Tag Archive for: finance

Career calibration meetings with Treasurer Search

01-04-2020 | Treasurer Search | treasuryXL

Due to the current economic circumstances it might not feel like the right time to take a next step in your career.

 

It might however make you think about where you are going in your career and how your next step should look like.
If you are one of those people, don’t hesitate to contact Treasurer Search for an online career calibration meeting.

You can contact Kim Vercoulen directly with below contact details.

Contact person

Kim Vercoulen

 

T: (0850) 866 798
M: (06) 2467 9339
E: [email protected]

Looking for a Treasury & Trade Finance Business Partner

19-02-2020 | Treasurer Search | treasuryXL

Our partner Treasurer Search is looking for a Treasury & Trade Finance Business Partner for a multi-billion $ global market leader in various complex technological project industries.

The Treasury & Trade Finance Business Partner will claim her role in the teams that land complex technological & infrastructure deals in the global market. She will understand the project and help shape the underlying deal from financial risk perspective. In this she will take FX, payments terms, counter party risk and other parameters in consideration. With her toolkit filled with instruments like bank guarantees, letters of credit, commercial contract clauses and derivatives she will structure the best possible solution.

Next to project related tasks, the Business Partner is responsible for regular cash management and other corporate treasury tasks in cooperation with the headquarters that is based abroad.

Ideal Treasury & Trade Finance Business Partner

The ideal candidate for this position has the proper balance between relevant knowledge and externally oriented business behaviour. Skills for this position can be acquired in a banking environment as well as within an international technology corporate. As a person she is a strong communicator, analytical and willing to be a one-person-department. Most likely the ideal candidate has an academic degree in economics, legal, business science or other relevant areas.

Our Client

Our client is a multi billion global market leader in various complex technological project industries. The company has various divisions in different parts of the world. Engineers are the backbone of the company and their goal oriented, direct way of working is very telling about the company culture.

Remuneration and Process

The expected annual base salary for this position is €75K. Our client offers freedom and support to shape the position in the best possible way. For candidates that qualify, a more comprehensive job desription is available. The Treasurer Test might be part of the recruitment process.

Contact person

Kim Vercoulen

 

T: (0850) 866 798
M: (06) 2467 9339
E: [email protected]




Financing a Livable World

11-2-2020 | by Aastha Tomar

If Greta Thunberg doesn’t inspire us, breathing some Delhi air may. While these might have been in news recently, more of this discussion is on social media rather than real action.

Sustainability has thus mostly been associated with activist connotation and, less with real, on-ground impact.

As we evaluate on-ground actions, investments towards such actions become first step and these need to make “financial sense” for investors to flock in. That’s when, I believe, that traditional financial acumen fails us. The foundational elements of investment rationale shall make such investment difficult. Let’s evaluate how –

  1. It’s all about ROI in purely Financial Terms: All financial evaluations are about monetary returns. Such approach is more likely to make Investing in sustainability related projects unattractive
  2. Organizations as going concern: While some projects have started evaluating impact of climate change, organizations are often considered as going concern without climate change & its impact. It’s it a time that we start considering some serious impact of climate change while evaluating cash flow and hence the project IRR.

Of all, these foundation elements make investment capability of capital markets to adapt in disruptive situations, like we are facing now for climate change, difficult. Financial markets, in its prevailing methods, would only consider climate change once its impacts are visible, but that, I guess, would be too late.

Having worked in Debt capital markets (DCM) my first reaction was to search of how DCM is contributing in sustainability and this led me to know about a beautiful concept of green bonds. The bond by their very name “green bonds” click into mind that there is something related to sustainability in it.

Green bond principles, intended to provide a framework for debt funding for projects which shall contribute to sustainability, is a step in the right direction. It has been framed with four core pivotal elements –

  1. Use of Proceeds
  2. Process for Project Evaluation & Selection
  3. Management of Proceeds
  4. Reporting

It’s the use of proceeds which sets apart green bonds from regular bond issues. The eligible projects for such issuance should be from around ten categories including renewable energy, energy efficiency, pollution prevention and control, green buildings etc.

A cumulative $580 billion of green bonds were sold through 2018, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. According to climate bond initiative in quarter 3 of 2019 itself USD 6.2 bn worth green bonds were issued worldwide, which is 87% up YoY. There were 139 issuers from 32 countries. There are many issuers joining the race and many nations as well. European nations being the ones taking the lead.

Though figures for green bonds may seem encouraging when we see them standalone but when compared to the global bond markets which are more than USD 100 trillion market, green bond market is hardly a fraction of it. Europe alone needs about 180 billion euros ($203 billion) of additional investment a year to achieve 2030 emission targets set by the European Union in the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change.

In nutshell, green finance initiatives are steps in right direction but need more muscle and speed to enable actions on ground.

What are your thoughts?

Aastha Tomar

FX & Derivatives | Debt Capital Markets | MBA Finance
Electrical Engineer | Sustainability

Blockchain: the 10 Commandments for CIOs

| 25-10-2019 | Carlo de Meijer | treasuryXL

In my last blog about Gartner and Blockchain I mentioned the importance of the role of CIOs. They are supposed to play a leading role in determining if this technology could be of use for their business. Great question is: are CIOs already prepared for that role. In this blog I will sum up ten commandments for them that should be prerequisites for successful implementation of blockchain technology in their company.

1. CIOs should study blockchain, potential benefits, opportunities and use cases for their business

In order to get grip on blockchain and what it could mean for their business, CIOs should investigate what blockchain really is, that means the ins and outs, its characteristics, how it works, how to integrate blockchain into existing legacy systems etc. CIOs should put real thought into how this technology could potentially benefit the business, asking themselves why they need it, and what value it offers over legacy database or other technologies

While in the next few years blockchain will mostly affect how an organization executes its business, longer term  blockchain will eventually change the core of a business. They therefore should start focusing beyond solely on how this technology is being used today. CIOs should look for opportunities to leverage blockchain technology for deeper business changes that can drive real value.  They should focus on areas where blockchain could strengthen the organization’s value proposition. CIOs should figure out which use cases are most appropriate, , and propose projects that could truly differentiate the organization.

2. CIOs need to understand how blockchain will impact key parts of the business

The opportunities for blockchain technology are massive. It can significantly impact many parts of the business. The most important question for CIOs is how these changes might affect the enterprise and how can the organization exploit the technology?

CIOs need to start thinking about what value blockchain can add to their organization and how to tackle the challenges over the next five years. They should plan for incremental evolution of their own blockchain strategies. For that they should carefully look at the stages in which blockchain  technology is situated. The Gartner Blockchain Spectrum distinct four phases: blockchain-enabling; blockchain-inspired; blockchain-complete and blockchain-enhanced. We are now half way i.e. in the blockchain-inspired phase. Technologies in this stage combine some elements of blockchain, but lack two core elements:  decentralization and tokenization (see my blog: Gartner Blockchain Spectrum: a great tool for CIOs March 18, 2019).

3. CIOs should look at the potential gaps, weaknesses and hurdles of blockchain

Blockchain is not there yet. And – next to that – this technology is not a panacea for all companies problems.  CIOs should be aware of that.  One of the main elements of blockchain is decentralization. It removes central authorities from the process and enables a level of trust between two parties who have never done business before. The definition of participant will – as a result – expand beyond individuals and businesses to include things like smart contracts, distributed ledgers, connected things and DAOs.

Blockchain will facilitate the interactions between all of these participants and enable a new society, but cannot solve all trust problems. CIOs therefore should create a map that highlights potential gaps and weaknesses.

