vice president, risk solutions, SunGard's capital markets business

Connect on LinkedIn

Cage Goes in the Water. You Go in the Water. Shark’s in the Water.

Posted by

This blog post originally appeared on TabbFORUM.

In the 1975 summer smash Jaws, a rogue shark terrorizes a summer town. In addition to being responsible for more aquaphobia and galeophobia (the fear of sharks) than any other film in history, it does highlight different responses to a problem. Much of the film is set on board the Orca, highlighting the tension between an old-school captain and a scientist who is keen to make sure that “non-rogue” sharks are left in peace. The bemusement of the boat skipper at the scientist’s willingness to jump in the water with the sharks is emphasized by the singing of an old shanty after most of the two men’s encounters.

The comparison comes to mind when reading that a CRO has been appointed at Knight Capital. While I am claiming no specific knowledge of Knight Capital’s particular situation, it is clear that the announcement of a CRO role at any firm would convey a sense that the institution is taking its risk controls very seriously, and implies that a C-level appointee will be tasked with instilling a more culturally based risk attitude across the firm. Although this is usually the case – and certainly may be with Knight – there are also occasions when the net effect is a person receiving the same risk reports as before, but they are now called “Chief Risk Officer” instead of head of market or credit risk.

There are some risk managers who seem to truly believe in being in the water with the sharks, with or without a cage. Those folks will typically have the risk function in or near the middle of the trading or portfolio management areas, and are more interested in actively engaging in strategic and tactical discussions than producing increasingly detailed reports. Key to this engagement is the CRO’s willingness and capacity to debate the risk numbers, what they mean, and the models used to create them. Typically this debate results in some changes on the risk side, but supports a far more bought-in stakeholder group. Further, in this scenario, the floor-level understanding of risk evolves quickly into expectancy that risk is represented in strategic discussions at all levels.

The language of risk should really become the language of a financial institution. This can only happen if looking through the risk lens adds value to those in charge of taking risk and enables senior management to express the firm’s strategy and outlook in risk-based terms. It is important that this goes beyond simply risk-adjusting returns in order to control incentives. The risk numbers have to actively add value. And when that value is added and understood, the cultural shift will follow.

So, as we read about the growing number of CROs in financial services, we should pay more attention to the language used to express the future direction of the firms with those new members of the C-suite. Are they simply paying a bounty to a weatherworn fisherman and putting up a “beaches are open” sign, or are they actually in the water, in the cage, with the sharks?

…Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies…

While you’re here…

vice president, SunGard’s capital markets business

Only the Beginning for Exchange and Clearing Innovation

Posted by

This blog post originally appeared on FOW. It was also covered in the John Lothian Newsletter.

As global regulators move to implement new rules designed to control the swaps markets, the world’s futures exchanges are responding with bold and innovative structural changes intended to reduce or eliminate certain regulatory burdens faced by their customers, including increased trading costs and additional expenditures associated with alternative risk management processing methods.

As a basis for the change, the Dodd-Frank Act and the subsequent regulatory definition of a swap expressly exclude futures and options on futures. As a result, on October 15, the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) intends to convert an entire class of over-the-counter cleared swaps into listed futures. This change is meant to ameliorate some of the negative effects of the Dodd-Frank rule-based disparate treatment among swaps and futures, including higher margin costs. Through this action, the ICE effectively creates a hybrid instrument class that will trade, margin and clear as futures, yet concurrently adhere to the enhanced segregation and protection rules under the new swaps regime.

The new segregation rules, which generally apply to swaps pursuant to Section 4d of the Commodity Exchange Act, impose enhanced requirements onto brokers to segregate their customers’ funds to protect against fellow-customer risk that is inherent in the futures clearing model. The ICE has effectively answered this regulatory burden by modifying its rulebook and implementing structural efficiencies through the identification of a hybrid instrument class known as “covered product.” The ICE is contemplating a covered product that is functionally equivalent to a future/option and simultaneously receives the segregation benefits attributable to swaps. The introduction of the covered product also alleviates customers’ increased trading costs that are a likely result from the newly imposed gross margin rule.

