holdings shares declined 2.56% and Geo Energy Resources remained unchanged - It has been a testing day in the markets, with most stock markets reporting substantial losses. The spectre of another crisis in Greece as the IMF talked tough on the country adhering to its repayment schedule, a terminal outage at Bloomberg and a clampdown on OTC and short selling in China combined to test investor sentiment. The FTSE 100, fell briefly below 7000 to end up finding support at 7007; however Spain's Ibex and Italy's FTSE MIB were both 2% down while the German DAX 30 slid 1.8% and France's CAC 40 fell 1.2% - The outage impacted the UK DMO’s offer of £300m 1 month bill, due 18-May-2015(ISIN GB00BDNKWT09); the £1,000m 3-months bill due 20-Jul-2015 (ISIN GB00BDNLZ833), and the £1,500m 6-months bill due 19-Oct-2015 (ISIN GB00BDNNDG38) was conducted between midday and14.30 today. Any bids submitted in the aborted operation earlier this morning were deemed null and void - Catastrophe bond issuance is forecast to have risen almost 30% so far this year, though the size of the market remains modest. The increase in demand for cat bonds means that some bonds are now trading at a discount to their original issue price for the first time in years. Issuance for the year through to mid-April is predicted to be up 27% on 2014, at around $2.1bn, The full-year trend also looks positive, following on from a record cat bond issuance of $8.4bn in 2014 - Moody's Investors Service has described in detail the approach it takes to allocating expected credit losses across the various classes of debt issued by banks in the US, the EU and Switzerland. The liability hierarchy or "waterfall" that Moody's employs to allocate estimated losses to debt classes in these three jurisdictions incorporates the implications of key structural differences in their bank resolution and bail-in frameworks. In this way, the liability hierarchy aims to capture the prioritisation authorities will give different debt classes when apportioning losses to creditors in the event of a bank's failure. The construction of a given bank's liability structure at failure serves as the starting point of Moody's Loss Given Failure (LGF) analysis, instituted as part of its new bank rating methodology. The LGF framework is used to assess and differentiate creditor risk across banks' liability structures, as detailed in Moody's report "How Resolution Frameworks Drive Our Creditor Hierarchies." The bank resolution and bail-in frameworks in the US, EU, and Switzerland all aim to limit the use of public funds in bank resolutions while mitigating risks to financial stability. Important differences in these frameworks include the degree of power authorities have to write down or convert capital instruments, differences in depositor preference, and variations in the obligations of holding companies to their operating companies - Close Brothers has reportedly acquired advisory firm Mackay Stewart & Brown for an undisclosed amount. Andy Cumming, head of advice at Close Brothers Asset Management, said the acquisition would strengthen the national advice firm’s Scottish operation.

The Imperative of Automating Derivatives Processing

Tuesday, 01 March 2005
The Imperative of Automating Derivatives Processing The over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives market is on a roll of its own. Worth some $173trn (in notional value) according to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA), deal volume is up by $30trn over 2003 and the market is expected to continue at a double-digit pace for some time to come. This growth trajectory has, however, simultaneously raised both the level of operational risk and the costs of manually processing this magnitude of contracts. The market must automate in order not to be overwhelmed by its own success. Peter Axilrod, managing director of new business development for The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) writes from New York. http://www.ftseglobalmarkets.com/
The over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives market is on a roll of its own. Worth some $173trn (in notional value) according to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA), deal volume is up by $30trn over 2003 and the market is expected to continue at a double-digit pace for some time to come. This growth trajectory has, however, simultaneously raised both the level of operational risk and the costs of manually processing this magnitude of contracts. The market must automate in order not to be overwhelmed by its own success. Peter Axilrod, managing director of new business development for The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) writes from New York.
The fastest growing area of over-the-counter derivatives is credit default swaps. These instruments have proved to be an essential part of controlling credit exposure for major dealers and the financial system as a whole. “The market for credit derivatives has grown in prominence not only because of its ability to disperse risk, but also because of the information it contributes to enhanced risk management by banks and other financial intermediaries” noted Alan Greenspan, chairman of the United States’ (US’s) Federal Reserve Board (the Fed), back in 2003 in referring to financial derivatives. “As the market for credit default swaps expands and deepens, the collective knowledge held by market participants is exactly reflected in the prices of these derivative instruments. They offer significant supplementary information about credit risk to a bank’s loan officer, for example, who heretofore [sic] had to rely mainly on in-house credit analysis,” he concluded.

Until a few years ago, the low volume and high degree of customised terms in credit default swaps and other OTC derivatives almost necessitated manual post-trade processing in a paper-based environment. Trading and confirmation were done via phone calls and faxes. It was not particularly burdensome as volumes were (generally) low.



In the first half of 2000, the ISDA estimated there were about $60trn (in notional value) in interest rate and currency swaps outstanding, with little or no measured activity in credit default swaps or equity derivatives. By the first half of 2002, the same survey shows about $82.7trn notional value in interest rate derivatives, some $1.5trn in credit default swaps, and $2.3trn in equity derivatives. It is a very different picture these days. In the latest survey for the first half of 2004, interest rate derivatives stands at $164.5trn notional value, credit default swaps were at $5.4trn and equity derivatives at $3.8trn outstanding.

As the market for these instruments has exploded in the past few years, there has been an increasing need to develop an electronic, automated system for matching and confirmation. Prior to the advent of automated confirmation systems, it averaged over four weeks to confirm a credit default swap – a situation that was absolutely incompatible with the explosive market growth we have recently seen. With the advent of master confirmations for credit default swaps, which standardised most terms of any contract, buyers and sellers could complete legally binding credit default swaps on short-form transaction supplements by agreeing to as little as 20 or so elements of transaction data. That made automated matching and confirmation of trades in these instruments feasible.