CIOs should also be aware of the various hurdles that prevent massive adoption. It will take a number of years before this technology will enter the maturity stage. Considerable work needs to be completed in ‘non-technology-related activities’ such as standards, regulatory frameworks and organization structures for blockchain capabilities to reach the Gartner Hype Cycle Plateau of Productivity. This is the third stage now also including the previous lacking instruments: decentralisation and tokenization. In a recent blog, Gartner listed eight hurdles needed for the technology to deliver its promises, including technically scalable blockchains, advances in smart contract technology, transaction risk assurance, data confidentiality, and an efficient consensus algorithm.

For effective rollouts, CIOs also need to keep in mind that blockchain is not secure in and of itself. Blockchain is a complex technology, and can lack the clarity of oversight and auditability that more traditional systems offer. As a result, compliance and enforcement costs may increase with blockchain implementation, and some regulatory environments (such as GDPR) may require oversight that is difficult to achieve with the technology. This is exacerbated by a lack of common standards or legal frameworks. CIOs should look at methods to manage these blockchain-related risks.

4. CIOs should brief their CEOs on the strategic implications of blockchain

Company boards will have to make strategic decisions on blockchain in a climate of uncertainty. Many boards of directors will therefore call upon CIOs to brief them on blockchain due to current market hype. CIOs should therefore regular update their CEOs on new developments. The difficult task as a CIO is to explain the strategic implications of blockchain without getting stuck in its technical aspects. Board directors do not want a lot of detail. They just want the high-level issues, implications and suggested actions. CIOs should thereby focus on three main areas: a description of blockchain, frictionless markets and the cross-industry business impacts of a programmable economy. The reason for this is that blockchain has the potential to create cross-industry, transparent and frictionless markets, where transactions have almost no costs and restraints. However, be aware that the future business climate, risks and legal status of blockchain remain unclear.

5. CIOs should warn their board not to underestimate the impact of blockchain

CIOs should warn their board not to underestimate the impact of blockchain. Blockchain for most industries remains ‘mired between inflated industry expectations and general disillusionment’ with regard to how it can improve business processes. While most have heard about blockchain, few understand the technology and its implications for business. This bears the danger that they are underestimating the impact of blockchain. Enterprises run the risk of having their business disrupted if they do nothing about blockchain; however, undertaking a blockchain initiative carries risks too. It is important for CIOs to discuss the areas where blockchain will affect the board’s risk calculations.

CIOs should also determine and inform their CEOs whether blockchain could solve business problems and whether they really need this technology. Existing systems may look much more efficient, or could be managed cheaper compared to blockchain solutions.

6. CIOs should think and work towards a new blockchain-based business model

Once decided to implement blockchain in their company, the greatest challenge for CIOs will be thinking about and working towards a new blockchain-based business model. As blockchain is a collaborative issue, main question for CIOs is, how they could come up with a business model in which companies in an industry can agree on common standards and operate together.  This asks for a strategic approach. By focusing on a number of key areas early in their blockchain efforts, CIOs can lay the foundation toward successful execution. These areas include: make the blockchain business case, build an industry ecosystem, determine the rules of engagement, and, navigate regulatory uncertainty.

First of all CIOs should give strategic clarity when presenting their business case. This should ensure that their blockchain initiative has a business purpose around which they and other participants can align. For that it is needed to identify the business value. To get the most out of blockchain, collaboration between (previous) competitors is key. This should result in building an industry ecosystem, aimed to meet industry-wide challenges. For that it is important that CIOs discover the benefits of collaboration.

A third area of attention is to determine the rules of engagement. Every blockchain will require rules and standards, particularly around what various participants will be able to access and how they can engage. CIOs should thereby explore potential blockchain models and chose that one that fits best. Finally, CIOs need to “stay agile” to meet regulatory requirements as they evolve in the years to come. They should understand the shifting regulatory landscape.

7. CIOs should focus on the various challenges when implementing blockchain

Despite the potential opportunities of blockchain technology, organizations still face a number of important challenges when it comes to implementing blockchain. CIOs should focus on these challenges, that should be identified well in advance, in order to get the best out of this technology.

A first challenge – and not the least one – is the possible lack of skills. Because blockchain is still young and not yet a mainstream technology, there are very few professionals with skills in this area. This asks for intensive education, setting up internal and external courses, hiring externals etc.

Another challenge is the non-existence of a  universal standard for blockchain. This limits the usability of blockchain in and between companies. Until you have standards, you really can’t share information in the classical sense. Though one uniform standard is still far away, Gartner predicts that there will be four main standards in about five years’ time. A third challenge is that blockchain must integrate with legacy technologies so that businesses can exchange information in a meaningful way. In some industries, this is a major obstacle. People just don’t understand the technology, or know what it is good for.

8. CIOs should continue to develop proofs of concept internally as well as part of market consortiums

In order to get grip on blockchain and what it can mean for their business, CIOs should continue to develop proofs of concept to test blockchain’s business worthiness. Thereby they should take into account that different industry domains (upstream, midstream, downstream and marketing) and functional areas (such as commodity trading, cash management, supply chains and data integrity) are expected to adopt blockchain on different timelines.

For enterprise success, blockchain needs to be a consortium effort – not something that is used only internally. CIOs should be aware that the transformative nature of blockchain works across multiple levels simultaneously (process, operating model, business strategy and industry structure), and its success will depend on coordinated action across multiple companies. The way to create a multi-company blockchain consortium however is a very difficult one.

9. CIOs should look to combine blockchain technology, Big Data Analytics, IoT and AI

Blockchain should not be looked at in an isolated way. In order to get the most out of blockchain technology, CIOs should investigate integrating this technology with other ones like Big Data Analytics, the Internet of Things (IoT) and Artificial Intelligence (AI).

Once blockchain has been combined with the Analytics, IoT and AI, blockchain has the potential to change business models forever, impacting both data and monetary flows and avoiding centralization of market power (see my blog: Blockchain and Big Data: a great marriage, January 29, 2019).

10. CIOs should be aware of the changing world in which business exist.

Finally, CIOs should be aware of the changing world in which business exist. Not only because of blockchain, but also triggered by other technologies. The reality is that blockchain and its core elements will radically alter not only the business world itself. The future might eventually lay in a more decentralised programmable economy, that may evolve into digital societies that have a legal standing equivalent to today’s corporates and individuals. These digital societies will set the terms of competition in the future. CIOs should realise that, not  only by developing the technology, but also the ethics and practices to exist in the digital society.

What does this all mean for CIOs?

CIOs are counted on for innovation in their company. Related to blockchain, there however will be a need to  a different approach, away from present blockchain tech-of-the-day approach to a more methodical one to innovation. This asks for a new type of CIO. To deliver, CIOs should realise and recognise that their ability to innovate is nowadays restricted by an organisation that lacks flexibility and agility. CIOs should instead become more flexible and agile and deliver an operating model that is fast, connected, and insights-driven.

 

 

Carlo de Meijer

Economist and researcher

 

Gartner and Blockchain: the Good, the Bad and the…

| 01-10-2019 | Carlo de Meijer | treasuryXL

Last year Gartner, the high-standard research institute, painted a rather realistic scenario for blockchain. In one of its research papers, Gartner stated that its latest technology hype cycle puts blockchain beyond the peak of expectations and is currently sliding down towards the trough of disillusionment stage. They estimated a 5-10 year timescale before it enters the plateau of productivity, or mainstream.

Now a year later, in a recent study Gartner show a more sober picture. They found that most enterprise blockchains have been ‘mistargeted’, and that most of the blockchains in use today will need to be replaced in a couple of years.

This raises a number of questions. According to some commentators, blockchain is having an identity crisis. They state that technology is constrained by assumptions and that technological immaturity is prohibiting efforts from moving beyond the pilot phase. Other say that this is just a normal stage in the development of a new technology?

The bad …..

First the bad news. The report gives a rather sober vision for blockchain technology and its near term development. According to their research that was published last June, Gartner predicts that by 2021, more than 90% of current enterprise blockchain platform implementations will fail or need to be replaced in a 18 months period. This is due to a fragmented blockchain market and ‘unrealistic expectations’ by CIOs.

