GREENWICH ASSOCIATES NEW REPORT EXTOLS THE VIRTUE OF OPTIMISATION.
Banks and their customers could reduce risk, save billions of dollars and improve investment returns by optimising their portfolios in the newly reformed interest rate derivatives market – all while reducing the risk in the system, according a new report from Greenwich Associates – Derivatives Clearing: The Next Chapter from Greenwich Associates.
The report concludes that the global derivatives market has successfully navigated the transition to the new clearing framework established by regulators in the wake of the global financial crisis, and is thriving today “because of, not in spite of, a slew of post-crisis legislation and regulation put in place over the past decade.”
It notes that reducing the amount of capital required to back derivatives trading is the key to higher profitability for banks and lower costs for investors. While on the surface this sounds like a systemically risky proposition, banks and their derivative customers should better optimise their swaps and futures holdings across clearinghouses. This would not only sharpen their risk management processes but also in a default scenario, the overall risk in the system would justify reducing the amount of capital required.
“Optimising a single dealer’s $10tn notional cleared derivatives portfolio could generate a reduction in capital requirements of $11.4bn dollars,” says Kevin McPartland, Head of Market Structure and Technology Research at Greenwich Associates, and author of the new report. “Apply that estimate across the top 10 derivatives dealers in the world, and the benefits become impressively clear.”
McPartland also believes that changing the rules set into motion by Basel III to exclude client margin from leverage ratio calculations could also be quite positive, reducing the amount of capital the largest clearing banks need to hold by roughly $20bn. “That money can then be used to bring on new clients, reduce clearing fees for existing customers or both,” he adds. “The change would also have a beneficial impact on swap dealers’ ability to provide liquidity to customers, making it more economical to hold positions and freeing up capital to facilitate additional client trades.”
Moreover, the report points out that regulatory action, while not required, could also boost savings and reduce risk in the interest rate derivatives market. Every $100m reduction in initial margin would result in a $30m reduction in bank capital requirements and a $400,000 reduction in fees to investors.
“Although regulators are increasingly likely to push through positive changes to capital rules, market participants are not and should not count on them to move their businesses forward,” concludes Kevin McPartland. “Dealers must continue to optimise their portfolios to gain access to the billions of dollars in capital savings available under the new market structure.”
©BestExecution 2017
[divider_to_top]
Dmitri Galinov, CEO of FastMatch, explained the FX tape is a “significant stepping stone to building a more transparent market globally while providing a way for market participants to monetise their trade data”.
The FIX Trading Community established a number of MiFID Working Groups in May 2015. With just a few months of the year remaining, Tim Healy, Global Marketing and Communications Director, provides an update on FIX’s MiFID II initiative.
Deep liquidity and technology are now vital for clients especially those executing large clips in different market sessions, says Nedal A. Hadi, Head of Institutional Sales at ADS Securities.
“The common denominator across all regulations is data,” says Mithun Sridharan, manager at Sapient Consulting. “Investment banking is rich in data, which is increasingly viewed as a strategic asset that can be leveraged to provide better trading, risk management and customer experiences.”
Sridharan agrees that the first steps in GDPR should be to identify data assets and determine which are considered personal data. This typically comes as a part of a data governance project. The next step is for firms to design and implement processes for correctly handling that data, including all protective measures to prevent breaches. The standard approach is to establish a baseline of what is considered normal behaviour and then set protective measures to initially alert on abnormal behaviour or breaches.
Tom Cole, director, Europe at IT company Abacus Group, says firms should realise that becoming GDPR-compliant will entail “recognising it as a business initiative rather than a technology initiative or IT project”. They should identify data and workflows and ensure a culture of compliance is on-going behind the scenes. “There is no silver bullet or software solution you can implement – it will instead mostly entail analysing your internal operational processes,” he says.
Jerry Norton, head of strategy for CGI’s UK financial services business, says the differences in storage requirements between MiFID II and GDPR are not a major source of conflict, but will require some ‘heavyweight’ work to comply. “Firms will have to ensure that the data they hold for MiFID II best execution purposes is stored in a way that is secure and meets GDPR obligations. For many organisations that won’t be easy. There are a lot of obligations in terms of costs, processes, procedures, and compliance.”
Andrew Rogoyski, vice-president cyber security services, CGI UK, says one area that organisations are not putting enough thought into is the ability to declare a breach to the national authority within the 72-hour breach disclosure time limit. “In practice, you need a pretty slick set of processes and a good team in place to achieve the three-day target,” he says.
Like winter, Brexit is coming. Eighteen months is not a long time in the world of financial markets; industry participants can barely implement a new piece of European regulation in that timeframe, let alone successfully execute their unmooring from the single market.
With increasingly complex and intrusive policies spread across multiple jurisdictions, and regulators requesting large amounts of granular data for monitoring and transparency purposes, major financial institutions are struggling to comply with the requirements. One response and key ingredient in moving forward is the standardisation of process, data and even technology.
More worryingly, misaligned interpretations across several layers of regulatory obligations ultimately lead to a reduction in the quality of data for systematic risk monitoring purposes, negating the fundamental intent behind the rules. In their paper titled “Revision of the European Market Infrastructure” the European Systematic Risk Board (ESRB) acknowledges the considerable obstacles in generating high quality data which, “can only be ensured if a fully-fledged and functional data quality framework is put in place along the whole chain of data collection” (ESRB, 2017).
