Tag Archive for: derivatives

Term sheets – glossary of terms

| 15-03-2018 | treasuryXL |

Whenever entering into transactions with banks, both parties need to know and understand what they are trading. A relatively simple transaction like a FX spot has few terms – you buy one currency against selling another currency at an agreed rate and an agreed settlement date. The only other major factor relates to where the settlement has to take place – on what bank account are you receiving and to what bank account do you have to pay the counter currency.

However, when entering into a loan or derivative it is always prudent to draw up a term sheet stating all the relevant criteria to enable the bank to quote a price. Once the trade is effected, then a confirmation is sent which should have the same terms and conditions as the term sheet. Here is a list of terms that are regularly used and their meaning. They mostly apply to physical products as well as to derivatives.

American Option – an option that can be exercised on any working day until the expiration date

Bermudan Option – an option that can be exercised on more than one specified date before the expiration date

European Option – an option that can only be exercised on the expiration date

Binary Option – an option whose payoff is either an agreed amount (monetary or asset) or nothing at all

Call Option – The right, but not the obligation, to purchase a specified underlying asset, at a specified price (Strike price) on a specified date in the future

Put Option – The right, but not the obligation, to sell a specified underlying asset, at a specified price (Strike price) on a specified date in the future

Cap – an option that pays out when a specified interest rate price exceeds a pre-agreed level (Strike price)

Floor – an option that pays out when a specified interest rate price falls below a pre-agreed level (Strike price)

Collar – the simultaneous purchase of a Cap and sale of a Floor on the same specified interest rate for the same nominal amount, protecting the purchaser from rate rises whilst negating the cost of the option by selling the Floor

Strike price – the price (level) at which an option holder can exercise their rights under the agreed option

Premium – the cost of buying an option

Trade date – the date when the specifications of a contract are transacted

Effective date – the start date of a contract

Termination date – the end date of a contract

Payment date – the date on which a payment is made

Fixing date – the date on which a floating rate is set/fixed

Forward start – a contract agreed on a trade date, that becomes effective on a specified future date

Tenor – the length of time that a contract is valid

Reference rate – the specified interest rate (or FX spot)  index upon which future cash flows are based

Fixed rate – an agreed interest rate that cannot vary over the lifetime of the contract

Float rate – an agreed index rate that can be periodically reset over the lifetime of the contract

Derivative – a financial instrument that derives its value from the value of an underlying asset

Break clause – a clause written into the contract, that releases both parties from the contract in the event of a pre-agreed relevant event taking place

If you are interested to know what the effect of these terms can have on a contract, please contact us for more detailed information.

Hoe banken hun ondernemersrisico uitbesteden.

| 14-03-2018 | Frank Wijn |

 

Als oud-bankier ben ik vanaf 2008 bezig om mooie ondernemingen bij te staan in hun contacten met de bank, hen uit te leggen wat bankafspraken daadwerkelijk inhouden, bezig om ondernemers te behoeden voor “foute afspraken” en hun bankafspraken (waaronder financieringen) te optimaliseren.

 

 

Mijn werkwijze is simpel en doeltreffend. Alle afspraken met de bank worden gescreend en de teksten of afspraken die voor mij verrassend of onbegrijpelijk zijn, worden geel gearceerd. Zo kreeg ik mijn eerste derivatencontract onder ogen in het voorjaar van 2012. Het hele contract werd geel gearceerd. Ik begreep werkelijk niet waarom deze MKB-onderneming een cap met een knock-in-floor had gekocht ter afdekking van zijn renterisico. Niet veel later bleek dat zowel de klant, als de accountmanager van de bank het mij ook niet uitgelegd kregen. Mijn interesse was gewekt en het speurwerk begonnen. Dit was de opstap naar het mede-oprichten van Kennis Centrum Rentederivaten.

In de jaren 2012 en 2013 was ik vooral roepende in de woestijn, totdat ik mijn opgedane kennis en verbazing op liet tekenen door een journalist van Follow The Money. Het 2 pagina tellende artikel werd verkocht aan de Volkskrant en de deksel van de beerput kwam enigszins los.