Because the ICE as a designated contract market (DCM) may self-certify its contracts as futures, at first glance the transition to covered products look as though the ICE is attempting to circumvent or avoid swaps rules through a simple re-classification of its products, which under certain circumstances may be construed as evasion and would constitute a Dodd-Frank rule violation. However, the ICE swaps-to-futures transition, and concurrent introduction of covered products is likely compliant because the covered products anticipate being cleared through the Section 4d account, which explicitly satisfies the Dodd-Frank rule implementation. That is, although cleared and managed as futures/options, from a segregation perspective, the ICE is treating covered products as swaps together with the enhanced protections.

From an operational perspective, covered products also solve for what would be additional expenditures associated with alternative risk management processing methods. Accordingly, the CFTC Rule 1.73, which sets forth pre-trade risk management requirements, would apply to clearing members that are FCMs, and Section 23.609 would apply to clearing members that are SDs or MSPs. Under the rules, clearing members of a designated clearing organization (DCO) would be required to establish risk-based limits and trade compliance for each account based on position size, order size, margin requirements, and/or similar factors. This means that all participants – even those that are not involved in agency business – need to comply with Rule 1.73, with the requisite technology. Finally, the rule contemplates that only authorized trades within the parameters set will reach the market, providing the member firm is operating within a pre-defined limit schedule.

Although the CFTC has stated that it “envisions that each clearing member will comply with Rule 1.73 using procedures and technology appropriate to its business model and customer base,” by establishing and maintaining systems of risk controls reasonably designed to ensure compliance. However, trade origination complexity exposes many member firms to violations because of the source, method, or structure of the trade. Therefore, the move toward covered products and re-classification provides operational relief to the DCOs customers. This is true because covered products, such as those being introduced by the ICE, contemplate the continued use of an industry-standard pre-trade risk management and position monitoring system providing high-capacity control across multiple markets and products. Although the CFTC does not prescribe the manner of risk limits, it envisions member-based filters and configurations that can be set either to auto-reject orders or to notify the trader with an alert which may be adjusted to a particular market or product.

More significantly, the introduction of covered products and re-classification is a foreseeable trend, as other clearinghouses will likely provide similar relief and innovation. In fact, CFTC Commissioner Scott O’Malia said “the decision by ICE to speed up the transition of its cleared OTC energy contracts to futures reflects regulatory uncertainty, and is likely to be replicated by other exchanges.” The ICE has likely moved to modify its rulebook and re-classify its swaps contracts because market participants have expressed concerns about issues ranging from increased collateral demands, gross margin netting burdens, and inflationary trade costs, as functionally disruptive to the current state of clearing and trading activities.

Specifically, beginning on November 8, gross margin rules require that initial margin should be determined with respect to each customer position on the same basis that the clearinghouse would determine margin on the account of an FCM, thereby requiring market participants to hold these related positions in separate accounts with separate margin requirements. Therefore, the ICE seeks to preempt collateral demand changes and inflationary trade costs by introducing the covered product.

Additionally, and consistent with this trend, the CME Group is rolling out a new product called “swap futures,” in mid-November. In addition to independent trading viability, swap futures are intended to provide ancillary support to privately negotiated swaps that may trade off-facility, or possibly on affirmation platforms such as swap execution facilities (SEFs). Like the ICE’s covered product, the CME’s swap futures are hybrid instruments and seek to reduce initial margin costs by calculating on a portfolio or netted basis rather than the gross basis under the new rules. Also, swap futures are standardized to account for position limit scheduling and pre-trade monitoring on a multi-dimension level – including market, desk and individual client, as required by the rules, and without any additional risk management processing configuration.