A May 2019 report by Gartner already predicted that 90% of blockchain-based supply chain initiatives would suffer from ‘blockchain fatigue’ by 2023. Garner’s June research report however has a much broader industry base and should therefore be taken seriously.

Fragmented blockchain market

The blockchain and distributed ledger technology has already become highly fragmented in terms of platforms, standards and offerings. This makes it difficult for companies to push ahead with real-world uses.

Multiple blockchain platforms

The present blockchain platform ecosystem is a very fragmented one. Today CIOs can choose from numerous blockchains available using either private ledger approaches such as R3 Corda, Hyperledger and Digital Asset or public ones such as Ethereum. Each consortium is thereby trying to make their offerings ‘the de facto basis for value exchange and digital asset representation, smart contracts and decentralised applications’. Gartner does not expect that there will be a single dominant platform within the next five years.

Fragmented offerings

The blockchain platform market is composed of fragmented systems and offerings by blockchain providers that often overlap or are being used in a complementary fashion. The blockchain platforms and technologies market is still nascent and there is no industry consensus on key components such as product concept, feature set and core application requirements.

Companies are as a result unable to find an off-the-shelf, complete packaged blockchain solution. Hybrid offerings of conventional blockchain platforms are adding further confusion to justifying a use case. This adds more complexity and confusion, making it that much harder for companies to identify appropriate use cases.

No uniform standards

Blockchain standards esp. for financial services companies are currently fragmented and immature. Standards are critical for corporates esp. in the financial industry, because they are constantly moving assets between clients, partners and other institutions. Fragmented blockchain standards are likely to prevent widespread short term deployment of blockchain and distributed ledger technology in real-world systems. Until consortiums and standards groups come together on several industry standards or de facto standards emerge, the use of blockchain will be limited mostly to proofs of concept and pilot tests.

Implementation issues

No seamlessly integration

To achieve the true potential of blockchain, implementations must be seamlessly integrated with already installed software solutions. However, major software and SaaS providers are not offering blockchain solutions as add-on features to their enterprise solutions. Currently, integrating blockchain platforms with existing systems can cost organizations millions of dollars, which further slows blockchain adoption.

Lack of interoperability

Cross-industry interoperability standards are, and will be critical especially for financial services companies. These blockchain platforms however often use differing implementations, data formats, data interchange and directories, making interoperability among different blockchains difficult across organisations.

Lack of strong use cases

As a result of the above shortcomings there is a lack of strong use cases. Most projects have remained pilot projects, due to a combination of technology immaturity, lack of standards, overly ambitious scope and a misunderstanding of how blockchain could, or should actually help the industry.

Not meeting companies needs

According to Gartner, another major challenge that CIOs and IT decision makers currently face is that blockchain platform vendors often use (marketing) messages that don’t link to a target buyer’s use cases and business benefits. This may add to the confusion around blockchain capabilities and how they augment existing processes. Buyers are still confused as to how these functions are achieved or what benefits blockchain may add compared to their existing processes.

Overestimation by CIOs

 Following from the results of the Gartner 2019 CIO Agenda Survey conducted from April through June amongst more than 3000 CIOs from almost 90 countries and across major industries, there is also a mismatch between expectation and reality about how they perceive blockchain technology.

The survey shows that many CIOs overestimate the capabilities and short-term benefits of blockchain as a technology to help them achieve their business goals, thus creating unrealistic expectations when assessing offerings from blockchain platform vendors and service providers. Even though they are still uncertain of the impact blockchain will have on their business, 60 per cent said that they expected some level of adoption of blockchain technologies in the next three years.

Misunderstandings by CIOs

There are a number confusions about blockchain technology leading to misunderstandings at CIOs. The vast majority of projects focus on recording data seeing it as the main offering of this technology. Many corporates however fail to use major capabilities of blockchain technology, such as decentralized consensus, smart contracts and tokenization.

Another misunderstanding amongst CIOs is their idea that the technology is already mature enough so that it is ready for production use. In fact many platforms however are still in a nascent and immature state far from being ready for large-scale production. Gartner however expects this will change within the next few years. And there is the wrong idea amongst many CIOs that protocols are identical to business applications. A protocol is the underlying technology such as Hyperledger Fabric of R3’s Corda and is invariably applicable to several industries. Applications need to be developed on top of these.

There is also the conviction in may CIOs mind that interoperability between various blockchain platforms is already a fact. Although some platforms talk about interoperability, Gartner finds it ‘challenging to envision interoperability when all the protocols are evolving quickly’.

The good ….

But it is not all bad news we can read in Gartner’s recent research paper. Despite the predicted gloom and the mismatch between expectation and reality, blockchain still has a solid future. Still the underlying technology is attractive and its potential uses cases vary across industries.

Impressive business value added

Although the technology will need constant updating, Gartner also predicts that by 2025, the business value added by blockchain to the industry will exceed $176 billion. More impressive is how this figure may surge to $3.1 trillion by 2030.

More stable applications

The ‘chaos’ in the blockchain solutions market is expected to only be a momentary challenge, ‘one that will pass as the hype-cycle dies down, and leads to more stable, enterprise-wide or rather industry-wide applications’. Within three to five years, many of blockchain’s core technical challenges are likely to be resolved. Given the attractive features of blockchain technology it can really drive interesting projects.

Standards maturity

Though it is very unlikely there will be a single de facto standard at all levels, Gartner expects that fragmentation will collapse and that we are three to five years away until standards mature and settle, resulting into no more than four dominant standards. This may allow for more interoperability among different blockchains.

“It’s unlikely there’ll ever be just one standard, but ultimately [there will be] a couple [of] standards bodies who’ll adjudicate…. Ultimately, there will be one or two standards..,. but no more than four”. Gartner

Blockchain capabilities as an add-on

Software suppliers, meanwhile, will integrate and upgrade their chosen blockchain versions and ensure compatibility with their own new software releases. In the next two to three years, Gartner expects all major ERP and CRM players to offer blockchain capabilities as an add-on feature for their software and SaaS products. These efforts will dramatically reduce the costs of deploying blockchain projects across the financial services organizations and their supply chains.

Transformational business impact

The 2019 Gartner Hype Cycle for Blockchain Business shows that the business impact of blockchain will be transformational across most industries within five to ten years. But these opportunities demand that enterprises adopt complete blockchain ecosystems. Future technology developments and removing remaining obstacles may enable that.

“Making wholesale changes to decades-old enterprise methodologies is hard to achieve in any situation. However, the transformative nature of blockchain works across multiple levels simultaneously (process, operating model, business strategy and industry structure), and depends on coordinated action across multiple companies.” Gartner

More intelligent applications

In the future, more intelligent blockchain applications are expected, in line with Gartner’s predictions. Especially as we move further on the Hype Cycle and past the so-called “Inspired Solutions (phase 2)” by 2022 and get well into “Complete Solutions (phase 3)” form 2025 onwards. And finally reach he Plateau of Productivity – the point at which mainstream adoption takes off.

And the …… way forward for CIOs

Companies working with the ‘myriad’ of blockchains available today should realise it is ‘highly unlikely’ the one they are using now or are planning to use short term will become the industry standard in five years. Corporates therefore need to investigate intensively how to navigate the next blockchain wave best.

Well–founded business plan

Many companies want to be fluent in blockchain before the technology is everywhere. For that they need a well-founded business plan. Those who fail to do sufficient scenario planning, experiment with the technology, and delay consideration of decentralization and tokenization risk significant long-term disintermediation.

Recommendations

Understanding and learning how to leverage the technology to create useful and practical solutions, is of utmost importance. In order to help CIOs in their blockchain journey, Gartner came up with a list of recommendations and valuable advices. CIOs should continue to educate executives and senior leaders about the blockchain opportunities and challenges most critical for business.

