BCR Publishing
We are the leading provider of news, market intelligence, events and training for the global receivables finance industry.
Working with industry leading organisations, experts, governments and universities, BCR Publications delivers expertise in factoring, receivables and supply chain finance to a global audience.
BCR has long been a beacon of innovation and excellence in the realm of receivables finance, playing an instrumental role in shaping the industry’s international landscape. Through its comprehensive conferences, insightful publications, and thought leadership, BCR has facilitated crucial dialogues and connections among industry professionals, driving forward the development of receivables finance globally.
Follow BCR Publishing
Free passes
For corporate treasurer roles/functions!
Toename SCF om werkkapitaal te financieren
| 14-3-2017 | Jan de Kroon |
Rond de Creditexpo verschijnen er tal van artikelen over de voor en nadelen van uiteenlopende ontwikkelingen rond het thema Supply chain financering (SCF). Zo publiceerde PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC) recent in verkorte vorm de uitkomsten van een gehouden onderzoek naar Reversed Factoring als alternatief voor werkkapitaalfinanciering van banken.
Het zal de lezer niet verbazen dat SCF in het algemeen en reversed factoring specifiek, hard groeien. Het is een nieuwe trend en dus is er ook een groeiende groep innovators en early adopters. Dat laatste echter vooral bij adviserende of toeleverende partijen in het proces. En dus met een zeker belang.
Waarbij ik overigens geen waardeoordeel geef; ik ben zelf ook adviseur.
Wel is het van belang iedere ontwikkeling en dus ook deze, te beoordelen op de werkelijke merites. Anders dan in relatie tot bancaire financiering heet het niet voor niets Supply chain financiering.
Belangrijk is te bedenken dat het juist daar van toegevoegde waarde is, waar de vertrouwensrelatie tussen leverancier en afnemer in de keten ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ is. Je hebt een relatie waarin je langer met elkaar optrekt als op elkaar ingespeelde ketenspelers. Omdat dat vertrouwen er is kan het ook zonder bank en omdat je het vaker met en voor elkaar doet, loont het ook er wat meer ‘(infra)structurele’ afspraken over te maken.
Dat houdt tegelijkertijd in dat als de connectie een minder frequente of regelmatige is, het instrument minder tot zijn recht komt. Mutatis mutandis geldt dat ook voor ‘reversed factoring’ als belangrijk SCF instrument. Anders dan reguliere factoring gaat het niet om het bevoorschotten op basis van de kredietwaardigheid van de verkoper, maar om het voorfinancieren van debiteuren in portefeuille op basis van hun kredietwaardigheid. Daarmee is het een alternatief voor die bedrijven die op basis van hun eigen kredietwaardigheid niet of moeilijk bij banken of factormaatschappijen terecht kunnen. Hoewel het wordt aangeboden door factormaatschappijen, kan echter ook een opvolgende ketenspeler hier zijn surplus cash voor inzetten. Met name dat laatste is interessant omdat op die manier er een zekere ‘disintermediatie’ plaatsvindt; de supply chain regelt het zelf buiten de financiële sector om en bespaart zich de tussenmarge.
Belangrijk is ons te realiseren dat SCF nu juist de ketenactiviteit en dus een zeker repeterend karakter benadrukt en de financiering daarop inregelt. Voor meer eenmalige transacties of transacties met minder regelmaat is SCF en daarmee reversed factoring vooralsnog minder geschikt. In dat soort gevallen is voorlopig de weg naar nieuwe start-ups als ‘Debiteurenbeurs’ meer geschikt. Daar kan een onderneming afzonderlijke facturen of incidentele liquiditeitskrapte op maat oplossen.
Jan de Kroon
Owner & Managing partner of Improfin Groep
Managing treasury risk: Liquidity Risk (VI)
|13-3-2017 | Lionel Pavey |
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
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 |
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.
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.
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.
“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
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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