In 2014 zag het tijdelijke samenwerkingsverband KCR het daglicht en in die samenstelling trokken wij door het land. Langs Nederlandse Vereniging van Banken, hoofddirectie van grootbanken, Autoriteit Financiële Markten, journalisten van dagbladen en de laatste 2 jaar ook de Derivatencommissie. Ondernemersverenigingen als MKB Nederland (en later ONL) gaven niet thuis. Te complex en te vervelend voor de banken.

Nu, vier jaar later, is het Uniform Herstel Rentederivaten (een broertje van Deltaplan KCR) in ontwikkeling. Voor een te kleine doelgroep, met teveel invloeden van de banken en te complex voor MKB-ondernemers om te begrijpen. Het niet-begrepen derivatencontract was destijds 6 pagina’s en de “oplossing” inmiddels 244 pagina’s. Maar goed er wordt wat gecompenseerd, dus beter dan niets.

Brengt mij bij de verbazing van vandaag de dag. Dat rentederivaten en niet-professionele / niet-deskundige klanten een moeilijk houdbare combinatie is, lijkt steeds duidelijker. Maar nu kwam ik zeer recent een staaltje renterisicomanagement van de bank zélf tegen. De ABN Amro Bank om precies te zijn. Hoe gaat deze bank om met het renterisico dat zijzelf zegt te lopen?

Lees en verbaas u. Let op hun woordkeuze “interpretatie van”. Tegen zo’n tekstblok in een financieringsofferte is geen derivatenproduct opgewassen.

“Klant centraal” was het toch?

frankwijnfoto1

 

Frank Wijn

Expert in financiële duidelijkheid 

 

How to fix a problem like “IBOR”

| 22-01-2018 | treasuryXL |

In the last year both the ECB in regard of EURIBOR and the FCA in London in regard of LIBOR have come to the same conclusion – the fixing of interest rate indices can not carry on in their present form. The current benchmarks are tainted by allegations of fraud and malpractice. Furthermore, the way that the rates are determined are also criticized – no actual transactions take place at the fixing price when the fix is made daily. But the big problem is that these fixings are intrinsically linked to financial contracts with values measured in 100 of trillions of EUR, USD, GBP etc.

The underlying financial products are not just derivatives – IBOR’s are also used to price floating rate loans, mortgages etc. The major problem beyond the fraud aspect is that the rates are supposed to express the interbank floating rates for various tenors. But with liquidity being very sparse in the interbank market, and the rates only being voluntary expert judgement of actual trading rates, do the rates truly reflect the cost of borrowing? ECB expects to replace EURIBOR by 2020 and the FCA to replace LIBOR by 2021. But what products can be used to replace IBOR?

Initially it appears that secured overnight rates could be the answer. Trades are reported to the relevant authorities and the transactions are based on secured lending. However, the tenor does not complement the existing fixings and financial products. A traditional EUR interest rate swap consists of an annual fixed coupon against floating 6-month coupons. Using an overnight fixing means that you would not know the 6-month floating rate until the end of the 6-month period.

To get around this problem a market could be used for existing basis spread products. As stated an overnight rate relates to secure, risk free transactions whereas IBOR relate to unsecure transactions. This means that with IBOR credit risk is built into the price. Certain additional products could be used to take an overnight rate fix to a 6-month fix – namely basis swaps. But who would supply the prices for basis swaps – the same banks who have been accused of fraud in the current IBOR process.

Another alternative is constructing the fixing from repo transaction with different tenors. But repo’s are sensitive to the credit risk of the collateral issuer. This means trading on the basis of Specials – clearly defined and named collateral issuers. With all the QE that is taking place there is an alarming shortage of high-quality government back paper that is in the free market that the very scarcity would lead to irregular pricing.

So whilst authorities have clearly stated that interest rate fixings can not carry on in their present form, they have yet to offer a valid alternative. In the meantime, contracts measured in 100 of trillions will need to be adjusted for the new method for fixings. The only people who will welcome these changes are the legal profession who get to redesign “all” the existing contracts.