CIOs should also be aware of complicated challenges and of a number of impediments when deploying blockchain projects: standards, governance, integration and interoperability. They should therefore pay close attention to these hurdles blockchain projects face. In order to get used to blockchain technology and its applications, it is important for CIOs to continue to develop proofs of concept internally as well as part of market consortiums. By doing this they may learn how to leverage the technology to create useful and practical solutions, to take good decisions.

This Garner Hype Cycle is a very useful tool for corporates to get insight in the scope of blockchain’s transformation, how it impacts various industries as well as may show the current state and evolution of this technology.

 

 

Carlo de Meijer

Economist and researcher

 

Using Blockchain for Legal Entity Identifiers or LEIs

| 19-09-2019 | Carlo de Meijer | treasuryXL

In one of its reports, GLEIF, the Swiss-based organisation which coordinates the management of the global Legal Identity Identifier (LEI-) system, suggested to use blockchain technology for identifying financial legal entities, as that would not only improve transparency and security but may also lead to broader global acceptance of the LEI.

This however raises a number of questions such as: Why could blockchain be of use for LEI and its users? What role could smart contracts thereby play? What benefits could blockchain bring for the LEI? And what does the most recent blockchain-based projects for the LEI tell us?

What is the LEI?

But first, what is the LEI? According to their website definition, “the Legal Entity Identifier or LEI is a 20-digit, alpha numeric code based on the ISO 17442 standard. It connects to key reference information, allowing clear and unique identification of legal entities participating in financial transactions. Each LEI contains information about an entity’s ownership structure and thus answers the questions of ‘who is who’ and ‘who owns whom’”.

In other words a LEI is a uniform way of keeping track of financial legal entities. They are global and have no borders at all for accurate and trusted identification of companies around the world. Looking in that way, the publicly available LEI data pool can be regarded as a global directory, which may greatly enhance transparency in the global marketplace.

The management of the LEI system is coordinated and supported by the above mentioned Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation (GLEIF), while registrations are performed by so-called LOUs or Local Operating Units.

GLEIF and Blockchain

In their report on the LEI to the Financial Stability Board (FSB) in 2012, the GLEIF stated that “the design of the global LEI system would be premised on a ‘logically’ centralized (meaning not physically centralized) database that will appear to users to be from a single seamless system”.

GLEIF however recently recognised that the organizationally federated operating model used for the LEI in 2012, could be upgraded to a technically federated operating model: the distributed ledger model (DLT). This upgrade could potentially provide the same DLT platform for both the LEI and the UPI (Unified Payments Interface), of which the GLEIF is supposed to be the natural repository. This distributed design has always been a longer term goal for the global LEI system.

Present challenges for LEI

The LEI provides a global standard for the representation of identity as well as a standard validation rule set. Both elements however are subject of a very detailed compliance program in order to ensure proper issuance and maintenance of LEI and data quality.

Nowadays collection and storage of data is conducted in multiple country or regionally located operating units (LOUs). Each has their own databases (there are more than 30 at present in the LEI system and a large number of separate ones for each trade repository), and send their data daily in batch overnight processes. LEI data is sent to the GLEIF. Trade repositories send their data to multiple regulators and to central collection facilities depending on the jurisdiction. All regulators and trade repositories maintain their own data copies of identifiers for products and counterparties, and for trades.

This method bears in it a number of challenges, in terms of non-optimal transparency, security and risk issues where blockchain could be of help.

Blockchain and Identity Management

When it comes to use cases for blockchain, security is one of the serious items that comes in many minds. Identity management is one sector of industry that is supposed to provide high-level security to those who rely upon it to keep their data safe. But in reality security is not always what they get. The digital age has introduced new challenges in terms of preventing identity fraud and other criminal abuses for private people but increasingly also for corporates.

Nowadays there is an increased need for strong, multi-step security that identity management services should bring. The widespread adoption of blockchain technology to ensure that any number of these centralised databases are ‘not compromised’, should give enough arguments for the identity management industry to embrace this technology.

Some use cases for identity management

There are a number of interesting blockchain use cases in the identity management field. These include issues like identity verification, non-custodial login solutions, self-sovereign identity, secure identities for the decentralised web etc. These use cases have all proved their usefulness in such an environment.

Identity verification

Blockchain’s multi-step, multi-factor identification processes have proven to work and are already implemented by a number of companies. Admittedly, it is hard to imagine why the blockchain authentication model has not (yet) gained more mainstream adoption, especially considering the stakes of stolen identities and credentials.

Non-custodial login solutions

With non-custodial logins based on the blockchain, there is no longer need of a central entity who holds the power over user names, pass words, and the database that controls them. By removing the custodian of these credentials and replacing them with public and private keychains for logins, the former centralised entity can still ensure that ‘those logging in are who they say they are’, without holding a central database that hackers can easily acquire and use as ransom money.

Reduce third parties’ involvement

Blockchains could also help reduce the number of third parties while still maintaining a user’s identity. One solution could be that a user would store their data and identifiers on a blockchain which they could use throughout the internet, instead of granting each site or service their personal data and credential time. A second proposal is built on a similar blockchain containing the user’s data but allow third parties to access the data with their consent.

Smart contracts for Identification services

Using blockchain for the identification services including the LEI would preferably be in the form of so-called smart contracts. These contracts are ‘included and coded’ applications and data representing the life-cycle processes of a trade. It is stored and activated across a networked database – the distributed ledger – which itself is networked across the Internet.

In other words, a smart contract is self-actuating, based on standardized contract terms that is translated into standard trade life-cycle processes imbedded in coded applications. The smart contract acts on standardized data sets, setting its outputs in conformity to each participant’s processing requirements.

A smart contract requires data standards, including the LEI and its reference data for each participant in the supply chain; the UPI (Unified Payments Interface) and its reference data; and the UTI (Unique Transaction Identifier). It also requires process standards for each event in the life-cycle of a trade.

How could smart contracts be used for the LEI?

But how can smart contracts be used for the LEI? The central point of using smart contracts for the LEI is to treat a single record for any entity to be identified by some key as ‘atomic’. This in the sense of being administered as a single unit of data, by the authority that assigns the keys. Then the representation of a single ‘atomic’ record can be considered as a state for a single smart contract.

Each such contract would offer a method for accessing the representation, and a dynamic data structure that holds ‘revisions’ of the representation. That is, when the record changes globally, its new representation would be added to the state of the contract. Such contract can hold many revisions of the representation, bound only by the capabilities of the network’s global storage, called ‘entity contract’. Together with entity contracts, someone can devise one or more ‘master contracts’, that keep track of individual entity contracts and make accessing an easier process.

What approach for the LEI?

The use of permissioned and private blockchains or distributed ledgers for identity management purposes such as the LEI will require mapping between real world entities. This is hosted via cryptographic algorithms creating public/private keys pairs linked to reference data. The owner of the private key can write into the chain.

This however raises a number of major issues: Firstly, are we going to see multiple digital IDs depending on the application or are we going to use one ID to access all applications. And second, what is the appropriate management for all these IDs.

There are a number of possible scenarios:

One could use identity labels i.e. unique keys in the blockchain/DLT application. That means using the LEI in a distributed ledger system for tracking financial instruments. This is de facto the standard approach due to legal and regulatory requirements.

Another scenario is using blockchain/DLT for managing the LEI creation and management itself. This however should be seen as a longer term project. There are still many open questions but this approach bears interesting aspects for the further evolution of the LEI system.

MakoLab LEI.INFO and Graphchain Proof of Concept

An interesting project that should be taken seriously for further development is the MakoLab LEI.INFO system. Polish-based MakoLab, a Digital Solution Agency for the industry, last June announced the deployment of their production grade Blockchain-based LEI system.

