Tag Archive for: risk

The IT Savvy Treasurer

| 9-5-2017 | Patrick Kunz |

 

We cannot switch on the news without hearing about technological advancements which, supposedly, make our lives easier, better or smarter. We all embrace these, get used to them and cannot do without them anymore. Sometimes we think back to the time before these advancements and cannot image how we lived without them. The same applies to treasury.

 

 

I am 35 years old; my experience in treasury was always linked to IT. I sometimes hear stories from older treasurer who worked without computers, later tabulating/punch cards and still managed to do a good job in their field. Of course times have changed; information is faster than in these days and also the need to process it. We all had to embrace the new technology. In this blog I will try to analyse the link between IT and treasury and try to make predictions about the future or at least where I wish the future would go (in treasury terms).

Payments

In the old days payments were a manual process with people entering them in the banking system or sending them to the bank via fax. Nowadays, we link our ERP system with the banking system and have a batch file automatically added to the bank. With bulk payments a payment hub can be used which will make the whole process bank independent, fast and cheap. If wanted and needed the whole process can be made straight-through by automating it from creating a payment to approving it.

The future will make payments even faster (instant payments should be possible in the sepa region from November onwards), cheaper and more bank independent (PSD2 regulation allows non banks to link with your bank and provide (payment) services). Maybe we will be using our facebook account for payments sooner or later. Bitcoin could be an alternative payment currency and/or be used to hedge non deliverable currencies (to achieve this the volumes need to increase significantly).

Risk management

An important part of the treasurers work is risk management. Hedging FX, interest rate, commodity prices are daily business for a treasurer. Doing the deal is easy, doing the right deal is more difficult. A treasurer can only hedge correctly if he knows what he is hedging: the exposure. To know the exposure information of the business is key. The reason for the exposure originates in sales (FX) or procurement (FX and Commodity). These departments need to be aware that the actions they take might have consequences for the treasurer and therefore the treasurer needs to have some information. I have been at companies where sales was daily generating a lot of USD exposure at a EUR company. They were supposed to let finance know about positions. Often this was done at day’s end or forgotten and done a day later. Result: an exposure on USD without the treasurer knowing it; a risky position. IT helped to fix this. Sales entered a deal in a program and the relevant FX exposure was automatically shared with the treasurer via an API to the Treasury Management System. The treasurer could  decide directly whether he needed to hedge or not and even aggregated deals to get better rates at the bank. For small deals a link was set up with a FX trading platform to STP them at the best rate.

The future in risk management will be even more automation within the company (internal) but also with connections to banks and risk solution providers. Prices are becoming more transparent due to the fact that bank independent solutions are available which compare prices, in real time. Risk management sales is becoming less a bank business. Brokers are having less hurdles to enter the market, due to IT platforms in the cloud.  Why pick up the phone and call your bank for a EUR/USD quote when you can compare prices via an online platform and directly trade it? Often you don’t even have to settle via your own bank accounts but you can have it directly sent to your customer or supplier.

For Trade Finance blockchain will become the new standard. The financing and shipping of commodities is a rather paper based process which is inefficient and slow. Blockchain could automate and improve the speed massively. The challenge to achieve this is big as there are many parties involved,  but initiatives have started so the future is beginning now.

Information

As above examples show information is key to a treasurer. Even more so, as treasury is often a small team and most of the information comes from other departments. To get this information the treasurer can use several nice IT solutions. The ERP systems helps, but the treasury needs to know where to find the information. A treasury management system is often used to sort all treasury related information. TMS can link with ERP systems or other systems to gather information. The TMS will sort this information so that the treasurer is well informed and can make decisions.  When I started in treasury 10 years ago the market for TMS was small; systems were expensive and limited in use (payments only, fx only etc). Nowadays a TMS does not have to be expensive anymore. A SME (Small medium enterprise) could use it to upgrade their treasury information. Most TMS can be used for all aspects of treasury (cash Management, risk management, corporate finance, guarantees etc). This will give the tech savvy treasurer an edge. The treasurer with most information can make the best decision. In treasury taking decisions while being well-informed often means either costs saving (e.g. better cash position, lower working capital) or lower risk. The IT savvy treasurer contributes to an optimally functioning company; he/she should be considered a business partner; he knows your cash position, your risk position and your balance sheet, hopefully in real time at all times.

 

Patrick Kunz

Treasury, Finance & Risk Consultant/ Owner Pecunia Treasury & Finance BV

 

 

 

Other articles of this author:

Flex Treasurer: The life of an interim treasurer

How much are you paying your bank?

 

The end of the Euro as we know it – when the party ends?

| 4-5-2017 | Lionel Pavey |

 

The papers are full of stories about the level of Government debt within the Eurozone (Italy has a debt to GDP ratio of more than 130%), probable new bailouts for Greece, lack of suitable bonds to purchase for Quantitive Easing, Brexit, the rise of populist rightwing politics etc. Well at least we have all the bad news out in the open – don’t we?

Target 2

A new problem has arisen that was partly accelerated by QE – namely the outstanding national balances within Target 2. This is the “Trans European Automated Real-time Settlement Express Transfer System” foe the Eurozone. The key word is “Settlement” as I shall explain.
When a financial transaction is agreed 2 actions have to happen – clearing and settlement. Clearing entails all the actions that must be undertaken up to settlement, such as delivery of bonds, securities or shares. Settlement means the exchange (transfer) of money for goods or bonds etc.