Lionel PaveyLionel Pavey – Cash Management and Treasury Specialist

[button url=”https://www.treasuryxl.com/community/experts/lionel-pavey/” text=”View expert profile” size=”small” type=”primary” icon=”” external=”1″]

[separator type=”” size=”” icon=””]

 

Gebrek aan voortgang in Voortgangsrapportage Rentederivaten MKB

| 13-12-2017 | Simon Knappstein |

De voortgangsrapportage van AFM die op 8 december 2017 gepubliceerd werd, bevat vooral oud nieuws. Er is verdere vertraging en zelfs de nieuwe door de banken afgegeven planningen zijn onzeker. Wat dat betreft had de AFM het passender “gebrek-aan-voortgangsrapportage” kunnen noemen. Het beeld wat blijft hangen na het lezen van deze rapportage is dat de AFM er zich bij neerlegt dat het nog wel eens erg lang kan gaan duren voordat dit dossier afgerond is.

De AFM noemt als reden voor de vertraging “Problemen met automatisering en data. De kwaliteit van de historische data van banken is niet in alle gevallen voldoende om efficiënt de compensatie op grond van het UHK te kunnen berekenen en controleren. Verder geldt dat de rentederivatendossiers van klanten zeer verschillend zijn en vaak bijzonder complex en dat heeft gevolgen gehad voor (de praktische uitwerking van) het UHK. Mede door deze knelpunten blijkt de uitvoering van het UHK in de praktijk complexer dan de banken, de externe dossierbeoordelaars en de AFM hadden voorzien. Dit betekent ook dat de door banken afgegeven planningen onzeker zijn.” Verder staat er: “Zo zijn bijvoorbeeld de derivaten- en lening-systemen veelal niet structureel gekoppeld en is een handmatig proces ingezet om de derivaten aan de juiste leningen te koppelen.” Dat die systemen niet gekoppeld zijn mag geen verrassing zijn voor de banken. Dus waarom dat op dit moment als oorzaak genoemd wordt mag eerder als verrassing gekwalificeerd worden.

De vraag die dit oproept is waarom de banken überhaupt hebben geprobeerd de oplossing te automatiseren.  Mijn beste gok is dat er in een eerder stadium ingeschat is dat op de bulk van de dossiers slechts alleen stap 3 (de coulance-uitkering) van toepassing zou zijn.  Het zal dan een dure misrekening zijn geweest als blijkt dat het leeuwendeel van de dossiers toch een handmatige benadering vereist. In dat geval is er een hoop geld en tijd verloren gegaan wat niet meer goed gemaakt gaat worden.
In de huidige planning, die dus onzeker is, zijn er 2 banken die verwachten eind 2017 alle aanbodbrieven te zullen hebben verstuurd, 1 bank die rekent met medio 2018 en 3 die mikken op eind 2018. Het zou nog inzichtelijker zijn als daarbij ook vermeld stond om hoeveel klanten het dan gaat per bank.
Een volgende rapportage van de AFM wordt in de zomer van 2018 verwacht. Zoals het er nu uitziet zou het al heel mooi zijn als de einddatum dan niet weer vooruitgeschoven wordt.

De AFM zegt ook in de komende periode kritisch toezicht te blijven houden op zowel de banken als de externe dossierbeoordelaars.

Simon Knappstein - editor treasuryXL

Simon Knappstein

Owner of FX Prospect

 

 

 

Lees ook: Uniform herstelkader rentederivaten mkb

Derivatendossier sleept zich voort

| 09-10-2017 | Simon Knappstein |

Eind deze maand stuurt de AFM weer een voortgangsrapportage inzake de uitvoering van het Uniform Herstelkader Rentederivaten naar de Tweede Kamer. Volgens berichtgeving vorige week in het FD zal daar in staan dat de banken vrijwel geen voortgang geboekt hebben. Het blijkt dat “van de bijna 20.000 gedupeerde MKB’ers er slechts een handjevol een schadevergoeding heeft gekregen en pas enkele tientallen een voorstel voor schadevergoeding[1]”