This was the result of two Proof of Concepts (PoCs) for a radically new blockchain LEI system, based on the private Hyperledger Indy blockchain, using the innovative GraphChain database that is much more flexible than any standard existing system available today. These PoCs allowed MakoLab to investigate deeply the possibility to construct a system which represents the ‘highest level of both technological and organisational security’ and is completely decentralised.

Hyperledger Indy Framework

Given the vulnerability of the data, the suggested architecture for LEI is that of a so-called consortium type of blockchain that works on Hyperledger Indy. This is a blockchain model where the consensus process is controlled by a pre-selected set of nodes. The network of Hyperledger Indy nodes thereby runs as a private, permissioned blockchain for the Global LEI System.

In this model different nodes are used. User nodes that participate in the global blockchain as passive users. They can see all the data stored in it, but cannot create or edit anything. Registration nodes having all the properties of the User nodes plus the ability to provisionally add new LEIs to the system. However, such newly added LEIs are not visible on the system until the LOU nodes confirm them through the ‘Proof of Authority’ mechanism. And LOU nodes that have all the properties of the Registration nodes plus the capacity to confirm the new or modified LEIs as valid. Application of the blockchain technology with LOUs running their own nodes, would make the LEI system much safer and more reliable.

GraphChain

End June MakoLab announced the full production version of the innovative GraphChain for the LEI.INFO infrastructure. They thereby created a conceptual proposal how the entire LEI system could run on GraphChain. GraphChain should be seen as a new innovation of creating a blockchain compliant distributed database. The main idea behind GraphChain is to use blockchain mechanisms on top of an abstract RDP (Resource Description Framework) graph data model, that is used for data publishing and interchange on the web.

GraphChain is thereby defined as a linked chain of named graphs specified by the GraphChain ontology and an ontology for data graph part of the GraphChain; a set of general mechanism for calculating a digest of the named RDF graphs; and as a set of network mechanisms that are responsible for the distribution of the named RDF graphs among the distributed peers and for achieving the consensus.

The data graph model describes the semantics, or meaning of information and stores these data as a network of objects with materialised links between them, thereby managing highly interconnected data. It thereby uses graph structures with nodes, edges and properties to represent and store data.

LEI.INFO system

The new functionality allows cryptographic verification of the accuracy or usefulness of the underlying LEI data. The LEI.INFO system uses the RDF graph data model to express LEI reference data as semantic data, that can be verified against the network of Hyperledger Indy Blockchain. This LEI.INFO platform allows to get instant access to the database of entities holding LEI’s and as a result to find a reliable supplier, partner or customer.

LEI.INFO offers a wide range of LEI-related services including a new LEI registration process, resolution of the LEI codes for both humans and software agents, Data Analytics Solutions and integration services for KYC and financial information consolidation applications.

What may blockchain bring for the LEI?

From what is said before, it should not be difficult to see how blockchain and a single database that could be updated in real-time, securely maintained through encryption technology, distributed and shared by all of the participants could benefit those organisations who use the LEI. The reconciliation of the various copies of what is intended to be identical data sets could be done in real-time.

Managing LEI on blockchain delivers transparency and ensures the necessary trust and certainty optimal for combatting financial crimes, streamlining various administrative processes like onboarding, and truly knowing corporate customers, partners, and other businesses. This could ‘revolutionise’ the oversight of the financial industry. As a result of this all, it may lead to firmly reduced resources and costs of the validation process required for conducting due diligence about those entities.

McKinsey, the global consultancy estimates that the largest financial institutions alone can each save $1 billion in costs through a simplified portfolio of data repositories. ISDA members, many being the largest of financial institutions, are envisioned as direct beneficiaries of such savings.

Going forward

Blockchain technology could be of great help for the Global LEI system. The MakoLab project is thereby a very interesting one that deserves further investigation.

This LEI.INFO project however is just a first step in their research and development process with this technology. Taking into consideration the growing potential of the solution, MakoLab is “working on further-enhancing the LEI resolver with other top-class solutions – semantics particularly – as well as translating blockchain into other business areas” .

In the end such an architecture of the new LEI system will enable ‘thousands of registration authorities from multiple countries to participate in the new LEI creation’, thereby opening the path for the true global adoption of the system.

 

 

Carlo de Meijer

Economist and researcher

 

 

Wordt de invoering van sterke klantauthenticatie een drama?

| 30-08-2019 | ENIGMA Consulting |

Sinds enige tijd waart er een spook door de wereld van het Europese online betalings­verkeer: sterke klantauthenticatie (strong customer authentication). Webwinkeliers vrezen conversieverlies door afhakende klanten in het afrekenproces. Betaaldienst­verleners worstelen om op tijd klaar te zijn met de implementatie. En consumenten vragen zich af of het allemaal wel nodig is. Pieter van Stempvoort, senior consultant bijEnigma Consulting, over de naderende invoering van de nieuwe betaalwet.

Volgens het ‘Fifth Report on Card Fraud’ van de ECB bedroeg de financiële schade als gevolg van kaartfraude in Europa in 2016 zo’n €1,8 miljard. 73% daarvan werd veroorzaakt door zogenaamde card-not-present betalingen en deze categorie was de enige die een stijgende trend liet zien ten opzichte van het voorgaande jaar. KPMG bevestigt in zijn ‘Global Banking Fraud Survey’ van mei dit jaar de stijgende trend van card-not-present fraude, als ook van cyber/online fraude in 2017-2018 in alle regio’s van de wereld, waaronder Europa.

Brussel zag in deze ontwikkelingen aanleiding om sterke klantauthenticatie in de Europese betaalwetgeving te verankeren, met als doel online betaalfraude en misbruik van rekening- en betaalgegevens tegen te gaan en het consumentenvertrouwen in de Europese betaalsystemen te borgen.

Sterke klantauthenticatie

Het begrip sterke klantauthenticatie (strong customer authentication) werd geïntroduceerd in de herziene Richtlijn Betaaldiensten (Payment Services Directive, afgekort PSD2). De richtlijn schrijft voor dat bij online betalingen en mobiele en kaartbetalingen aan de kassa de betaler zich onder voorwaarden moet authenticeren middels twee of meer van de volgende factoren:

  1. Kennis (iets dat alleen de betaler weet, zoals een wachtwoord of pincode);
  2. Bezit (iets dat alleen de betaler heeft, zoals een smartphone of e-identifier);
  3. Inherente eigenschap (iets dat de betaler is, zoals een vingerafdruk of gezichtsherkenning).

Deze zogenaamde 2-factor­authenticatie is ook verplicht bij het verkrijgen van online toegang tot een betaalrekening en bij het gebruik van de door PSD2 mogelijk gemaakte betalingsinitiatie- en rekening­informatiediensten.

2 factor authenticatie

De Europese Bankautoriteit (European Banking Authority, afgekort EBA) heeft het één en ander verder uitgewerkt in Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS). Deze Europese regulering wordt per 14 september onverkort van kracht. Om onduidelijkheden in de RTS weg te nemen publiceerde de EBA afgelopen juni een uitgebreide toelichting, waaruit onder meer duidelijk wordt hoe de verschillende factoren kunnen worden geïmplementeerd en welke implementaties niet aan de PSD2 en RTS voldoen.

Uitzonderingen leiden tot complexiteit

De RTS beschrijven verschillende uitzonderingen die het mogelijk maken om de stap van sterke klantauthenticatie over te slaan. Een juiste en volledige implementatie van deze uitzonderingen kan dus zorgen voor minder frictie in het afrekenproces.

Sommige van deze uitzonderingen, zoals een bedraggrens bij online betalingen en contactloze betalingen aan de kassa, zijn relatief simpel in te voeren. Andere uitzonderingen zijn echter meer complex om te implementeren. Eén van de meest ingewikkelde uitzonderingen is de mogelijkheid om sterke klantauthenticatie over te slaan bij online betalingen met een laag frauderisico. Die uitzondering vereist een voortdurende toetsing van het frauderisico van betalingen aan de normen uit de RTS, op basis van een uitgebreide analyse van het transactierisico van de betaling en het betaalgedrag van de betaler.

