The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) recently reported that there was a decline in the cost of replacing outstanding OTC derivatives, the first since the financial crisis. There was a similar decline in the gross notional amount outstanding as well. While this indicates the tough regulatory regimes worldwide in the aftermath of the crisis, it also a sign of a healthier and more resilient OTC derivatives market. Due to the rising regulation-related costs of trading, market participants are looking to make their OTC derivatives trading more efficient. Tools such as trade compression and collateral optimization are being used for this purpose. So the decline in outstanding is also an indication of more efficient trading due to compression. Another sign of the efforts to reduce systemic risk is the rise in volumes of OTC derivatives that are being centrally cleared. The greater use of clearing houses is something that regulators have been espousing for some time, and an approach that most market participants and observers agree with. Besides the internal factors, external economic ones such as interest rates and exchange rates also explain some of the decline in value of OTC derviatives trading. Again, these are a sign of market fluctuations and do not necessarily represent any market decline. In our view, the BIS numbers are indicative of both the changes that regulators have put in place over the last 7-8 years and of a global economy that is still recovering from the financial crisis and the following economic challenges.
November 29, 2015 by Leave a Comment
The current CCP landscape in Europe broadly consists of two types of players. In the first category belong the national CCPs that focus on a single market; the second category consists of the “interoperable” CCPs that clear trades conducted at multiple trading venues. With the growth in electronic trading and launch of alternative trading venues, firms trading in multiple markets needed to connect to different CCPs and fund collateral on separate positions. Such firms increasingly demanded a single CCP for efficient settlement and collateral management purposes. Regulators responded by allowing interoperability among CCPs whereby investors could choose at which CCP they wanted to clear their trades, and the two counterparties’ CCPs could interact among themselves to clear a trade. This introduced an element of competition in the CCP space as the CCPs vied to become the CCP of choice for trading participants. However, the extent of competition was still limited, as some vertically integrated exchanges refused to open up their clearing functions to other CCPs, while others gradually allowed access to multiple CCPs for trades executed on them. Interoperability among CCPs, albeit limited, has already resulted in significant efficiency improvement and cost reduction in the European equities clearing space. Moving on from voluntary provision of CCP interoperability by the trading venues, the next phase of evolution will center around mandatory opening up of clearing function through regulatory changes. Regulations such as the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) could force the vertically integrated infrastructures that were not inclined to allow interoperability for trades conducted at them previously, to open up and allow interoperability. This is likely to bring about more competition among the CCPs in Europe. Like CSDs, currently there are too many CCPs in Europe, all of which may not survive the increased competition. Players with wider market coverage, efficient technology and operational capabilities, strong capital base, and advanced risk models will be able to capture market share. Having achieved interoperability in the equities space, there are now talks of allowing the same for derivative instruments as well. But the case of derivatives may be different from that of equities. Under the interoperability model, the linking of two CCPs introduces an additional element of risk into the system. The risk could be more severe for derivative operations given the inherent higher risks associated with derivative instruments. Different CCPs may follow different risk management policies and practices, and this may create problems in mitigating overall risk and resolution mechanisms in case of default. Furthermore, some argue interoperability may disincentivize innovation in the context of derivative product development. Launching derivative instruments requires a good deal of research and development by the exchanges and only a few of the launched instruments succeed in the market, a situation analogous to the case of drug developments. Therefore, it is argued if exchanges lose out on the derivative clearing revenue because of interoperability that may discourage them from developing new products in the future.
November 29, 2015 by Leave a Comment
India has many stock exchanges, but trading is dominated at two main exchanges – the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) and the National Stock Exchange (NSE). BSE is among the oldest stock exchanges in the world, while NSE was established as part of India’s economic liberalization process in the early 1990s. The NSE was quick to gain market share and now accounts for around two-third of stock trading and most of derivative trading in the country. BSE was slow to react to competition in the early days, but in the last five to six years has taken steps to up its game by making major changes in its technology. Structural issues with the Indian capital market have so far limited its ability to close the gap with NSE. The Indian CCPs that clear exchange trades are owned by the respective exchanges and at present only clear trades executed at the owner exchange. National Securities Clearing Corporation Limited (NSCCL) is the CCP for NSE while Indian Clearing Corporation Limited (ICCL) is the CCP for BSE. Interoperability among CCPs at an investor level is not allowed; i.e., investors can choose which exchange would execute their trades, but cannot choose which CCP would clear them. Therefore, in spite of having multiple players in the clearing space, there is not much competition among the CCPs. The dynamics in the Indian CCP space therefore are largely driven by the competitive developments on the exchange front. The capital market regulator SEBI allowed direct market access in India in 2008 and soon afterwards allowed colocation and smart order routing (SOR). This should ideally allow investors to execute their trades at any exchange of their choice. However, most of the liquidity is concentrated at the NSE due to its dominant position. Furthermore, since almost all of derivative trading takes place at the NSE, investors tend to prefer NSE for their equity trades as well, since that allows them cross-asset margining benefits of clearing trades in different asset classes at the same CCP. Because of this, smart order routing has not picked up in India yet. Thus algo trading reached around 15% in the cash segment in NSE in 2014, but smart order routing was only around 2%. Similarly algo trading was 70% at BSE’s cash segment, but SOR was around 1%. This shows BSE (and its CCP ICCL), with its improved technology and latency capabilities, is attracting a higher share of algo trades but is still unable to capture share in smart order routing, due to unique clearing arrangements in the market. Going forward potential allowing of interoperability promises to be a significant force of change for the Indian CCPs. It would give investors the freedom to choose their CCP, and if they get better latency and pricing from ICCL, they could choose ICCL regardless of BSE’s smaller share in trading volume. SEBI is considering this and is in consultation with a range of market participants. Eventual interoperability may be a boon for BSE and ICCL, allowing it to catch up with the dominant NSE and NSCCL.