When a party in Italy buys goods from the Netherlands, they instruct their bank to debit their account and credit the account of the seller. This is a cross-border transaction. But, within the Eurozone monetary settlement does immediately take place between banks. The Italian bank will have its balance reduced at the Banca D’Italia and the Dutch bank will have its balance credited at de Nederlandsche Bank. However, the balance is not settled between the 2 central banks – a new claim is shown on their books.

At the end of 2016, according to the Euro statistics website Italy has a negative Target 2 balance of EUR 420 billion with other countries in the Eurozone. This amount has been accumulated over the years since 1999 and now represents more than 25% of GDP. This is on top of the Italian Government debt of 130% of GDP. If a country were to leave the Eurozone they would be liable to immediately settle their Target 2 balances – something that is not realistic. Under the current agreement the other countries within the Eurozone would be liable to cover the debt. Target 2 balances do not have to be settled as countries would never default appears to be the thinking.

At the other end of the scale, Germany has an outstanding claim on other Eurozone countries of EUR 830 billion. At the moment these amounts are shown at full face value in the books – it would appear that politically, no one wants to acknowledge that the claims can not be settled in full under the current constraints within the Eurozone. If the Eurozone are 100% committed to supporting the Euro and, the balances are not going to be settled within the foreseeable future then, eventually, something will have to break.

Emperor with no clothes

Confession time – I am English (and proud of it). If I had been able to vote in last year’s referendum in the UK, then I would also have voted for Brexit. This does not make me anti-European; rather the reality of the Eurozone is very much like the fable of the Emperor with no clothes. Everyone sees it, but no one will say it. Perhaps, a solution can be found that does not mean debt forgiveness, writedowns, defaults or exits, but common sense would imply that this is wishful thinking.

When I was a young boy at Grammar School I had to learn some poetry for my English Literature exam – it included D.H. Lawrence. As a wild youth I could cope with Shakespeare, had a hard time with Chaucer, but fell in love with a poem by Lawrence entitled “A Sane Revolution”. He told us to make a revolution for fun and not in seriousness. Also I knew the poem as it was quoted by Mott the Hoople who got me through my teenage years with their music.

The creation of the Euro is a revolution in European history, but could it ever be called sane?

TARGET 2 BALANCES

Source: http://sdw.ecb.europa.eu/reports.do?node=1000004859

 

GOVERNMENT DEBT

Source: http://www.debtclocks.eu/select-an-eu-member-state.html

Lionel Pavey

 

Lionel Pavey

Cash Management and Treasury Specialist

 

Regulatory demands: compliance required!

| 20-4-2017 | Olivier Werlingshoff | Sponsored content |

 

Complying with regulatory demands is a must, and banks know it. In practice, however, the majority still can’t manage to meet all requirements. Manual solutions prove to be insufficient and important rules are often overlooked. But how does one ensure that all regulatory demands are complied with?

Facilitating screening

Today, most banks offer apps that customers can use for online banking purposes, such as opening an account. However, there are two important aspects when onboarding a customer. First, you need to have adequate controls and procedures in place to know the customer with whom you are dealing. Adequate due diligence on new and existing customers is a key part of these controls – which can be done using advanced software that is linked to different sanction lists. Second, all customer transactions should be monitored for AML – which is done after the settlement of a transaction and live transaction screening, which happens in real time. The moment a payment is made and a beneficiary bank receives it, sanction lists are instantly scanned to check if there is a hit or not. This is done for every transaction, ensuring that regulatory demands are met.

Compliance: points of attention

Some banks still don’t comply with regulatory demands. They merely check sanction lists for the customer’s name – often manually –, which is by no means sufficient! For example, one should also verify whether the customer’s name appears in any media or lawsuits, and a customer’s partner needs to be checked as well. So what you need is a comprehensive solution that takes all these different aspects into account.

Implementing a solution

Proferus helps banks and corporates opt for a proper automated solution based on the demands involved. We assist in choosing the right software and support teams that have to learn to work with it. Basically, we help them in two respects: we provide consultancy – by conducting business analyses – and we implement the technical solution!

Olivier Werlingshoff - editor treasuryXL

 

Olivier Werlingshoff

Managing Consultant at Proferus

MANAGING MARKET PRICE RISKS OUTSIDE OF PURCHASE CONTRACTS

|4-4-2017 | Sjoerd Schneider |

 

As commodity prices have become more volatile over the past decade, many procurement departments have been feeling the need to somehow manage market price risks. The most frequently used strategy to mitigate commodity price risks by such departments is using physical purchase contracts: fixing prices over a long term horizon. However, there are more subtle and dynamic ways to manage price risks, which can lead to significant savings and tactical advantages. These can be achieved when dedicated market price specialists get involved.

Market price risks

Product specialists and buyers are well aware of all specifics concerning their products but are often not skilled in managing market price risks. Nevertheless it often happens that they are the ones in charge of mitigating market price risks in the form of negotiating the pricing paragraphs within purchase contracts.