De beslissing of sterke klantauthenticatie in voorkomende gevallen terecht niet is toegepast ligt uiteindelijk bij de bank van de betaler. En dat bemoeilijkt de implementatie van uitzonderingen bij bijvoorbeeld webwinkeliers nog verder.

Spanningsveld

De introductie van sterkte klantauthenticatie creëert een spanningsveld tussen betaalgemak en fraudepreventie. Met name webwinkeliers vrezen dat de toepassing ervan voor conversieverlies gaat zorgen, doordat klanten afhaken in het afrekenproces. Begin dit jaar deed onderzoeksbureau 451 Research in opdracht van betaaldienstverlener Stripe onderzoek naar de impact van sterke klantauthenticatie op de Europese online economie. In zijn rapport ‘The impact of SCA’ noemt het bureau een negatief effect van €57 miljard in de eerste twaalf maanden na de invoering. Dat is maar liefst 9,6% van de door het bureau geschatte €592 miljard online omzet in de EU in 2019.

Wellicht valt het negatieve effect in Nederland nog wel mee. Het merendeel van de Nederlandse online aankopen (59% in 2018) wordt immers gedaan met iDEAL, dat al gebruikmaakt van 2-factorauthenticatie. De Nederlandse consument is dus al aan sterke klantauthenticatie gewend. Maar zelfs als we de cijfers van 451 Research halveren zou de financiële schade door frictie in het afrekenproces Europa-breed in de miljarden euro’s kunnen lopen.

Geen uitstel

Een probleem is dat veel partijen niet op tijd klaar lijken te zijn met hun voorbereidingen op sterke klantauthenticatie. Het rapport van 451 Research stelt dat 1 op de 5 bedrijven met minder dan 100 werknemers nog niet bekend is met de ins en outs en dat slechts 8% goed is voorbereid. Van de bedrijven met meer dan 5.000 werknemers is dat 1 op de 25 respectievelijk 19%. Om maar niet te spreken over de consument zelf: volgens het rapport is 73% niet op de hoogte van de nieuwe regels.

Geen sterke klantauthenticatie nodig bij

Eind juni kwam de EBA een beetje tegemoet aan de zorgen rondom de tijdige invoering, door te stellen dat partijen ‘op uitzonderingsbasis’ beperkte extra tijd voor de implementatie kunnen nemen, zodat ongewenste negatieve gevolgen voor de gebruikers van betaaldiensten worden voorkomen. Zij benadrukt echter dat er geen sprake is van uitstel.

Maak een strategie en voorkom drama

Al met al is er inmiddels geen ontkomen meer aan de implementatie van sterke klantauthenticatie. De invoering ervan behoeft beslist aandacht, maar hoeft geen drama te zijn:

  • Voor bedrijven die online betaalmogelijkheden bieden is er weinig aan de hand als zij gebruikmaken van één van de grote PSP’s. Deze zijn immers geheel op sterke klantauthenticatie voorbereid.Voor deze bedrijven is het wel van belang om na te gaan of de bij de PSP afgenomen betaalmethoden die zij aan hun klanten binnen de EU/EER aanbieden, voldoen aan de eisen uit de RTS. Met name voor betaalmethoden met creditcards en betaalkaarten is het belangrijk dat deze gebruikmaken van 3D Secure 2. Dit is de nieuwste versie van de 3D Secure-standaard, die door alle grote kaartmerken wordt ondersteund. In tegenstelling tot de eerste versie, maakt 3D Secure 2 naadloze integratie van 2-factorauthenticatie in het afrekenproces mogelijk en kan het frictie in dit proces tot een minimum beperken.Daarnaast is het een enorm pluspunt als de PSP zelf actief de uitzonderingen op de toepassing van sterke klantauthenticatie managet. Hiertoe behoren ook het analyseren van het transactierisico en monitoren van de uitgevoerde betalingen en het managen van de ontheffing van sterke klantauthenticatie bij online betalingen met een laag frauderisico.
     
  • Voor aanbieders van betalingsinitiatie- en rekeninginformatiediensten is het van belang om voor de interactie met de banken aan te sluiten op een breedgedragen interface-standaard. Terwijl er inmiddels een veelheid aan zogenaamde API-standaards is ontstaan, valt de NextGenPSD2-standaard van de Berlin Group op door de brede ondersteuning door zo’n 2.500 banken in 24 landen.NextGenPSD2 lijkt derhalve een goede kandidaat voor de implementatie van sterke klantauthenticatie in het kader van deze diensten. De standaard ondersteunt verschillende modellen om de authenticatie in samenwerking met de bank van de betaler uit te voeren, maar geen van de modellen wordt door álle banken ondersteund. Voor een echt pan-Europees bereik zullen deze aanbieders dus alle modellen moeten implementeren en per bank het juiste model moeten kunnen aansturen.

Auteurs: 
Pieter van Stempvoort, Enigma Consulting, Expert Consultant

 

 

ENIGMA Consulting

 

 

Can you still see your banker as a trusted advisor?

22-08-2019 | by Pieter de Kiewit | treasuryXL |

Is your banker a trusted advisor or just another sales representative?

The times that you, entrepreneur or CFO, could just accept the advice of your banker is over. Understand that your banker expects you to have more knowledge than before. Do know there are alternatives. And do not forget that your banker has a target (hard or soft), just like others selling products or services.

When I accompanied my father to meet his doctor, it was clear we are of different generations. He listened and accepted, I was looking for dialogue and had questions. The attitude my father showed towards his doctor, I often see with CFOs and owners of smaller businesses. Is this a problem? Where does it stem from? Should relations change?

Your relationship with your banker has changed

Decades ago there was a knowledge gap between what bankers and entrepreneurs knew about financial markets and products. The number of local banks was limited as were funding sources. The interest was higher than it is nowadays (not too hard with current rates). All this led to a power imbalance between banks and their clients. You had to listen to your banker and accept. In those days bankers showed a different attitude than they did later. I often hear remarks about the former ABN boss Jan Kalff, he apparently was trusted like a medical doctor. I am afraid the bankers’ oath does not make current bankers a similar Jan Kalff.

Over time bankers and their clients have, together, changed their relationship. Starting with the one between banks and large corporates with treasury teams. These increasingly bigger teams gained knowledge and opened relations with alternative banking partners. On top of this, banks started rewarding their employees increasingly in an Anglo-Saxon way with an aggressive connection between performance and bonus. Treating your banker like a doctor was not appropriate anymore. Between large corporates and banks a new equilibrium was reached.

Between smaller organisations and banks a lot went well, regretfully not everything. One of many examples is that in The Netherlands sales of derivatives was done wrong in two obvious ways. First, clients bought products without understanding what they bought (and did all bankers really understand?). Second, bankers did not sell these products because their clients needed them to increase their bonus. A lot has been written about this.

Regretfully, a lot of entrepreneurs and also their auditors think they have full understanding of banking products and costs. I have seen too many treasury experts prove them very wrong. This new equilibrium has not yet been set.

An important extra development that has an impact on this topic is that banking services substitutes are being offered. Facebook can facilitate your payments, you can buy currencies cheap from Privalgo and there is a wide variety of extra funding sources coming up. All these solutions do not (yet) have an established market presence.

New banking relationship management

This is not a call for bank bashing. We do not bash the car sales guy for trying to sell a car. I do want to invite you to consider threating your banker as you would like any other supplier. Always remember he has a sales target. Understand that bankers have to balance their oath with this target. On top of this they see many of their colleagues being let go. For them these are no easy times.