November 28, 2015 by Leave a Comment
The European post-trade landscape: regional integration initiatives paving the way for industry consolidation
The biggest changes in the global post-trade industry are taking place in Europe. The Eurosystem’s attempts to create a single market and associated market infrastructure are transforming for the European post-trade industry. Eurosystem’s Target2 Securities (T2S) project and the CSD Regulations (CSDR), along with numerous other regulations, are reshaping the European CSD (Central Securities Depositories) landscape. As settlement gets outsourced to the T2S platform, CSDs will lose a key revenue stream and will have to find new revenue by developing new offerings. Asset servicing capabilities will be a natural choice for many CSDs, but that may not be a winning proposition because they will face stiff competition from custodians, who have been offering these services for a long time. T2S will allow CSDs to expand their market coverage by becoming investor CSDs and offer domestic clients holdings of foreign securities. Efficient management of collateral has become of utmost importance, and T2S’s single liquidity pool allows CSDs to develop new collateral management solutions for their clients. EMIR requirements requiring holding of initial margin for derivative trades with a licensed securities settlement system enhance their opportunity, and most CSDs are developing collateral management solutions in response. Many CSDs are developing similar solutions to stay competitive in the post-T2S world, and there may be oversupply in the market along with duplication of efforts and investments. It is expected that the industry will go through consolidation. It is unlikely that CSDs will go out of business, at least in the short term, but their role will shrink significantly. In a new report we discuss these and several other key issues relating to the European post-trade market participants, including (I)CSDs and CCPs.
November 20, 2015 by Leave a Comment
The Asian financial services market is highly fragmented along national boundaries. Lack of unified political will has resulted in regulatory and market practices that vary widely among the countries. The trading landscape in the Asian countries has undergone radical transformation in the last 10 to 15 years. As the countries in the region slowly open up their economies to the outside world, investors from the developed economies have flocked to emerging Asian countries in search of higher returns and portfolio diversification needs. This has resulted in expansion of products and asset classes. Electronification of trading activities has resulted in growing demand for electronic trading tools and ever-lower latency. Consequently, trading activity is high in the Asian countries; in fact many of them rank highly in the world in terms of equity trading volume at their exchanges as well as in exchange traded and over the counter derivative turnover. Continuous evolution in the trading landscape necessitates changes in the value chain, namely the post-trade functions. Post-trade functionalities generally include clearing, settlement, and custody services that are served by central counterparty clearing houses (CCPs), central securities depositories (CSDs), and custodians. The CCPs and CSDs are fundamental in ensuring smooth, efficient, and stable operations of trading markets. Historically post-trade industry has not received adequate attention, but that is changing now due to greater regulatory focus on managing risks at systemically important institutions. In a recent report we discuss the trends and developments taking place among Asia’s CCPs and CSDs. Some of the highlights from the report include:
- There is a great deal of “vertical integration” in the Asian post-trade industry, with exchanges holding majority stakes in most CCPs and many CSDs. There is also a trend toward “horizontal integration” among the Asian post-trade players with growing coverage of products and asset classes.
- Asian regulators have traditionally taken a conservative approach in shaping their financial markets. Therefore since the crisis of 2008, risk management has emerged as the single most important item on the regulators’ agenda. This has brought greater attention to policies and practices at the CCPs and CSDs.
- Liberalization of Asian economies is creating opportunities for trading and clearing new products and asset classes. The post-trade players are developing capabilities and infrastructure to support new products.
- Almost every Asian country is mandating central clearing of OTC derivatives and reporting of trades. Incumbent national CCPs are called upon to facilitate central clearing of OTC derivatives.
- There is not much competition in the Asian post-trade industry, and except in a few markets that is likely to be so going forward.
- Most Asian post-trade players, particularly the CCPs, are undertaking major technology transformation initiatives spanning years and spending significant resources to upgrade and overhaul their systems and processes.