Swap futures and covered products introduced by the world’s futures exchanges contemplate economic and structural innovation through products that are compliant, efficient and able to leverage industry-standard pre-trade risk management and position monitoring systems. As Dodd-Frank continues to drive change, it looks like this is only the beginning for exchange and clearing innovation.

While you’re here…

head of product management, Front Arena, SunGard's capital markets business

Success in Middle East Trading: Keeping it Simple

Posted by

At the recent SunGard Dubai City Day, panelists at the session entitled “Leading from the Front: the Ever-changing Capital Markets Arena” had a very interesting discussion about how institutions, particularly those in the Middle East, can compete in times of rapid global regulatory and technological change.

New regulations, such as Dodd-Frank in the U.S. and MiFID II Europe, are focused on systemic risk and transparency. However, in the Middle East, systemic risks are typically well-contained and transparency almost entirely refers to OTC instruments which are not prevalent in the region. Consequently, the new regulations in other regions will have minimal impact in the Middle East.

It was noted that there are differences between regional consumption models: the U.S. has largely financed consumption with debt, European consumption has been mostly savings-financed and China appears to be growth-financed.

In contrast, the Middle East, rich in both natural resources and cash, has financed little of its consumption with debt. There has been discussion of the idea that the region should combine different consumption models, financing with a mixture of debt, savings and growth. There was a belief that the choice of the correct model will ensure a lower level of regulation compared to other countries.

There is a broad, ongoing discussion about regulation in the Middle East markets. The panelists emphasized the importance of balance and pointed to a concern over “regulatory inconsistency across the region.” But there are also more upbeat perspectives on the regulatory landscape: unlike more developed regions where participants from all sectors are seeing increased regulation as a potential business impediment, the Middle East is seeing its markets opening up.

In the last two years alone, Qatar, for example, has received approval for a DvP (delivery vs. payment) mechanism, stock lending, market-making, DMA (direct market access), ETFs (exchange-traded funds), bills, new indices, new order types, and closing auctions.

That said, technology must keep pace with so much rapid change, and it seems clear today that dedicated systems for market-making and securities lending are imperative. Further, the increasing breadth of products, models and regulations requires consolidation of systems and data sources to provide clear insight into risks.

Indeed, with an expectation of a take-off in DMA, some foresee a time when a minority of flow will go through broker order management systems: technology vendors must “supply tools to calculate and assess the risk that comes along with these new trades.”

The core message we heard in Dubai was the importance of “going back to basics.” Simplified and standardized regulation and processes coupled with “accurate, reliable and comparable data” is fundamental to the path forward for trading in the Middle East.

global head of connectivity, SunGard’s global trading business

Trading in the Middle East: Turning a Corner?

Posted by

At SunGard’s Dubai City Day, a panel looked at trading opportunities and challenges in the Middle East. Panel members started with the bad news first: due to regulatory constraints, the region’s exchanges remain largely domestic monopolies, with very little competition for listings, no high-frequency trading and no CCP. Add to this the constraint of settlement caps, the large retail focus of most exchanges, different working weeks and settlement models – all deterrents to the generation of regional liquidity abound, probably explaining the minimal foreign participation in the markets until very recently.

Trading in the region will eventually become more attractive and accessible to overseas investors, but the panelists in Dubai implied that regulators were understandably quite cautious at present. Of more concern was the diversity of regulatory regimes throughout the region.

It was suggested that the lack of drive to unify some of the basic rules could in part be due to a desire to preserve each exchange’s local dominance, but a lack of competition for flow and listings constrains liquidity movement and foreign participation throughout the region. As case in point, Saudi Arabia for example simply bars foreign ownership; currently, foreigners can only trade Saudi stocks through funds or swap structures.