There are several reasons why having buyers in charge of mitigating price risks merely through purchase contracts is not optimal:

  1. Buyers often don’t have the expertise to assess whether the premium charged for fixing prices is decent
  2. Buyers don’t have the right overview of company-wide commodity risks. When one buyer micro manages his exposures within purchase contracts that does not mean overall risks are managed optimally
  3. The counterparty in a physical deal might know that the buyer doesn’t have other means of fixing prices. This leads to a weakened negotiating position regarding the overall contract.

Mitigate FX risk

To draw the parallel to a traditional treasury issue: when a European company is a buyer of American machinery and services, would it be the buyer fixing the USD rate with the suppliers’ sales team for just that deal? That would not be the optimal strategy to mitigate FX risk. Hence the same counts for commodity price risks. Hedging through the supplier (let alone by the buyer) should never be the only available option. Literally having more options on the table to mitigate price risks than just asking suppliers for long term fixed prices gives substantial benefits:

  • Flexibility:
    • being able to hedge at any moment, without having to request or consult the supplier
    • after a price decrease it might be interesting to fix prices for a much longer term than purchase contracts usually stretch
  • Savings:
    • not paying too much premium to the supplier for executing hedges or for taking over price risks
    • having a larger pool of potential suppliers as there is no longer a requirement for them to sell at fixed prices

Conclusion

Companies of any size should investigate how large their potential savings could be and how much the increased flexibility will help them. The advantages should outweigh the time and manpower that need to be invested.

Sjoerd Schneider

Founder of Insposure

 

 

 

 

More articles from this author:

Commodity price risks deserve a spot within treasury management

 

How to combat Payment Fraud

| 29-3-2017 | Mark van de Griendt | sponsored content |

 

Payment Fraud is one of the biggest threats to a treasurers’ reputation and career path in an organization. One of the most common ways to reduce payment fraud is to reduce human intervention and to increase the levels of automation in payment structures. With cyber-attacks and payment fraud regularly making headlines, treasurers must be vigilant in safeguarding financial assets. Only 19% of treasurers list cybersecurity as a critical concern. By contrast, 45% of CFOs name cybersecurity as a priority, pointing to a significant misalignment in CFO and treasury agendas in this regard (PWC Global, 2017).


That is why it’s really important for treasurers to know what they can do to reduce payment fraud. There are two ways to lower the risk of payment fraud in payment processing:

  • Increase the level of Straight Through Processing
  • Implement a Payment Hub

Higher level of Straight Through Processing
Corporates sometimes have hundreds of banking relationships and thousands of bank accounts, all managed manually on spreadsheets. Redesigning these treasury processes based on STP creates an integrated treasury workflow that streamlines processes effectively and provides treasurers with timely access to financial information. No more manual entries, no more errors.

Implementing a Payment Hub
A centralized payment platform combats payment fraud while also ensuring treasurers of having the money they need to manage day-to-day business obligations.

Some key benefits include:

  • Centralized monitoring and control
  • Flexibility and efficiency in payments
  • Reduced banking costs
  • Global Visibility
  • Easy access and more transparency

Please refer to our company page on treasuryXL or contact Mark van de Griendt if you’d like to receive more information about reducing payment fraud by a corporate payment hub.

 

Mark van de Griendt

Cash Management Expert at PowertoPay

Managing treasury risk: Operational Risk (Part VII)

| 21-3-2017 | Lionel Pavey |

 

There are lots of discussions concerning risk, but let us start by trying to define what we mean by risk. In my last article on how to manage treasury risk I will write something about operational risk. The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) defines this as “the risk of loss resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes, people and systems or from external events.  If you want to read my earlier articles on managing the different treasury risks please refer to the complete list at the end of today’s article.

 

Whilst this is the last article in this series, it is actually – potentially – the most significant risk that a company can face, as there are many different ways that a loss could occur, together with the fact that when it happens the amount lost can be very large. Even if the size of the loss could be considered small, there is always the threat of reputation risk which, once identified, is very difficult to erase from the memory.

While it is possible to insure against rogue trading for a company (the risk present in the Treasury function can be quantified and qualified) it is very rare that damage is caused by just one individual – a financial version of the lone wolf theory. Operational risks tend to be interlinked – a fraudulent payment could be initiated by human involvement (either as fraud or human error) and facilitated by weak processes together with insecure technological systems.

There are 2 main areas of operational risk within treasury for a company

  1. Internal
  2. External

There are 3 main categories of operational risk within treasury for a company:

  1. Computer System, Information Technology
  2. Theft and Fraud
  3. Unauthorised Activity

Computer System, Information Technology

A lack of robustness and deficiencies in the technology and systems contribute to circumstances for failures, errors, data losses, corruption and fraud. Internally considerable care and attention should be given to the protocol for Static Data. This encompasses all the relevant reference data for a counterparty and should be subject to at least an input and verification procedure before entering the computer system. Changes to Static Data have to be recorded, together with the proper paper trail and authorization matrix. Externally the risks relate mainly to illegal entry (hacking), together with the complete theft of data.