Recently, ISDA has also established master confirmation agreements for equity options and variance swaps, with master confirmation agreements for equity swaps nearing completion as well. Automated matching of trades in these products can be expected to increase as master confirmations are adopted by ever-expanding groups of industry participants.

Although there are no master confirmations for interest rate derivatives, industry practice has given rise to generally accepted “intelligent default” values for most of the items to be specified in the standard ISDA confirmations for these products. [Intelligent defaults are values that are not fixed for all contracts, but rather are fixed depending upon values of basic business terms.] The existence of these sorts of standard industry practices has facilitated the automated confirmation and matching of interest rate derivatives as well.

Addressing Industry Concerns

Recognising the need for automation, ISDA, in a report issued late in 2003, set an aggressive timetable for automating the OTC derivatives marketplace, calling for the automated matching and confirmation of most derivatives trading by the end of 2005, and the related cash flow payments reconciliation and netting by 2006.

Fortunately, the industry had already begun responding with solutions before the report was issued, and it appears that there will be service offerings available to permit the ISDA goals to be met. While different solution providers have taken different approaches to automation, the key goals are the same: to provide ways for firms to match and confirm trades through the use of real-time systems, and if there are mismatches, to find quick and easy ways to correct those mismatches, while providing firms with the maximum transparency throughout the confirmation process.

A key way to achieve this is to provide a way that both counterparties are required to submit their transaction details for matching.

One of the major advantages of having a two-sided automated matching process is that it allows individual firms to operate in a very high control, post-trade environment. The automated flow of information, beginning with trade capture and flowing directly through to a central matching utility, will eliminate the risk that a market participant can legally confirm a trade that does not comport their understanding as recorded at the time of trade. This sort of automated trade matching not only reduces risk by reducing the time to confirmation, but also reduces error by virtually eliminating mistaken confirmation.

However, any automation, even using a one-sided submission and affirmation by the contra-party, provides a much more rapid review and correction of the confirm process than paper-based manual systems. As noted above, such paper-based confirms could literally take weeks to complete – a huge risk, given the size and complexity of some of these transactions.

Using automated real-time matching systems, firms can quickly and efficiently match and confirm OTC derivatives by having both parties to the contract input details about the transaction to a service provider. In turn, the service provider, at a minimum, identifies any unmatched entries and automatically notifies both parties of the mismatches. Some systems can even suggest the best possible matches for the mismatches.

This has helped to spur a wave of new services by a host of different organisations, each initially focused on offering a confirmation service for a different OTC derivative, although many of these services are now being broadened to include a wide range of OTC derivative transactions. The leading providers of these automated confirmation services are DTCC, SwapsWire and SWIFT, but there are others. Some also offer cash flow reconciliation or settlement systems as well.

These services have only come into widespread use over the last year or so (despite some having been available for much longer). Nonetheless, they have already significantly improved the confirmation and back office operations of major market participants. Nowhere has the improvement been more dramatic than in the credit default swaps area, where, prior to the advent of automated confirmation of these transactions, the average time to confirmation among major dealers exceeded four weeks.

While these services can and are helping, the biggest problem may be getting firms to use them, giving up their manual ways. And much of the required automation that must take place is within the firms who trade in these instruments. Increasingly, a number of vendors are beginning to develop and offer off-the-shelf middleware that provides the control and monitoring necessary, and connect to automated matching services, but for many firms, the software development is something that must still be undertaken in-house.

One of the accommodations that some central confirmation utilities have made to increase the level of automation and confirmation is to provide a way for firms, especially buy-side firms such as hedge funds that may be small or be limited in the level of automation they have available, to connect to the service using the Internet and a browser over a secure connection.

The most rudimentary use of a browser connection is to permit firms to review and affirm on-line trades submitted to an automated confirmation facility by their counterparties. More importantly, however, some providers have adapted the browser connection to allow lower volume firms to obtain most of the benefits of two-sided trade matching without making very expensive technology investments. They do this by permitting the safe and secure upload of a properly formatted spreadsheet containing all of the transaction data necessary to perform matching. Such uploaded spreadsheet data is then processed through the matching system, with results able to be reviewed in real-time.

In its most rudimentary form, use of such browser-based connections essentially means there is no requirement for programming internally in order to use these automated confirmation services. A connection can be completed even via low-cost dial-up Internet service. In the case of DTCC’s OTC derivatives matching service, while virtually all of the 20 major dealers who use the matching and confirmation service use a mainframe-to-mainframe connection, the 40 or so (as of mid-January) hedge funds and other buy-side firms use a mix of mainframe-to-mainframe, spreadsheet uploads and affirmation of trades using the individual browser fields.

As the trading in OTC derivatives grows, these automated matching and confirmation services can provide the essential connectivity between trading parties that, with standardisation approved by the ISDA, such as FpML, will make it far easier to match, confirm and make payments on a global basis for these complex, but increasingly essential instruments. Firms themselves will have to decide what level of automation they need to monitor and control the use of these derivatives in their businesses, but that need will surely grow in the future as well, because these instruments have significant risk connected to them as an inherent part of their nature.

By automating the infrastructure, these new services have the potential to spur greater productivity, greatly reduce and manage both operating and credit risk and increase trading volumes in an increasingly important arena set for greater expansion.

Tweets by @DataLend

DataLend is a global securities finance market data provider covering 42,000+ unique securities globally with a total on-loan value of more than $1.8 trillion.

What do our tweets mean? See: http://bit.ly/18YlGjP