Panelists indicated that in Saudi Arabia, the market has experienced a doubling of volumes over the first half of 2012, driven by local investors with a strong domestic focus in an economy growing at more than 5 percent per year.* The domesticity and retail-oriented focus of the Saudi market – an amazing 93 percent of trading volumes are said to be retail-generated – gives it a different character from international markets, where retail volumes can be more erratic. Conversely, the Egyptian market was said to be dominated by institutional volumes. In Qatar, the focus is on attracting both domestic flows – particularly from the expat client base that may not have been aware that participation was possible – and increased participation from GCC institutions rather than directly reaching international investors.

The difference in settlement structures and models is also naturally becoming a point of concern, especially for investors looking across different regional exchanges. For example, while Saudi is at T+0, other GCC countries operate in a T+2 environment.

Turning to connectivity, the panel looked at the GCC exchanges’ capacity to absorb a sudden influx of high-frequency external order flow. The panel’s answer was a qualified yes for the future, but not anytime soon. The implementation of new trading engines and the adoption of industry-standard trading protocols probably explain that enthusiasm. Attention was also given to the technical connectivity methods themselves: with more fiber-optic cables being laid and a greater belief in Internet security, panelists proposed that direct market access over VPN (virtual private network) could become a viable method in the region.

On the panel, there was a clear view that the Middle East needs new products to drive liquidity to its capital markets, besides the requirement to improve infrastructure and the need to provide market participants an experience similar to “Western” standards, through changes to the markets’ structure, such as market-making, full delivery vs. payment, etc.

There is no doubt that the region’s regulators and market operators are, in a carefully considered way, adopting policies conducive to market expansion, the narrowing of spreads, and the provision of liquidity. We may be getting closer to the day when Middle East equity markets become venues for international investment.

*Sources AMF & WFE

senior vice president, Stream, SunGard's capital markets business

ASEAN: New Trading Opportunities, New Post-Trade Demands

Posted by

The ASEAN trading link announced its launch in September 2012. The link will firmly establish the ASEAN nations as an investment and trading bloc, and is also expected to attract new foreign investment to the region, as well as provide better opportunities for local capital.

Local Asian brokerage firms will probably benefit most from the link. They are now in a better position to compete with major international brokerage houses to manage the inflow business coming from neighboring countries, and they will also now have outbound access to local exchanges. While international brokerages have already established their own networks and unilateral relationships at the individual exchanges, the ASEAN trading link will bring the local brokers up to speed.

The ASEAN trading link project is only one step towards harmonization, but it is a major step. When Bursa Malaysia and Singapore’s SGX become fully interconnected, with the Stock Exchange of Thailand to follow, the link will already have connected 70 percent of the total market capitalization of ASEAN. But with the rise in cross-border trading, many participants still need help to establish an infrastructure that can meet the new post-trade demands of international business.

The seven exchanges that will ultimately comprise the ASEAN trading link support securities denominated in all six national currencies. Additionally, the SGX is also soon to list, clear and settle (in CNH) those quoted in Chinese Renminbi as well as those denominated in Singapore, U.S., Australian and Hong Kong Dollars. Although the clearing of trades will be conducted in local currency by the exchange through which they are transacted, brokers will require platforms to manage multi-currency settlement, reporting and accounting.

Local Asian brokers will need platforms to be designed to automate workflow throughout the trade lifecycle including trade matching, account funding, margin and fee calculation, confirmations and allocations. They will also need to be sensitive to differing trade settlement periods across the exchanges, tax treatment, and regulatory obligations such as segregation, ring fencing of client funds and stocks, and legal reporting.

Brokers also require scale. They will need to efficiently handle increased volumes and a broader scope of client profiles. Perhaps most challenging in a subsequent phase, they will also be required to expand asset class coverage. While today it is equities only, bonds, funds and derivatives may also be a part of the link’s future roadmap, and post-trade platforms will need to be extremely flexible and modular to provide support for these products when needed.

All in all, the launch of ASEAN link is a key part of the process of bringing the region’s markets to the center of the international trading stage. The link has the potential to deliver a tremendous range of new business opportunities to brokers and their clients. However, the resulting operational and technology demands for post-trade processing cannot be overlooked and will need careful consideration by brokerage firms to realize this emerging business potential.