Find out if you have the expertise to have a balanced meeting with your banker. Can you oversee your risks, do you understand the products and do you really know what you pay your bank? I have had more than one meeting with a banker in which I learned that banks themselves often do not know what they make on their clients. The amount mentioned on your bank statement about their costs does not cover everything your bank earns on you. Do you know the spread they take on your FX deals, the margin on insurance products? They and you often do not know the product alternatives and their rates. You can get low threshold expertise or send your employees to get relevant education or have them visit events. The expertise is available.

Times are changing

Changing relationships with your bank are only a problem if you ignore the change. The banks did not ignore and have changed. In my opinion these changes are good. Bear in mind that corporate treasury is not rocket science. Spend the time on this topic it deserves. Times are changing, so keep an eye on what is happening. It will save you cost, create opportunities and help you avoid risk. Good luck and drop me an email if you have questions.

 

 

Pieter de Kiewit
Owner Treasurer Search

 

CSDs have a role to play in a blockchain environment

| 12-08-2019 | Carlo de Meijer | treasuryXL

There is a broad consensus amongst the post-trade industry that blockchain technology will revolutionise the securities post-trade world and could radically change how assets are maintained and stored by custodians and central securities depositories (CSDs).

Blockchain technology may enable real-time settlement finality in the securities world. This could mean the end of a number of players in the post-trade area, such as central counterparty clearing houses (CCPs), custodians and others. For a long time, also central securities depositories (CSDs), as intermediators in the post-trade processing chain, thought they also could become obsolete.



This idea however is changing. While CSDs are making up their mind on their future position in the blockchain world, they are increasingly considering blockchain as enabler of more efficient processing of existing and new services, instead of a threat to their existence. But what will be their future role?

Complex/fragmented post-trade infrastructure

As we all now, the current post-trade infrastructure is highly complex and fragmented. Much of this complexity and fragmentation is the result of the various intermediaries needed in the post-trade process. They include players like banks, brokers, stock exchanges, central counterparty clearing houses (CCPs), central securities depositories (CSDs), real-time gross settlement (RTGS) systems and custodian banks.

In the current set-up of the post-trade environment, important record-keeping functions, such as those relating to the issuance, settlement, registration and safekeeping of securities, are performed centrally by different specialist intermediaries. Intermediaries also perform the post-trade servicing of assets, such as crediting dividend payments or bonus issues to client accounts, or managing rights issues and takeovers.

They are thereby dealing with siloed outdated legacy systems and technologies each having their own ledger that are not good communicating with each other.  Consequently, they spend much time and resources on reconciliation and risk management. As a result settlement currently takes two or more days in many places, involving high risks and high costs for transacting parties.

The present role of CSDs

Situated at the end of the post-trading process, CSDs are systemically important intermediaries. They thereby form a critical part of the securities market’s post-trade infrastructure, as they are where changes of securities ownership are ultimately registered.

CSDs play a special role both as a depository, involving the legal safekeeping and maintenance of securities in a ‘central depository’ on behalf of custodians (both in materialised or dematerialised form); as well as for the issuer, involving the issuance of further securities by issuers, and their onboarding onto CSDs’ platforms.

CSDs are also keeping a number of other important functions, including: dividend, interest, and principal processing; corporate actions including proxy voting; payment to transfer agents, and issuers involved in these processes; securities lending and borrowing; and, provide pledging of share and securities.

Blockchain: disruption in securities post-trade

Prospects
DLT offers the prospect of rationalising and combining post-trade activities in one single action, offering safer and cheaper record-keeping, as well as more seamless securities issuance. They thereby may create significant cost savings and efficiency gains across the securities market’s post-trade infrastructure.

  • Blockchain is linking trading partners directly. That means everything will be in place in the ledger at the time of the transaction.
  • With DLT, all of the complex systems and processes to transfer cash and equities from one account to another are not required. Everything can be embedded into the blockchain.
  • Institutions will no longer have to maintain their own databases, as with DLT there will be only one database for all participants in the transaction (so no more fragmented islands of information).
  • This will heavily ease the reconciliation process, allowing increasing transparency and efficiency in a presently highly fragmented industry.
  • It could permit the direct or real-time settlement of transactions between accounts, the simultaneous verification of transactions and the registration of ownership, and the direct and automated payment of entitlements to accounts.
  • As a result, buyers and sellers can match transactions in seconds and all parties are aware a transaction has been done.

Disruption
On the other hand, DLT has the potential to heavily disrupt existing post-trade processes in financial services. Shared ledgers of ownership promise to revolutionise the post-trade infrastructure, Thereby impacting the business model of a number of intermediaries.

Use of a blockchain network would automate the process further, with completely integrated authentication and transparency of the transfers themselves. As a result, clearing and settlement can be transformed into a single process, in which digital and digitised assets are delivered against payments instantly, thereby removing the need for a market infrastructure provider to hold a security, or token in its own physical or electronic vault.

The extent to which blockchain will disrupt existing processes in financial services is still unsure. Some say a complete disintermediation of middle and back office processes is under way, removing most (or even all) intermediaries from the post-trade processes.

Others however say the impact of this emerging technology will be less forceful, with a (limited) number of existing intermediaries to play an important though somewhat different role.

CSDs changing attitude

What is sure is that for some actors in the securities post-trade world, DLT will completely replace their businesses or even make the work of some intermediaries such as CCPs and custodians redundant. Others will still be needed, but they should question what will be their added-value within future DLT services, such as CSDs.

CSDs are changing their viewpoint on DLT including blockchain. Instead of seeing blockchain as a threat to their existence, they are now also considering them as (potential) enabler of more efficient processing of existing and new services.

“CSDs could have an important role to play in a blockchain-based settlement system. 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.” Euroclear Report

CSDs are believed they will continue to perform an important role as trusted, centralised financial market infrastructures (FMIs), providing gatekeeping services and oversight of the relevant blockchain.

How are CSDs reacting?

Recognising the threat as well as the opportunities of blockchain to their current services, a group of CSDs across the world has been working together and with regulators to define their future role in the blockchain post-trade environment. By working together they will ensure that CSDs from each region are represented, potentially unleashing (unimagined) network effects.

Aim of this cooperation is to explore how blockchain could be used for post-trade processes, identify, define and develop use cases in the securities depositories’ industry (including smart contracts and digital assets), and identify how existing standards could support it.

Another  group of 30 central securities depositories (CSDs) in Europe and Asia are researching possible ways to “join hands” in developing a new infrastructure to custody digital assets. The CSDs will attempt to figure out how to apply their experience in guarding stock certificates to security solutions for crypto assets.

“A new world of tokenized assets and blockchain is coming. It will probably disrupt our role as CSDs. The whole group decided we will be focusing on tokenized assets, not just blockchain but on real digital assets.”

These CSDs clearly see an opportunity to apply their knowledge and skills to the crypto currency space, where “losing your private keys means losing your coins forever”. The group’s focus is looking at how to protect these keys for crypto investors, and how the tokenization of “everything stands to change everything”. The next phase of the research will also involve some large custodian banks.

CSDs future role in a blockchain environment

There are various reasons why CSDs may continue to play a role in the post-trade bklockchain environment. That is not that strange as the primary functions of CSD may run parallel to many of those that emerge from the blockchain technology. CSDs are aware that some of those roles will neatly fit into their natural infrastructure. But there will also be some activities that will become obsolete.

Looking at the roles that could be suited for CSDs, those would be anything around safety, notary and governance.

1. Notary function
Blockchain may enable tokenisation of assets and the use of smart contracts. All these are new components in the value chain. This may mean that a digital actor will be needed to manage this tokenisation, and creation and maintenance of smart contracts, overseeing the entire securities token ecosystem. CSDs could fulfil this notary function.

1a. Asset tokenization
Asset tokenization is the representation of assets on the blockchain in the form of tokens, which are designed to be unique, liquid secure, instantly transferable, and digitally scarce – and therefore impossible to counterfeit.