Bij de publicatie van het Herstelkader in december vorig jaar werd er door de minister nog van uitgegaan dat de compensatieregeling per 1 juli jl. voor alle klanten zou zijn afgerond. De kans dat de banken daar überhaupt voor het einde van dit jaar nog in slagen lijkt ondertussen zeer klein.
Belangrijkste redenen die genoemd worden voor deze vertraging zijn, ondanks alle goede bedoelingen en hard werken, 1) dat toepassing van het Herstelkader zeer complex blijkt te zijn, en 2) dat banken, externe dossierbeoordelaars en de AFM elkaar nu, om maar geen fouten te maken, ‘gevangen’ houden.
Door de goedbedoelde pogingen om het kader, de uitvoering ervan en de controle er op helemaal dicht te timmeren is er een ‘over-engineering’ ontstaan die verlammend werkt op de voortgang. Terwijl als er een zekere variatie en onzekerheid in de uitkomst per dossier voor lief zou worden genomen dan zouden 150 man met gemiddeld 10 uur per dossier die 20.000 dossiers in 8 maanden hebben weggewerkt. Mijn ervaring is dat, hoewel toepassen van het herstelkader inderdaad complex is en ook  de documentatie niet altijd direct compleet aanwezig is, het bepalen van de schadevergoeding toch heel goed te doen is.  Helaas is er nu driekwart jaar voorbij en lijkt het proces geheel vastgelopen te zijn.

Die over-engineering is iets wat ook door Patrick van Gerwen, die met zijn bedrijf Cadension ondernemers bijstaat in de relatie met hun bank, is vastgesteld. Hij pleit ervoor dat de minister van Financiën weer ingrijpt, en wel snel, om dit dossier vlot te trekken. Want de klanten wachten al sinds 2012 op de oplossing van dit probleem.
Als de voortgangsrapportage van de AFM eind deze maand naar de Tweede Kamer gaat zal er wellicht net een kabinetswisseling hebben plaatsgevonden. De nieuwe minister van Financiën kan dan direct aan de slag met dit dossier.

[1] Uit ‘Schadeherstel in derivatendossier loopt zoveelste vertraging op’ door Wouter Keuning in FD van 2 oktober jl.

Simon Knappstein - editor treasuryXL

 

 

Simon Knappstein

Owner of FX Prospect

 

 

Lees ook: Uniform herstelkader rentederivaten mkb

Roadmap for unwinding derivatives

| 14-7-2017 | Roger Boxman |

Banks offer proposals to smaller companies and housing associations to unwind interest rate swaps. The benefit for the banks is that this will reduce their risk weighted assets. Whether this offer is attractive or not depends on several issues.

A short-list of advantages of unwinding to keep in mind is found below:

  • The advantage of skipping break clauses and uncertain margin call events and therefore a reduction of liquidity risk.
  • Creating a potential current tax loss on the unwinding fee which can be possibly offset in the near future.
  • Opportunity to restructure the funding structure and refinance against lower interest rates.
  • Optimise the redemption schedule and therefore to create lower interest rate risk in the loan portfolio.
  • Reduce costs of monitoring and supervision.
  • No hedge accounting issues with unexpected profit and loss accounting in combination with latent taxes.

Off course the decision to unwind or not depends highly on the amount of the fee and the specific expectations of the organisation. No situation will be the same, an exact blueprint simply does not exist. In a substantial number of situations, the ‘do nothing option’ will be the best.

Roger Boxman

Senior Advisor Internal Control

Decentralised data capture, centralised data analysis: a case study

| 10-7-2017 | Hubert Rappold | TIPCO Treasury Technology GmbH | Sponsored content |

From now on, Faber-Castell will be organising its cash flow forecasting, accounts and derivatives with TIP. Regardless of where in the world, TIP allows the many subsidiaries of the multi-national to forecast and plan without major time inputs. Data capturing is decentralised while data analysis is centralised.