While you’re here…

vice president, SunGard’s capital markets business

Can Bank Dealers Win the Swaps Collateral Optimization Race?

Posted by

This blog post originally appeared on Wall Street & Technology.

While the $270 billion of annual revenue that over-the-counter (OTC) securities and derivatives dealers collect from trading will likely fall by at least 20 percent once mandatory clearing becomes effective, new revenues driven by collateral optimization services for non-cleared swaps are likely to backfill that lost revenue.

Collateral optimization will allow dealers supervised by U.S. banking regulators – which we’ll call “bank dealers” – to operate under specific margin collection rules to collateralize non-cleared swaps, including segregation, calculation, and netting.  This is known as the joint margin proposal, which is margin collection-based. That is, it focuses on the margin collection responsibilities of bank dealers rather than the margin posting obligations of their counterparties. This is analogous to the authority, power and discretion provided to designated clearing organizations (DCOs) under the cleared swap rules.

Swaps that are not novated, or subject to the rules of a DCO, are generally referred to as “non-cleared.” Unlike cleared swaps where margin rules are governed by DCOs, non-cleared swaps, which comprise the majority of traded swaps today, will likely have their margin rules controlled by bank dealers through an interconnected series of straight-through automation processes.

Bank dealers, which are subject to heightened and enhanced oversight through prudential supervision, have the greatest potential upside in the development of this market. They are uniquely constrained by increased capital maintenance and exposure requirements prescribed by Basel III, and concurrently are best positioned by their interconnectedness, affiliations, and technological capabilities to build out compelling value propositions around their collateral optimization capabilities. In order to seize the potential revenues under the joint margin proposal, bank dealers will likely utilize a margin calculation and analysis engine that can model multiple scenarios of allocation of collateral between margin requirements across multiple business activities and trading books.

Collateral optimization services are positioned to serve as both key elements of a compliance mechanism purportedly satisfying the business conduct standards under Dodd-Frank, as well as a means to facilitate the non-cleared swaps marketplace. This is possible because the joint margin proposal states that initial margin may be calculated on a portfolio or netted basis rather than the gross collection requirement for cleared swaps. As a result, collateral optimization benefits can be recognized within and between commodity, credit, equity, foreign exchange and interest rate-based swaps – including economically equivalent swaps where an exemption from clearing may be asserted.

To be truly strategic, a dealer’s collateral optimization solution requires a straight-through approach linking pre-trade analysis, margin monitoring, collateral valuation and transformation, up to post-trade processing; all powered by sophisticated algorithmic models. For example, with these capabilities, a bank dealer can offer a bona fide end user optimization services analyzing its clearing options. This is accomplished by conducting a number of pre-trade “what-if” scenarios with different margin requirements, counterparty specific CSAs, netting benefits and possible capital charges to derive a total cost of trade that can be used in combination with its present value to recommend which counterparties would minimize collateral costs for a given profitability target. An example of the added value of this analysis would be whether to invoke an end-user exception, or not, and what if any, cost efficiencies exist. More value can be offered to the end-user by pushing a selected what-if scenario straight-through to the dealer’s execution services or if margin calculation and collateral optimization services are able to continuously rebalance the allocation of collateral. This would be an effective strategic collateral allocation service that could lead bank dealers to attract new customers and discover new revenue.

Bank dealers that use a collateral optimization solution that does not adequately support a compliance perspective, scenario analysis, re-hypothecation calibration, investment foresight, asset weighting, or risk analysis in an integrated manner will likely miss this business opportunity.

Alternatively, bank dealers that do not choose to invest in a model-based margin calculation and collateral optimization solution must instead rely on a table grid approach that conservatively sets margin requirements as a percentage of the notional amount of the swap. For these dealers the recoupment of lost transactional revenue is unlikely as customers are likely to look for dealers where their collateral will be used to maximize their market benefits.