Theft and Fraud

Both internally and externally main areas include:

  • Theft – both physical and electronic
  • Extortion
  • Embezzlement
  • Forgery
  • Misappropriation
  • Willful destruction
  • Bribes
  • Kickbacks
  • Insider Trading

Unauthorised Activity

From the Treasury point of view, this is an internal activity and mainly relates to 2 types of transactions – unauthorized by transaction and or type; transactions that are not captured in the system and reported. These can lead to monetary losses (though a gain is possible – at the price of an operational risk), together with loss of reputation.
The last category clearly shows where the biggest risk occurs within a company – at the human level. Generally speaking, these are caused by incompetence, lack of knowledge, misuse of power or compulsion to act caused by external factors – extortion.
It is clear therefore that whilst the electronic systems employed by a company can be a liability if not properly programmed or safeguarded, even here, most of the errors can be traced by to human intervention.

So why are the human risks so often underestimated? Naturally a company wishes to have the feeling that its staff can be trusted (within reason). After all, the company felt that the staff were the right people to employ. It is not my intention to formulate the reasoning and thinking of people who perform illegal acts. However certain areas that can be considered include how staff are treated; the demand placed on them; the rewards given; the levels of transparency and inequity within the company; a closed-off attitude (problems in one department are kept within that department and not discussed throughout the company); the role model set by owners, directors and managers; loss of personnel, reduction in morale; disinterested and unmotivated staff.

 Solutions

An effective framework of operational risk management needs to be designed and implemented within the business. This requires input and commitment from all departments within the company, meeting one agreed standard and not being shaped to every individual department’s wishes. The framework has to run and meet the requirements for all different strategies within the company.

I wish to finish with 2 examples of operational risk to illustrate how large they can be.

In 1995 the world’s second oldest merchant bank (Barings Bank) collapsed due to the actions of a rogue trader. Corruption and a lack of internal control led to a loss of GBP 827 million.

Around the same time I was employed as an international money broker working in the interbank market and travelled every day from The Hague to Amsterdam via train. As I knew the route off by heart, I read all the time – magazines, papers, books – anything. I purchased a book called “The Cuckoo’s Egg” as it seemed interesting and would pass the time away sitting on the train.
The synopsis told me that an unreconciled accounting discrepancy of just 75 cents would lead to a world of computer espionage and spies. I highly recommend reading the book to understand how a simple error can grow to show the dangers of ignoring operational risks. If you like acronyms then you will enjoy reading about the FBI, CIA, NSA and KGB – all hacked via a UNIX server at a laboratory linked to the University of California.The story is true and threatened national security.

Trust people – but do not place temptation in their way.

Lionel Pavey

 

 

Lionel Pavey

Cash Management and Treasury Specialist

 

 

More articles of this series:

Managing treasury risk: Risk management

Managing treasury risk: Interest rate risk 

Managing treasury risk: Foreign exchange risk

Managing treasury risk: Commodity Risk

Managing treasury risk: Credit Risk

Managing treasury risk: Liquidity risk

Managing treasury risk: Liquidity Risk (VI)

|13-3-2017 | Lionel Pavey |

There are lots of discussions concerning risk, but let us start by trying to define what we mean by risk. In today’s article I will focus on liquidity risk. Many companies have very significant credit needs and this needs to be formally addressed with a credit analysis procedure in place. In my former articles I dealt with risk management, interest rate risk, foreign exchange risk, commodity risk and credit risk. See the complete list at the end of today’s article.

Liquidity risk comes in 2 distinct forms – market liquidity risk and funding liquidity risk.

Market Liquidity Risk

This relates to assets and potential illiquidity in the market and, as such, can be considered a market risk. In a normal functioning market it is always possible for market participants (buyers, sellers, market makers and speculators) to find each other and negotiate a price for their transactions. Assuming that the transaction is of a normal market size, there should be no dramatic change to the price of the asset after the transaction.

At the time of a crisis, participants could be absent from the market, making it difficult – if not impossible – to trade an asset. Sellers are left frustrated as there are no opportunities to sell the asset they are holding and vice versa for buyers. This can occur due to a financial crisis, changes in legislature, scarcity of an asset or someone attempting to corner the market. An asset generally will have a value, but if there are no buyers in the market that value can not be realised.

Liquidity risk is not the same as falling prices – after all prices are free to rise or fall. If an asset was priced at zero then it means that the market considers its value to be nothing. This is different from trying to sell an asset but not being able to find a buyer.

Markets for Foreign Exchange, Stocks, Shares, Bonds and many Futures and other derivatives are generally highly liquid. Off balance sheet products related to physical settlement can be less liquid as there is a need to actually provide physical settlement. Bespoke products like CDO’s can be considered illiquid as their size is normally small (relatively speaking) and not freely tradeable. Also the complexity needed to value the product affects its liquidity.

Housing is an asset class with very low liquidity – sometimes a property could be sold as soon as it hits the market. At other times the same property could be available for sale for many years and the price reduced regularly, without attracting a firm buyer.
The easiest and quickest way to see if there is a heightened market liquidity risk is via the bid – offer spread. If this is suddenly seen widening, this would imply that there appears to be more risk. In a normal, liquid market, the spreads are fairly constant and small, allowing participants to easily step in and transact. A widening of spreads occurs in a normal market when government data is published – nonfarm payrolls, balance of payment, etc. Within a short time the market will return to a normal spread as the information is properly digested and the market makers return. However, if the spreads widen without a publication event taking place, it is reasonable to assume that the risk has increased.
Additionally, risk could grow if reserve requirements were increased. In markets such as Futures, it is necessary to pay margin to the exchange. If these margin payments were increased, this would lead to transactions being more expensive and so lead to less liquidity in the market.