Case study

Groups with international subsidiaries need to regularly request all financial data from their subsidiaries spread around the world. This requires a lot of time and robust review procedures. Our web-based treasury information platform, TIP, allows the decentralised input of these data, irrespective of the various source systems, and their automatic reporting to Group Treasury. On behalf of the well-known family-owned company Faber-Castell, we recently implemented a solution which allows this stationery manufacturer to access and plan its group-wide data, ranging from its financial status and cash flow forecasting to its derivative management. Find out more about the implementation and how Quick Guides helped Faber-Castell subsidiaries to get started with the new system in their case study.

TIPCO Treasury Technology

TIPCO provides treasury reporting and cashflow forecasting solutions for over 120 companies. TIP automatically compiles existing data from various systems (TMS, ERP, etc.) and prepares analyses of these. This avoids the need to capture data manually, which is one of the most common causes of inaccurate data. Huge data volumes can be processed within seconds and reports can be set up and managed flexibly, even if the company’s requirements change. A smart cashflow forecasting module utilises that data and allows modification and simulation of forecasts.

You can read more about their case study by clicking on this link.

If you want to find out more about TIPCO and their services and products please refer to their company profile on treasuryXL.

Hubert Rappold – CEO at TIPCO Treasury & Technology GmbH

[button url=”https://www.treasuryxl.com/community/experts/hubert-rappold/” text=”View expert profile” size=”small” type=”primary” icon=”” external=”1″]

[separator type=”” size=”” icon=””]

 

18.000 bankaanbiedingen… and counting…up and down!

| 4-7-2017 | Rob Bekker |

 

Op 30 juni j.l. publiceerde de Autoriteit Financiële Markten  (AFM) haar voortgangsrapportage inzake het Uniform herstelkader rentederivaten MKB (‘UHK’). De teller voor het aantal MKB-klanten dat valt binnen het toepassingsgebied staat op 18.000. Hiervan is het leeuwendeel klant van Rabobank of ABN AMRO. Dit aantal zal nog oplopen, immers nog niet alle dossiers zijn beoordeeld. Wat dat betreft kan de teller nog oplopen.

 

 

Wat de countdown betreft…Het door de banken versturen van bankaanbiedingen ter compensatie gaat opnieuw langer duren dan oorspronkelijk aangegeven. ING, Van Lanschot, de Volksbank en Deutsche Bank geven nu aan alle betreffende MKB klanten vóór jaareinde een bankaanbod te kunnen doen. Voor Rabobank en ABN AMRO zal dit doorlopen tot in 2018. Voor de groep kwetsbare klanten geldt dat deze, conform het UHK, met voorrang wordt behandeld. Naar verwachting kan deze groep in september dit jaar een aanbodbrief tegemoet zien met in elk geval een voorschot op de coulancevergoeding. Dit voorschot zou dan minimaal 80% van de coulancevergoeding betreffen, ofwel van stap 3 in het UHK. Deze stap lijkt ’t meest eenvoudig te berekenen en sowieso gemaximeerd op EUR 100.000,-, maar is ook afhankelijk van stap 1 en 2. Toch in elk geval een stap(je) vooruit.

Dat de herbeoordeling dus geen eenvoudige rekensom betreft moge opnieuw duidelijk zijn. Kennis en inzicht vanuit de treasury discipline zijn hierbij onontbeerlijk, zelfs met een leidraad als het UHK. De AFM geeft aan dat de banken in hun aanbodbrieven de MKB klanten zullen adviseren het bankaanbod zorgvuldig te beoordelen en zo nodig daar een adviseur voor in te schakelen (voor eigen kosten, dat dan weer wel). Het simpele feit dat het de banken zelf kennelijk al veel moeite kost om een en ander te herbeoordelen doet veronderstellen dat dat in elk geval een goed advies lijkt.

Ondertussen gaat de countdown verder !

 

Rob Bekker

Associate Partner at Treasury-linQ”

 

 

 

Meer artikelen van deze auteur:

Rentederivaten in de ban…of toch niet?!

Herstelkader rentevaste MKB leningen?