While you’re here…

global head of connectivity, SunGard’s global trading business

ASEAN Today, Africa Tomorrow?

Posted by

This blog post originally appeared on TabbFORUM.

The ASEAN link went live this week, linking Singapore Exchange and Bursa Malaysia members and traders, completing a project started five years ago. Perhaps it was only natural that Asia should pick up on one of the latest developments in capital markets: interconnectedness.

While full-blown mergers and acquisitions between stock exchanges, especially cross-border, are probably off the table for now – the last year has seen quite a few memorable failed attempts, NYSE Euronext/Deutsche Boerse, LSE/TMX, ASX Group/Singapore Exchange – there are repeated examples of ambitious capital market linkages across the globe since the turn of the century. Euronext, before “merging” with NYSE, unified the stock exchanges of Amsterdam, Brussels, Lisbon and Paris; CEESEG, the Central and Eastern Europe Stock Exchange Group, today brings together under Vienna’s leadership the Austrian, Czech, Hungarian and Slovenian financial markets, with an eye for further expansion in South East Europe; NASDAQ OMX, bringing Nordic and Baltic stocks trading under a common uniform. The movement is not confined to Europe, as the recent launch of MILA – Mercado Integrado Latino-Americano showed, which links the financial marketplaces of Bogotá, Lima and Santiago.

So is the ASEAN Trading Link, the symbol of deepening economic and political integration in South East Asia, realizing the aspirations of millions of people to live in a more peaceful, integrated bloc? Or is it simply that each of the underlying venues was reaching its local potential and needed to find new avenues to attract new sources of capital and new investors? Most probably both, with the added interest that it is hard to exist when living in the shadow of the Chinese cloak.

The advantages of capital markets linkages are clear, and relatively well known: linking trading venues without any losing their identity, opens new opportunities for business, the possibility for ambitious local players to access new sources of wealth creation and the means to fight off larger financial powerhouses – or at least compete with them. Such links also give stock exchanges the occasion to take a short breath before the next step, which could either involve departing sensationally from that first route (cue the acquisition of Euronext by NYSE) or instead facilitating further integration.

It will be intriguing to see what the next steps for the ASEAN Trading Link turn to be, beyond the integration of Thailand and the probable acquisition of new participants (Indonesia, Philippines, etc.) already members of the ASEAN political grouping. An initial success could lead its members to become bolder and target other services, thereby further reducing inefficiencies in the trading chain in Asia: common rule book, foreign ownership, remote membership, clearing and settlement, single trading system, pooling of IT resources and spend, etc. Conversely, this could also give the possibility for the ASEAN Trading Link participants to engage in (more or less) collaborative approaches to other regional participants – the new Japan Exchange Group could be an early target for cooperation, as it seeks to revive the economic fortunes of Japan and the competitiveness of the Nippon financial markets, but Australia or even India could also be brought into the fabric of the trading link.

What the ASEAN Trading Link ultimately does, is heap further pressure on those regions where the lack of any such successful collaboration is becoming glaringly obvious. The very different cases of Africa and the Middle East come to mind – regions where the current status quo state of affairs with regard to trading and cross-border initiatives might attract the grade “can do better.” ASEAN success could well trigger changes well beyond its original borders and immediate surroundings.

While you’re here…

senior vice president, Astec Analytics, SunGard’s capital markets business

Regulatory Alphabet Soup: ESMA, UCITS and ETFs

Posted by

A certain excitement spread through the securities lending market during August 2012. A new set of guidelines from ESMA (European Securities and Markets Authority) that govern securities lending for UCITS (Undertakings for Collective Investments in Transferable Securities) and ETFs (Exchange-Traded Funds) were published. These guidelines, due to come into force in February 2013, had the laudable objective of strengthening and harmonizing regulatory practices, but one particular aspect was jumped on and, unfortunately, misinterpreted.