Market makers can also observe the market depth. This is shown by the quantity available for transacting at a particular price in their order books. When a market is perceived as being deep, it means there are many orders and, therefore, a large number of orders would be needed to move the market price significantly. The deeper the market, the more liquid the market.

Funding Liquidity Risk

This relates to the risk of not being able to settle debts when they are due. Treasury specialists in a corporate environment are acutely concerned with funding risk. Every month wages must be paid, together with tax and social premiums (pensions, insurance etc.) Additionally, it would be advantageous to pay trade creditors on time. Future liabilities also have to be funded after they have been recognized. This could mean arranging external financing.

If there is a liquidity crisis in the market, it becomes difficult and expensive to arrange to borrow the necessary funds. The price may be so high that the intended profit provided by selling the goods, is negated by the increased cost of funding. A reduction in the credit rating of a company can also lead to increased costs and a reluctance to lend.
If a company is known to have problems making payments, then the liquidity risk is specific to the company – the rest of the market will function normally.

Funding risk can also occur if creditors fail to pay you, or if an unforeseen event has occurred that leads to an outflow of cash from the company.
A company can initially perform a quick spot check to ascertain its current ratio. This shows if a company can meet its current liabilities with its current assets. A ratio of less than 1 would imply that the company can not meet all its obligations at the same time. However, this could also be because there is no short term finance arranged at that moment.
It is possible to arrange a line of credit with a financial provider. He defines a maximum loan (line of credit) that can be extended which the company may utilize. While it is normal to pay a standing charge for the balance of the line that is not being used, this can be offset by the knowledge that it is possible to drawdown against the line when needed (in normal circumstances). There is greater flexibility with a line of credit than with a traditional bank loan.

Other methods include –

i)                    Sell assets like stock that are slow moving and tying down cash

ii)                   Analyse all overheads – office equipment, expense claims

iii)                 Increase efficiency in the debtors’ administration. Be proactive

iv)                 Renegotiate with suppliers – better that you talk to them before it is too late

v)                  Design contingency plans

vi)                 Subject your business to stress testing

vii)               Apply the techniques of ALM (asset and liability management)

 

Some very well known companies have fallen to liquidity problems – Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, Northern Rock, ABN Amro, AIG, etc. While the risks were prevalent before the crises, the main liquidity problems occurred when it was determined that there was no more time allowed for the situation to remain.
Time is the soul of business.

Lionel Pavey

 

Lionel Pavey

Cash Management and Treasury Specialist 

 

 

 

More articles of this series:

Managing treasury risk: Risk management

Managing treasury risk: Interest rate risk 

Managing treasury risk: Foreign exchange risk

Managing treasury risk: Commodity Risk

Managing treasury risk: Credit Risk

Blockchain and derivatives: Re-imagining the industry

| 10-3-2017 | Carlo de Meijer |

Since the first meetings organised by the Technology Advisory Committee of the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) on January 26 and February 23, 2016, on “Blockchain and the Potential Application of Distributed Ledger Technology to the Derivatives Market”, we have seen a lot of activity in this area.

The Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC) last month – so a year later – launched its plans to develop a blockchain-based post-trade framework for derivatives processing with tech firms R3, IBM and Axoni starting in January. The US-based clearing institute aims to replace the technology underpinning its Trade Information Warehouse database with a distributed ledger. The announcement by DTCC of its plan to transition its Trade Information Warehouse (TIW), into a blockchain platform  is described as a “watershed moment” for the industry in deploying distributed ledger technology (DLT) in production at this scale and a “reimagining” of credit derivatives processing.

DTCC and TIW

But for an idea of the scale of this operation, first something about DTCC and TIW. The Depository and Clearing Corporation focuses on post-trade financial services, providing clearing and settlement services to the financial markets. It provides central custody of securities and ways for buyers and sellers to make their exchanges in a safe and efficient way.
The Trade Information Warehouse (TIW) , a central part of its financial infrastructure, and a  a major component in the credit derivatives market, currently automates recordkeeping and other workflow functions, such as lifecycle events and payment management for more than $11 trillion of cleared and bilateral credit derivatives annually, among 2,500 buy-side firms located in more than 70 countries. This is roughly 98% of all transactions in that asset class.

DTCC involvement with blockchain

DTCC has been in the forefront of early-stage experimentation, notwithstanding this technology could disrupt this industry and might make obsolete or reduce the role of a number of clearing and other business parties in the post trade market infrastructure. Already end 2015 DTCC expressed its interest in blockchain technology and became a founding member of the Hyperledger Project, an open-source blockchain development project managed by The Linux Foundation and aimed at driving the adoption and standardization of distributed ledger technology in the financial services sector. Last year DTCC also invested in and partnered with Digital Asset Holdings (DAH).