How to get a fair deal on your derivatives trades

| 15-6-2017 | Simon Knappstein | treasuryXL

 

We discovered the article ‘Are you getting a fair deal on your derivatives trades” on treasurytoday. In the article derivatives are described as a good tool to mitigate risk and protect the company’s financials from moves in the market. However, derivatives come at a cost and often these costs are also hidden, which means that the  treasurer cannot be sure that he is getting a fair deal.

 

Price of the deal

Greater transparency is needed and  that was the reason why company NEXTrioptima developed its triCalculate solution. When treasurers execute a deal with a bank they typically cannot see how the price of the deal is calculated and what the bank is charging them for credit risk.The tool triCalculate tries to change this by taking the corporate’s derivatives trade file, a credit curve file and a credit support annex (CSA) file (where one exists) and running these through a series of highly complex mathematical simulations. The result: an accurate XVA calculation that enables corporates to quickly identify and price the impact of a counterparty default and the cost of funding a derivative portfolio. This is the first Software as a Service (SAAS) on the market. The tool does not only provide  companies with  greater transparency over their current derivative portfolio, but also offers the chance to plan new deals much better.

We asked our expert Simon Knappstein if this tool is really worth the while.

All the capital a derivative trade consumes, or is expected to consume, over its lifetime is  increasingly incorporated in the price of a trade. CVA, a valuation adjustment for counterparty credit risk was initially the major adjustment, soon to be followed by FVA (funding value adjustment) and many related adjustments that go under the umbrella name XVA. Properly calculating these adjustments for every trade on a portfolio basis is difficult and time consuming. So the new product offering TriCalculate by NEX TriOptima looks like a promising tool for corporate treasurers to help them gain insight in the pricing process of derivatives offered by their bank. By the way, being able to calculate a fair value on a potential trade does not guarantee you a fair deal, but it will certainly help.

Simon Knappstein - editor treasuryXL

 

Simon Knappstein

Owner of FX Prospect

 

 

 

More articles of this author:

FX global code of conduct

Negatieve interest rate policy: No lasting effect on FX

 

Blockchain: Securities market infrastructure players in the contra-attack

| 7-4-2017 | Carlo de Meijer |

 

Blockchain technology has long been viewed as a threat to CSDs (Central Securities Depositories) and their role as intermediaries for securities transactions. Blockchain and distributed ledger technology may make the role of many intermediaries in the post trade market infrastructure obsolete. In one of my blogs (Blockchain and the securities industry: future eco-system) I was one of those who think that players such as custodians, CCPs, CSDs and others would disappear when blockchain would be used in a massive way.


“It however is not expected that there will be a complete disintermediation of service providers. While the role of custodians would greatly disappear and those of clearinghouses and CSDs will drastically change in a blockchain environment, the rest of the value chain in the securities industry may remain largely intact. The functions associated with tracking, reconciling, and auditing enormous amounts of data are not going to be disintermediated away. They have to continue to exist, but just need to be done more efficiently, at lower cost and with fewer errors”- Carlo R.W. de Meijer

But these players are going in the contra-attack. 15 CSDs from developing and emerging markets, including Strate and NSD, have agreed to form a consortium to explore blockchain and DLT technology in a post-trading environment. The partners say that“financial market infrastructures need to embrace the technology and identify opportunities that will add value to their current clients”.

Let’s look what they are all doing.

CSDs aim to build distributed ledger for mobilising scarce collateral (January 2017)

A coalition of four central securities depositories are collaborating with Deutsche Börse on an initiative to use blockchain technology to ease cross-border mobilisation of security collateral. The members of the so-called “Liquidity Alliance” include The Canadian Depository for Securities Limited (CDS), Clearstream (Luxembourg), Strate (South Africa) and VPS (Norway). Via this initiative they want to overcome existing hurdles when moving collateral across various jurisdictions, making the transfer faster and more efficient. The Alliance’s ‘LA Ledger’ will initially be implemented as a prototype based on the Hyperledger Fabric. Validation by regulatory authorities and market participants will start in the second quarter of 2017.