It is entirely appropriate for ESMA to underline that any investment vehicle is run for the benefit of the investor, but this was interpreted by some as guidance over how services are provided to those funds and how they pay for them. Those misinterpreting the guidance hailed the end of payments to agent lenders for providing securities lending services, whereas it seems the focus was intended to be on the third-party splits that fund managers themselves take from the lending revenue.

The International Securities Lending Association stepped quickly into the breach and gave a clear message about just what ESMA had intended. But is ESMA right? Or is there a place for a third split paid to the fund manager? HSBC Asset Management does not seem to think so, announcing on August 23 that it would be “returning all profits from securities lending operations” across its UCITS range.

Many asset managers, including those managing ETFs, are believed to charge some level of “oversight” or management charge for stock lending, and it is rumored that in some cases these are as much as 70 percent of lending revenue. If so, once the agent lenders’ fee split has been taken out, there would be precious little left for the fund. While it is clear that some charges can be excessive, if the manager is providing an actual oversight function for their clients, then there is an argument for charging a fee of some sort. Such fees should, of course, be proportionate and transparent, allowing the investor to make an informed decision as to what service provider he or she selects.

Returning more of the securities lending revenues directly to the funds will no doubt improve their overall performance and returns, which will in turn benefit the fund and its managers. However, using legislation to cut off another source of revenue for banks and asset managers will place yet more strain on a system that is already under pressure. To be clear, there is no room and no defense for inflated fees that do not pass “the blush test” in terms of value for money. But investors can make their own choice between high and low cost providers without the help of a regulator.

While you’re here…

product manager, Valdi, SunGard's capital markets business

Consolidated Audit Trail: More than One Way to Skin this CAT

Posted by

This  blog post originally appeared on Advanced Trading.

The Securities Exchange Commission voted in July 2012 to require exchanges and broker oversight groups to have a single system to monitor and analyze trading activity across U.S. equity and options trading venues. This Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT) will be designed to help enhance the surveillance of the equities markets by establishing a centralized database that can track and store order information throughout its entire lifecycle, including every trade order, execution and cancellation.

Why is CAT necessary?

Regulators are currently on a different playing field than market participants. They’re not able to keep up with the technology and data improvements in the marketplace. Regulators currently oversee trading activity by observing data collected in various formats from various systems. CAT would provide a centralized data store, capturing all relevant information throughout the lifecycle of a transaction. The CAT system would begin the process of “calling up” the regulators to the major leagues.

CAT has spurred various opinions on the impact and effectiveness of the rule. Proponents of the rule argue that CAT will increase the ability of regulators to monitor the overall market structure, ensuring better understanding of rules and the effect on trading. They believe data will provide better insight into patterns, helping to assess the quality and fairness in the markets. Critics of CAT say the SEC has not considered the cost benefit analysis of the rule, in that it will be too costly to implement and won’t provide any significant benefit to regulators and the marketplace as a whole.

Implementing CAT

A system and data warehouse of the size and scope of CAT is a complex and timely effort. A system will have to provide firms with the data warehouse framework and reporting capabilities to be able to respond to CAT. Ideally, this should include cloud-based surveillance, supervision, and management reporting to provide a complete view of an order’s lifecycle. A best-practice CAT system must allow regulators, exchanges and broker-dealers to implement a cost-effective solution in a timely fashion.

For instance, if a broker-dealer seeks to establish a system to capture the elements of CAT in order to display the routing information associated with a specific trade order exception, the firm would need:

A proactive approach

The passage of CAT by the SEC shows once again that firms need to stay diligent and proactive in today’s regulatory environment.  Firms can no longer be reactive to changes.  In fact, SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro said, “A consolidated audit trail will reduce the regulatory data production burdens on SROs and broker-dealers by reducing the number and types of ad hoc requests that regulators submit today.” This is just a first step in a broader change that will affect all market participants.  There may be more than one way to skin a CAT, but behooves these various firms to be prepared to tackle these new requirements now and in the future.