The decision to go ahead with a blockchain-powered “revamp” of the DTCC’s Trade Information Warehouse follows a successful trial of this technology by the company last year. In April 2016, DTCC announced the successful completion of a proof of concept of blockchain technology and smart contracts to manage post-trade lifecycle events for standard North American single-name credit default swaps (CDS) in partnership with Axoni, Markit, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Citi, Credit Suisse and JPMorgan.

Soon after their partnership, DTCC and DAH started a collaboration to develop and test blockchain-based solutions for the $2.6 trillion US repurchase agreement (repo) market. DTCC and DAH said “they wanted to streamline U.S. Treasury, Agency and Agency Mortgage-Backed repo transactions and thereby lower costs and risks”.

The DTCC TIW blockchain project

In their plans the DTCC’s Trade Information Warehouse is to be “re-platformed” through a distributed ledger framework based on blockchain technology to drive further improvements in derivatives post-trade lifecycle events. The project has been developed with input and guidance from a number of market participants including Barclays, Citi, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan, UBS and Wells Fargo, and infrastructure providers IHS Markit and Intercontinental Exchange. These parties helped develop the technology by providing workflow guidance. The final goal of the project is to develop a permissioned distributed ledger network for derivatives, governed by DTCC, with peer nodes at participating firms.

  • Cooperative effort

The whole project is a cooperative effort of a number of partners. By mid-2016, the DTCC submitted a request for proposal (RFP) for interested parties to “re-platform” the warehouse and cut back on reconciliation costs. DTCC has selected a series of firms including IBM, startup Axoni and bank-backed R3CEV to help integrate distributed ledger technology into its first large-scale, real-world application.

Under the DTCC agreement, IBM is the primary contract holder for the DTCC implementation and will lead the initiative, provide program management, contribute DLT expertise and integration services as well serving as the solution-as-a-service (SaaS) provider. Axoni is to provide distributed ledger infrastructure and smart contract applications, while the blockchain bank-backed  consortium R3CEV  is acting as a “solution advisor” from both a technological perspective and from a banking workflow perspective. R3 is thereby charged with “really helping validate that the architecture is sound, but also making sure that the feedback from this big R3 global network is heard”.

“The combined expertise of IBM and our partners enables us to provide DTCC with a resilient, open and innovative new technology platform to support this groundbreaking opportunity.”  Bridget van Kralingen, SVP IBM Industry Platforms.

  • Phased approach

Development on the technology started in January and is expected to go live in early 2018. Over the course of 2017, the partners will work collaboratively to “re-platform” the existing Trade Information Warehouse (TIW) to a permissioned distributed ledger network custom-built for cleared and bilateral credit derivatives – governed by industry-owned DTCC with peer nodes at participating firms.

“It enables a distributed network to be built on this where, ultimately, participants could have nodes in-house,” Schvey, Axoni.

The distributed ledger technology being used for the DTCC TIW project is the AxCore protocol, created by New York-based Axoni. Deployment of the AxCore protocol will be done in phases, and even after it goes live next year, may only be adopted slowly. When the AxCore protocol goes live in early 2018, Axoni intends to submit the software to Hyperledger Project.

Rollout of the new blockchain-powered platform won’t be immediate. Initially, the distributed ledger will run in parallel with the existing settlement infrastructure. The latter can take as long as a week to close compared to the nearly instant settlement times expected from the blockchain solution. Upon launch, the DTCC will run a node that updates the TIW ledger, and other participants will also be able to run a node to support the network or to just get a feed of the information. “Not all of our clients will be moving into the world of distributed ledger at the same pace”. Large participating firms are expected to run their own individual “peer nodes” on the private ledger, with smaller DTCC clients being given the option to tap into DTCC’s own node.

By the time the Axoni technology is fully implemented, the entire life-cycle of a credit derivative will be captured as a smart contract or a “suite of smart contracts”.

Main goals ….

The new-to-create blockchain-powered platform is intended to enable DTCC and its clients to further streamline, automate and reduce the cost of derivatives processing across the industry by removing the need for “disjointed, redundant processing capabilities and the associated reconciliation costs”.

The present processes are arduous with current paper contracts in the form of computer documents still being issued. Blockchain and smart contract technology that will allow buyers, sellers and central clearing houses of derivative trades to share information, such as KYC (Know Your Customer), in real time across various distributed ledger platforms, may unleash great efficiencies. At scale, peer-to-peer networks that secure digital assets would allow parties to identify, transact, and settle with each other in expedited workflows.

  • Streamline derivatives processing
    “Distributed ledger technology is a natural fit for derivatives processing. By recording and automatically managing shared records of financial agreements in the cloud without error, it can minimize the steps required for post-trade processing and free up middle- and back-office staff from the onerous task of reconciliation.” Rutter R3CEV
  • Improvement to settlement times
    With regard to the settlement of derivative transactions, presently the system entails a three to five day process involving many third parties. This represents a significant opportunity cost that parties can recapture with a blockchain-based system that enables even real-time settlement.
    “In a future where they move their infrastructure from what I imagine is a complex environment of interconnected software with a ton of proprietary adapters and middleware to a blockchain, the cost savings and improvement to settlement time – currently as long as a week for some of DTCC’s trades -will be pretty monumental to their business.”
  • Cost saving
    Blockchains are “uniquely suited” to reduce costs associated with reconciliations, settlement, and security. According to industry executives cost savings can come from eliminating redundant IT systems and trading and risk management overhead. The finance industry currently spends roughly $150 billion annually on IT and operations expenditures in addition to $100 billion on post-trade and securities servicing fees. A 2015 report by Santander estimated the global savings to banks more generally speaking could be as high as $20bn a year.
    To provide an example, parties that own identical records in a single, shared ledger would reap explicit cost savings around reconciliations. Similarly, parties that transact obligations in a wholly digital, peer-to-peer network underpinned by such a ledger would reap explicit cost savings around settlement activities as well. Furthermore, parties would be able to manage implicit costs in different ways, like exceptions management, regulatory reporting, know-your-customer (KYC) and anti-money laundering (AML) that stand to be streamlined in ways that provide maximum value in a peer-to-peer workflow.