DTCC taps blockchain to rebuild its platform (January 2017)

The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC), a US post-trade provider, has announced plans to use blockchain technology in 2017 to rebuild its platform. It aims to create a credit derivatives post-trade lifecycle solution built using a distributed ledger platform. Blockchain can simplify the process by automatically maintaining a shared electronic record of the security which is visible to all relevant parties.  This new DTCC’s platform – Trade Information Ware house – will keep track of the security throughout the lifecycle of the associated bond.

IBM, Axoni, and R3 CEV, two technology startups have been selected to work on the project which is set to kick-off in January 2017. DTCC expects the new blockchain-enabled Trade Information Warehouse to go live in early 2018. Furthermore, the project has been developed with input from market participants and infrastructure providers including Barclays, Citigroup, Credit Suisse Group, Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan Chase, UBS Group, Wells Fargo, IHS Markit and Intercontinental Exchange, DTCC said.

SWIFT creates blockchain application to simplify cross-border payments (January 2017)

SWIFT has begun building a blockchain application to simplify cross-border payments. The global platform is integrating open-source blockchain technology with its own products to build a proof-of-concept that might “one day” replace the so-called “nostro” accounts its members keep filled with cash all over the world – just in case they need it. A successful test of distributed ledger technology (DLT) could enable banks to optimize their liquidity globally and SWIFT to reduce the costs of reconciliation between independent databases maintained by the inter-bank platform’s members, reduce operational costs and free up liquidity for other investments.

Euroclear pencils in 2017 for bullion on blockchain roll out (December 2016)

Euroclear, the securities market depository, is set for a 2017 go-live for the application of blockchain technology in the London bullion market after completing its first pilot trades. Over 600 OTC test bullion trades were settled on the Euroclear Bankchain platform over the course of a two-week pilot. A number of leading market participants in the London bullion market – all part of the Euroclear Market Advisory Group – were involved in the test run, including Scotiabank, Société Générale, Citi, MKS PAMP Group and INTL FCStone. The Euroclear Bankchain Market Advisory Group set up in June this year now includes 17 participants working with Euroclear and blockchain platform provider Paxos in the roll-out of the new service. Another market simulation will run early this year in preparation for a production launch later in 2017.

Euroclear report: “CSDs matter in blockchain settlement system” (December 2016)

A new report by Euroclear has looked at the regulatory and legal aspects of the use of blockchain technology in post-trade settlement in a European context. The report, Blockchain Settlement: Regulation, Innovation, and Application, with support from Slaughter and May, found that central securities depositories (CSDs) would play an important role in a blockchain-based settlement system. It added that as ‘custodians of the code,’ CSDs could exercise oversight of, and take responsibility for, the operation of the relevant blockchain protocol and any associated smart contracts. CSDs will continue to perform an important role as trusted, centralised FMIs, providing gatekeeping services and oversight of the relevant blockchain. While the Euroclear report states that CSDs are trusted central entities that facilitate the settlement process, it is believed that the distributed ledger technology system would be a natural evolution of this facilitation role.

SWIFT deploys PoC for bond trading based on blockchain (November 2016)

SWIFT has unveiled a proof-of-concept for managing the entire lifecycle of a bond trade based on blockchain technology. SWIFT, that has been targeted in the press as “a legacy incumbent that will be doomed by DLT”, is determined not to be left behind “in the wake of the revolution that is unfolding in the finance world” with the adoption of blockchain or Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT). SWIFT believes “it can leverage its unique set of capabilities to deliver a distinctive DLT platform offer for the community.”

At the beginning of 2016 SWIFT and Accenture released a paper investigating how blockchain technology could be used in financial services. As a technology assessment, SWIFT and Accenture identified gaps between existing DLT solutions and industry requirements.