While you’re here…

senior product specialist, SunGard's capital markets business

3 Key Facets of Market Monitoring and Surveillance

Posted by

One aspect of the current market situation is rather ironic: “fat fingers.” When equity markets moved from floors and hand signal-based trading onto screens, a big fear was fat finger errors. Traders not used to screen-based trading accidently entered orders with very low prices and/or ridiculously high volumes, rendering huge losses unless they managed to bust the resulting trade. These fat finger errors also caused temporary confusion in the markets. As a consequence, screen-based order entry systems introduced simple fat finger checks to block outlying orders from entering the market, not only to avoid trading losses, but also to ensure orderly markets, as required by authorities.

We’re now experiencing a new technology shift. Algorithmic trading, employed using advanced trading strategies based on data requires very little to no human intervention during the trading day. With this, we now see an increased occurrence of a new version of fat finger errors causing havoc in the markets – computers entering outlying orders. Not only are firms getting hit by trading losses — sometimes of sizes that force them to seek additional capital to avoid going bankrupt — but the consequences to the very interlinked and fast-moving markets are widespread disorder and prolonged confusion.

It’s no wonder, then, that there is an increased focus from regulators on market monitoring and surveillance tools, and their use among market participants. These can roughly be divided into three areas: pre-trade checks, real-time monitoring, and post-trade surveillance.

Pre-trade checks

Pre-trade checks are part of the transaction chain, and add latency. Therefore, these need to be automatic and trigger blocking of orders to enter the market automatically, as any manual review and intervention would simply add too much latency to the transaction chain. They also need to be simple and implemented in a way that they minimize any latency added to the transaction chain.

These checks need to include order flows from clients that access markets via DMA, client child orders entered onto markets via in-house OMS, and house orders.  Inevitably, they add a layer of complexity and therefore surveillance officers need to have the capability and systems to manage parameters and checks to ensure they are efficient and at the same time do not block legitimate orders.

These systems also need to monitor for trading limits, positions limits, short sell rules and credit limits, as part of any trading desk’s normal risk processes.

There is also potential for systems to start doing pre-checks, looking for potentially abusive patterns and incorrectly configured algorithms. Perhaps these would not trigger an active intervention, but would simply alert surveillance officers and traders to potential issues. They can then focus their efforts and be prepared to intervene and halt an algorithm if necessary before it can create a problem in the markets.

Real-time monitoring

Real-time monitoring is done at order and trade level, typically focusing on child orders and active trading, overlaying the order flow on top of market information and news items. Real-time monitoring does not form part of the transaction chain, but rather listens, records and analyzes trading and market data. Triggered alerts are analyzed by surveillance staff as they become available, and findings may lead to interventions and actions on the spot, depending on their severity.

Typical patterns included are: rapid price movements, ramping the close (both morning and close of play), unusual activity, layering, spoofing bait and switch, and pinging.

Post-trade surveillance

Post-trade surveillance can be done intraday or T+1 depending on the compliance department’s focus and resources.

The post-trade surveillance function focuses on more complex and long-term suspected abuse patterns, such as insider trading, front running, cornering, and repeated patterns over extended periods of time. Triggered alerts are analyzed, and more advanced analysis is done using reporting engines.

Examples are profit-and-loss analysis, analysis of trading patterns over longer periods (such as ramping or capping at month’s end), systematically changing sides in the books after opening auctions, etc.

Case management forms an important part of the post-trade surveillance function, supporting the collection of data and reporting of suspicious behavior to the business and DMA customers. Short selling reporting, transaction and position reporting, and other regulatory reporting requirements also fall under post-trade surveillance tasks.

A compliance solution that is flexible, fast and fit for purpose is more important than ever in order to avoid the algorithmic equivalent to a fat finger error. Market participants need to look at the entire order and trade life cycle and employ compliance solutions that are suitable for each stage in the cycle to be effective and provide value.

While you’re here…