… and other possible opportunities

Other possible benefits of the use of blockchain in the derivative space include increased transparency, lower counterparty risk, and easier accounting. This may ultimately lead to lower collateral needs and improved liquidity.

  • Improved transparency
    In addition to providing streamlined processing by supporting self-executing code, or smart contracts, it is “widely heralded as a bastion of transparency”. This is especially relevant for regulatory bodies. Since the distributed ledger’s record is immutable, a regulatory node has the potential to give government observers access to real-time data about transactions, instead of having to wait for reports from market participants.
  • Improved risk management
    The use of blockchain technology for derivatives could also improve risk management. It could provide market participants a degree of control over risk and versatility over the balance sheet that is unachievable with today’s paper assets. As an example, parties might consider cash flow exchanges every 30 seconds instead of every 30 days, reducing counterparty and credit risk commensurately, as well as changing how these risks are measured.
  • Improved collateral management
    Under blockchain, dealers will post collateral to the clearing house in the form of initial and variation margin by escrowing cash on a distributed cash ledger or by allocating assets held on other asset ledgers to a distributed collateral ledger. Smart derivative contracts that bind both seller and buyer will be stored on a distributed derivative ledger along with information from the cash and asset ledgers. This will lead to efficiencies for calculating derivative positions and obligations, leading to lower collateral needs.
  • “The smart contract can automatically compute exposures by referencing agreed external data sources (e.g. S&P 500, NASDAQ) that recalculate variation margin. Interoperable derivative and collateral ledgers would automatically allow the contract to call additional collateral units on asset ledgers to support these needs. At maturity, a final net obligation is computed by the smart contract, and a payment instruction automatically generated in the cash ledger, closing out the deal”
  • Improved liquidity
    Transparency, alongside reduced transaction and trade maintenance costs, could, in turn, enhance trading liquidity. In present situation in order to maintain liquidity levels firms nowadays have to overcompensate where the money has to be tied up for some time before the next transaction. The improvement in funds settlement and counterparty risk assessment in a blockchain environment may shorten the liquidity cycle for various derivative positions, allowing banks to inject liquidity into the system for other transactions much more quickly.

Remaining challenges

Despite all the positives around blockchain and smart contract technology, still many challenges exist. These are mostly the same as for other financial transactions, including lack of scalability, no common standards, no legal and regulatory certainty and the arrival of multiple distributed ledgers. But also smart contracts are at an early stage of development. Defining exactly what they are and how they would work is still a challenge. Regulators and standards bodies across many different industries will need to come together to define what they mean for each transaction and sector.

“The industry assumption is that there should not be one ledger to rule them all, there will be different ledgers and we need to work together to make sure they interoperate, not just from banks.” Braine Barclays

Are there opportunities for derivatives CCPs?

An interesting question is: why is DTCC so active in the blockchain arena: for defensive or offensive reasons? Blockchain technology is seen by many as a disruptive factor for a number of market infrastructure players such as CSDs, repositories and CCPs.

One of the original goals of blockchain technology is to remove the need for central governing bodies.  Traditionally, financial exchanges have required clearing houses to provide a guarantee to the winning party of the derivative contract in case the loser does not pay. The clearing house is able to provide this guarantee by requiring both parties to make cash deposits during the pre-trade phase.

The ledger will replace today’s process by which multiple parties reconcile proprietary books and records to accurately represent the custody and value of a financial instrument at any given point in time. With respect to the derivatives markets, blockchains would ultimately come to be used as digital asset registries, as a record residing in a single, shared ledger. So the mechanisms by which parties maintain custody of their obligations and the smart contracts that enshrine those obligations.

….. Yes there are!

A number of industry analysts however reason traders will continue to novate derivative trades via a Counterparty Clearing House (CCP) in order for dealers to net their exposures and monitor the financial well-being of counterparties (ensuring problems like double-spending are eliminated).

Also Nasdaq thinks there are opportunities for derivatives CCPs.

“The concepts of DLT – in its fundamental form with decentralised recording of asset ownership – and derivatives CCP clearing are inherently different. At first, it appears counterintuitive for a derivatives CCP to pursue a technology aimed at decentralising the processing of transactions and removing the need for a CCP. However, derivatives clearing consists of several processes such as position keeping, reconciliation, collateral management, risk and default management, and settlement. While margining and default management do not benefit from a decentralised process, position keeping and settlement could do – and here DLT can increase efficiency.” Fredrik Ekström, Nasdaq’s Clearing President in “Blockchain Tech for Derivatives CCPs — Friend or Foe?”