In a world where securities and other assets become tokenised, some have argued that an intermediary will still be needed to issue them and create rules. Tokenised assets exchanged on a distribute ledger may still require CSDs to hold the equities, which the token represent. They would thereby fulfil the crucial notary function, both as tokenising agent and as operator of the escrow accounts in which the real assets are hold.

1b. Custody of private keys
There may also be a need for secure maintenance of personal encrypted keys. Adopting blockchain technology would allow individuals and companies to have complete control over their assets and data, accessed through a set of private keys that must be kept secure.

Emerging technologies like decentralized key recovery will allow more and more individuals to secure custody of their own assets, thereby removing the artificial and expensive separation between legal and beneficial ownership in most asset markets.

Some will choose to take that responsibility themselves, but many investors may choose to outsource the custody of their private keys and token wallets to the companies and CSDs that can provide an independent and secure safekeeping service for these private keys.

2. Record of title for securities
CSDs could  also be of value to record of title for securities. In many cases, the law mandates how title to property transfers. EU regulations state that for “any financial instrument to be transferable and tradable”(i.e. takes place on a trading venue, exchange or multilateral trading facility), securities must be recorded (registered) in book entry form in a CSD.

Under the current law, to enable having a blockchain-based system of transfer of title to securities, the blockchain would need to be the system that the CSD operates, which is not truly distributed.

Or one would need to create a new legal regime that recognizes that the transfer of title on a blockchain is effectively a transfer of title to the relevant property, and allows that in the context of securities trading. But that would take a lot of time to realise.

As a solution, the blockchain technology can be implemented through a hybrid model in which the CSD can either operate a blockchain platform itself to perform the book entry role. Or it can continue to perform this role off-chain, with the third- party blockchain platform accessing those records held by the CSD via an API (application programme interface).

3. Governance
CSDs could also play the governance role in a DLT based system – to ensure that what happens within their systems is unchallengeable. The movement from a post-trade system based around the existing infrastructure to a DLT-based system, without updating the regulatory and legal regime, could introduce a new systemic risk into the financial system. Regulators and legislators are unlikely to be comfortable in allowing the wholesale replacement of the existing infrastructure with DLT-based solutions.

CSDs are best placed to retain a ‘policing’ or governance role in a blockchain framework. This role should be the management of an insolvency of a party, particularly if there is a position that is not settled and the relevant contract is not yet completed. The involvement of CSDs in a governance and operational role could help increase trust of investors, and raise the quality of the blockchain ecosystem infrastructure underpinning these new asset classes.

4. Trusted gatekeeper: Authorisation and administration
CSDs could also be of help as trusted gatekeeper to DLT networks. While regulators will set the standards for admission to the network, the admission tests are likely to be administered by other parties. The most likely candidate for that role of trusted gatekeeper to DLT networks are the CSDs.

They are already the “first home of financial assets issued, and guardians of the integrity of every issue they accept”.

“The regulators are unlikely to want to immerse themselves in the operational details of the authorisation process.” “They will sub-contract that work to a trusted intermediary (read CSD).”

5. Other roles

A. DLT proxy voting system
One role in the post-trade environment that is already intensively investigated by CSDs is the management of a DLT-based e-proxy voting system. This would include providing general meeting services and give shareholders an easy, user-friendly and secure tool for voting remotely.

There is potential for improvement for instance in respect to the depots of voting rights. The system would automatically allow (or disallow) voting privileges for members based on what voting rights they had within a particular organization.

By using open source blockchain technology the efficiency and integrity of the Annual General Meetings and shareholder voting processes can be increased. Given that it is an end-to-end solution – from the time a meeting is announced and all the way through the voting process to the publishing of results – it means that all stakeholders will truly benefit within the process.

“By leveraging blockchain, we are able to reduce friction in the voting and proxy assignment process and also ensure that all information is transparent to stakeholders when required and with the proper security, governance and risk procedures in place.”

B. Elective corporate actions
CSDs could also have a role to play at elective corporate actions.  Corporate actions recorded by the ledger may include paying out dividends, splits, issue of rights, warrants, pay-ups etc.

The user group for a permissioned blockchain network can choose who should validate these actions. They could simply give validation rights to every node. Getting issuers to publish elective corporate actions, such as rights issues and proxy votes, directly onto a blockchain, however might be a difficult step to realise.

Alternatively, this could be the role of a trusted third party, or a combination of both a trusted party and the nodes. This would imply a logical role for CSDs, creating a common registry of ownership associated with an ID.

C. Reconciliation
CSDs could also be of help in the reconciliation process. Blockchain may certainly help automate other components of the settlement process, such as reconciliation. A DLT-based reconciliation tool, with multiple trading firms participating in a record-based system, however could still occur within the CSD, which may act as the single point of reference for reconciling the various records.

D. Cross-border collateral mobilization
A final area where CSDs could play a role is in cross-border collateral mobilisation. Leveraging blockchain technology could overcome existing hurdles when moving collateral across various jurisdictions, making the transfer faster and more efficient.

“Designed to simplify cross-border collateralisation away from using multiple complex and non-standardised links towards smooth movement across various jurisdictions.”

By using CSDs it could enable a centralised, faster and more efficient allocation of fragmented security positions to cover financial obligations of market participants in multiple jurisdictions.

Concluding remarks

CSDs are likely to play an integral role but important role in any blockchain environment. Their role however will look quite different from we know them today. They can be the logical center of the system, custodying the standards, processes and governance of the system.

CSDs will have the opportunity to be agents of change. CSDs however need to adapt to meet new demands asking for delivering added value services in the new blockchain environment.

But they are not there yet! There is clearly a gap between the long-term opportunities presented by blockchain and the challenges involved in making progress.

Several blockchain initiatives in this area have failed, or are just ended their pilot stage or are very limited in scope. CSDs are also not currently building a single solution. Rather, each group is building its own platform designed to interoperate with the others.

There is thus urgent need to leverage existing business standards for the distributed ledger technology application in order to realise a global infrastructure that can smoothly operate cross border.

 

Carlo de Meijer

Economist and researcher

How to explain what treasury is to family and friends?

| 09-08-2019 | by Pieter de Kiewit |

Your mortgage, credit card, holiday money and current account have business equivalents. They are managed by corporate treasurers. The title question, or variations, is one I have to answer quite often. Even more around the holidays, when I always meet my relatives. I am tweaking the answer constantly. Connecting private and business is my current strategy. Perhaps you (expert in the field or layman) can let me know if this explanation works for you.

You have a current, savings and perhaps other account. You pay the rent, groceries and a beer. You use a debit or credit card, cash, a cheque, paypal or other channel. You take care only you and the people you trust have access to your money. Corporate treasurers build and maintain a banking infrastructure that allows payments. They think about who is allowed to make payments (often they are), who can authorize (not a payment person), what bank to use and potential other payment channels.

You have a mortgage or personal loan so you could buy a house or pay for groceries when at the end of your paycheque the month did not come to an end yet. Corporate treasurers find funds necessary for their company and have a wider set of products available like bank credit facilities, bonds or new equity.

You feel fluctuations in interest and currencies when you cross the border to another currency country. Your mortgage, current account and credit card come with an interest. Both currencies and interest change over time: financial markets are not stable. Many of us just accept these changes. Corporate treasurers think and manage these risks: they think about the currencies in commercial contracts, about the length & price of various funding products and about mitigating the risks, for instance using derivatives.

Of course the above description is an oversimplification of the position. Treasurers have many other tasks and the complexity in a corporate environment is higher than a standard household situation. Furthermore I want to stress is that treasurers are not bookkeepers or controllers: they do not send or receive invoices and do not write the annual report. They manage actual money flows.

 

 

 

Pieter de Kiewit

Owner Treasurer Search