SA Strate to launch block chain based e-proxy voting in 2017 (October 2016)

Strate, South Africa’s central securities depository (CSD), plans to launch an e-proxy voting system based on blockchain technology in 2017. The body, responsible for clearing and settling all transactions that take place on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE), has partnered with Russia’s National Settlement Depository (NSD) to develop and test systems aimed at simplifying shareholder voting. Both CSDs plan to launch the e-proxy voting system in 2017, as such they are looking to partner with an international service provider whose product is around 70% to 80% complete. In South Africa, the planned e-proxy voting system will be rolled out on a client-by-client basis, with an eventual goal to have the entire market take up the system.

The decision to partner with NSD, taken at the Sibos Conference in Geneva last year, is rooted in the fact that both CSDs have conducted independent proof of concept studies and are at a similar stage in understanding and developing an appropriate voting solution. The NSD was also one of the first financial organisations in the world to announce the development of a blockchain-based prototype for e-proxy voting. Strate and NSD will share information regarding standards, regulations and DLT technologies; explore mutually beneficial ideas; and look to make savings through the sharing of technology and development costs. They are claiming that several other CSDs have expressed interest in joining them.

Innovation in CSD space session at SIBOS: “ a slow burn for CSDs” (September2016)

During the “Innovation in CSD space: What about distributed ledger technology?” session at SIBOS, some panellists argued that the technology would “hail the end of CSDs” while others said there would be no revolution, just a “natural evolution” of what exists.

The message from the CSDs was that they are “open to innovation with blockchain, but will test it out in safe places first”.   

WFE Survey “Financial market infrastructures piling into blockchain” (August 2016)

More than 84% of trading venues and clearing counterparties (CCPs) surveyed by the World Federation of Exchanges (WFE) are either investigating or actively pursuing the applicability of distributed ledger technologies in financial markets.

WFE says that the poll of 24 members indicates that firms are at different stages of evolution in their DLT initiatives, with one having already deployed a DLT-based application, some at proof-of-concept, and others on the spectrum of evaluation, design, and proof-of-technology. Clearing and settlement provided the most obvious use case for respondents, but with regulatory, legal and technical risks an issue there was little consensus on a viable time frame for live production.

Strate, global CSDs to collaborate on blockchain use (August 2016)

Strate, the South African body responsible for settling transactions concluded on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, met with 20 other central securities depositories (CSDs) in Switzerland in September to discuss how blockchain technology can be used across global financial markets. Aim is to form a group of CSDs to share information and knowledge. The group of CSDs would try to determine an ideal model for putting clearing settlements and the transaction of shares on to a blockchain.   And as opposed to each going and developing their own technology, the group could potentially get a vendor to develop something for all of them or develop something their selves and share it and share in the costs.

Euroclear explores use of blockchain in London gold markets (June 2016)

Euroclear is exploring the potential of using blockchain technology to create a next generation settlement service for the London gold market. The clearing is working with blockchain infrastructure firm itBit and market participants to evaluate the use of distributed ledgers to remove the risks and reduce the capital charges related to the settlement of unallocated gold. Euroclear will thereby use ItBits’ Bankchain product, a private network of trusted participants that clears, tracks and settles trades in close to real-time, opening the prospects of providing true delivery-versus-payment in the bullion market.

Rise testing post-trade blockchain tech with banks, custodians and CSDs (May 2016)

RISE Financial Technologies (RISE), a provider of distributed ledger technology for both post-trade settlement and securities safekeeping, has become the first technology firm to launch the second generation of blockchain for the post-trade sector. RISE is testing its solutions with a number of leading financial institutions including banks, custodians, and CSDs.

The core attributes of RISE’s technology are de-centralised ledger qualities and permissioned transparency, which gives access to different types of information depending on who you are. These qualities are applied to ensure any ‘single point of failure’ inherent in many technology systems is removed and guarantees data integrity. So investors have sight and control over their assets but not those of other participants; issuers have a view but no control into final beneficiaries; financial institutions (ledger operators/validators) have access to client information; and regulators have a complete view of the information in their jurisdiction in real-time but no direct control over the assets.


Carlo de Meijer 

Economist en Researcher

 

 

 

 

More articles about blockchain from Carlo de Meijer:

[separator type=”” size=”” icon=””]