Final remarks

If this first large-scale implementation of a distributed ledger proves successful, there’s plenty of room to expand. In my mind one should be optimistic of further developments in this space, especially in consideration of the rising cost of reconciliations, post-trade operations, and security issues that market participants confront today.

It seems very likely that the DTCC initiative, once it becomes operational, will have a significant impact on the derivatives world and may open doors to massive adoption of distributed ledger technology for financial services including derivatives.

“This will be one of the first [instances] globally where we are using distributed ledger technology to become a piece of the infrastructure in a very critical market, in the credit default swaps market, and use it across the entirety of multiple players” “By recording transactions in a distributed ledger, everyone uses that same piece of information, that same trade batch, in the same exact way.” DTCC CEO Bodson.

The entire global credit derivatives market in 2016 was $544tn, according to the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), much of which is processed by the DTCC.

 

Carlo de Meijer

Economist and researcher

 

Managing treasury risk: Credit Risk (Part V)

| 23-2-2017 | Lionel Pavey |

 

There are lots of discussions concerning risk, but let us start by trying to define what we mean by risk. In my fifth article I will focus on credit risk. Many companies have very significant credit needs and this needs to be formally addressed with a credit analysis procedure in place. In my former articles I dealt with risk management, interest rate risk, foreign exchange risk and commodity risk. See the complete list at the end of today’s article.

Credit Risk

Credit Risk occurs when there is a risk of default from money that has been lent to a borrower, or funds that have been invested.
The risk can be caused by:

  • Trade credit extend to a client, who does not pay
  • Inability to make a payment on a loan
  • A company going bankrupt
  • An insurance company not paying under a policy
  • A bank becoming insolvent
  • A company not paying wages to employees
  • A government defaulting

Main categories

The main categories of credit risk are:

Default risk
Counterparty risk
Sovereign risk
Legal risk
Concentration risk

Default risk:
occurs due to the default on monies owed either from lending or investment. The counterparty could be unable to repay. Sometimes they could also be unwilling to repay. The default risk is therefore on 100% of the outstanding balance, unless some form of recovery (be it full or partial) was possible.

Counterparty risk:
occurs when counterparties have to perform an action on a contractual commitment.
This can happen at both the time of settlement and also before settlement, but after entering a contract. Since the start of the financial crisis settlement risk is a major factor for banks. If at settlement a counterparty fails to meet its obligation, this can potentially lead to large losses and, eventually, to a systemic risk as you are therefore unable to meet your own obligations. A default before settlement can be alleviated by substituting a new contract though this could occur at prices far less favourable.

Sovereign risk:
entails the political, legal and regulatory exposures arising from international trade and cross border transactions. It can relate to a government failing in its obligation to repay or to new laws that prohibit free movement of funds – exchange control. Any contracts entered into with nondomestic counterparties should be analysed for the embedded sovereign risks and potential political instability.

Legal risk:
can occur if the counterparty is not legally allowed to enter into certain trades – especially derivative trades. We see in the media stories of companies that have experienced difficulties with derivatives leading to losses and court cases are started to either enforce or negate the contract. Also special purpose vehicles are formed purely to enter into certain transactions like securitisation issues. These are companies with no staff, fixed abode, or assets other than the underlying collateral of the issue.

Concentration risk:
 arises from lack of diversification. Too many loans from 1 or 2 banks, too many products purchased from 1 or 2 suppliers, too much revenue generated by 1 or 2 customers. This risk is a bit of a paradox as many companies become successful through concentrating their resources in key niche areas, whilst having to diversify their underlying risk at the same time.

Measures

There are, of course, measures that can be undertaken to identify and minimize these potential losses.

The first approach is counterparty ratings. Certain criteria can be examined – credit rating agencies, examination of financial statements, good knowledge of the counterparty, political, geographical (are they situated next to a volcano?) and legal status.

Notional exposure reveals the full amount outstanding with a counterparty – all the money that could potentially be lost.

Aggregate exposure netts the exposure with a counterparty between monies to be received and monies to be paid.

Clear picture of the replacement costs – the costs involved to replace the existing transaction with a new counterparty.

Techniques of measurement

Measurement of credit risk requires quantitative techniques to measure and model the risks.  An example would be Basel III that places a regulatory framework on banks to ensure adequate capital ratios. Eventually the techniques being used will trickle down to commercial companies. This should result in the creation of risk tools that are more sophisticated and improvements of the techniques used to report and measure risk.

However, as the financial crisis has clearly shown, over-reliance on sophisticated computer models appeared to lead to false comfort with the results generated by the modelling systems. This was caused by underestimating the risks in new financial products and the great assumption that is always prevalent in economic theory – people behave rationally at all times! Any model is a snapshot of the world and can only contain a few variables that are perceived as critical. All others are discarded to ensure that the model can work quickly and efficiently.

Lionel Pavey

 

 

Lionel Pavey

Cash Management and Treasury Specialist

 

 

 

More articles of this series:

Managing treasury risk: Risk management

Managing treasury risk: Interest rate risk 

Managing treasury risk: Foreign exchange risk

Managing treasury risk: Commodity Risk