July 20, 2015 by Leave a Comment
In a couple of recent discussions about central counter-party clearing for OTC derivatives in the global capital markets, we have come across the view that the move towards central clearing has not been as comprehensive as expected earlier. What this is referring to is the fact that the number of central counter-parties (CCPs) has not changed significantly when we look at the global markets. In the developed markets in the US and Europe, the presence of existing CCPs and the difficulty for new CCPs to break into the market has been an important reason. In the case of emerging markets, the fact that the volumes of OTC derivatives traded are quite low means that only CCPs in large markets such as Brazil and China are expected to be viable. Hence, not too many CCPs are going to crop up in the smaller emerging markets. This belief is understandable, but we must take into account the fact that the maturity of capital markets in these regions is low. As the emerging markets evolve, the presence of CCPs would encourage more trading in OTC derivatives products and allow for greater innovation and also standardization in the long run. These could be factors that increase volumes for OTC derivatives trading in smaller markets in regions such as Latin America and Asia-Pacific. Also, until recently, the emphasis for the respective regulators and governments with regard to derivatives trading has been on exchange-based trading. The presence of a local CCP and the greater transparency that ensues in OTC derivatives trading would encourage both regulators and governments alike to allow for more trading and clearing of these products due to better oversight. Hence, this is a virtuous circle and decision-makers who are looking mainly at current OTC derivatives volumes before they decide whether to have or not have a CCP in their domestic market should also look at the potential for trading of OTC derivatives products in the long run. Similarly, the market participants also should take a positive view towards CCPs in smaller markets, as initial focus should not be whether the CCP would be profitable and competitive regionally and globally, but whether it fosters safer trading and clearing of OTC derivatives and allows for higher trading volumes in the region than before.
June 27, 2015 by Leave a Comment
Europe has been dealing lately with all the issues around the Greek debt and the possibility of a “Grexit”. While the final decision on the matter would have its significant repercussions, the uncertainty that has come with the problem in the last few months is also expected to have its own associated costs. It could also impact the long-term competitiveness of the region vis-à-vis its competitors in the US and Asia-Pacific. When we focus specifically on the capital market issues. there are several significant regulatory changes happening in the European capital markets at this point in time. EMIR, Mifid II, Basel III, T2S and CSDR are all regulations at various stages of implementation. From a post-trade point of view, several of these regulations are expected to have significant impact, especially when we talk about T2S and CSDR. However, the continuing concern over regulatory implementation in Europe is that the delay and uncertainty over when the regulations come into effect could prove costly for the region overall. An example is the delay by European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) in providing the draft technical standards. Similarly, the recent decision by Monte Titoli to delay joining the T2S, at least for a few months has proven to be a setback for the project, considering it was easily the largest CSD to participate in the first phase and would have been instrumental in measuring the effectiveness and success of the implementation. There is a lot of ground that the regulators and industry are trying to cover in an economy that is still suffering from the after-shocks of the financial crisis. While trying to do everything in a hurry isn’t the answer, it is important to ensure that the deadlines are kept as much as possible, otherwise on-going delays will directly impact European market’s competitiveness.
June 22, 2015 by Leave a Comment
Nasdaq has recently one become of the first leading capital market firms to consider the use of Blockchain and Bitcoin technology. It plans to use the technology in its private markets platform to begin with, with the possibility of using it in its clearing houses and CSDs at a later date. In some ways, this is the most significant commitment any large financial market firm has made to adopting Blockchain. Even more interesting is the manner in which Nasdaq has gone about the process. It has made one of its VPs an evangelist of the platform, with a strategic mandate. This is an interesting example of a tech-savvy firm utilizing an innovative approach to encourage and advocate for what it sees as the next big wave of change in the financial markets. However, the open architecture of Blockchain technology and the difficulty in controlling the kind of transactions that could happen through it make it complex to use, and there are some resultant security concerns as well, which is why large banks are normally reluctant to adopt such a technology. So the industry would have to put checks in place before there can be widespread adoption of Blockchain in capital markets. There are already some existing provisions with Blockchain to address these requirements, and we can expect more effort in this regard as time goes on.
June 8, 2015 by Leave a Comment
The global capital markets have been going through a turbulent recovery phase in the last few years. Asia-Pacific is no exception to this rule and the region’s asset managers will come up against a set of operational issues and constraints to be addressed in a difficult market environment. Addressing regulatory pressures, be they from within their own jurisdiction, or from without, will be paramount in the mind of asset managers. It is important for managers to consider the various KYC and AML requirements internationally and how they affect their respective jurisdictions. This is not an isolated enterprise, and must be undertaken along with the task of upgrading the operational capabilities, and if required, acquiring the necessary platforms or systems to address these concerns. As much as possible, asset managers must try and use a comprehensive solution, underlining a desirable holistic approach to the issue. Most asset managers will meet their various operational requirements by using a mix of in-house and third party services. Outsourcing is nothing new to the industry, but can still be challenging. It has its own set of risks which need to be considered and mitigated for successful operations. Firms have to ensure a strong integration of the outsourced services with the in-house operations. Another challenge is the complexity of products being utilized by asset managers to meet their clients’ needs. With more choices available and structured products becoming popular again in leading Asian jurisdictions, firms have to ensure that their risk management systems are capable of handling greater product complexity. These are only some of the issues asset managers need to keep in mind, and overall they would be well served with taking a more holistic approach to operations management, and ensuring they make sufficient investment in their systems to help them handle the various challenges.
January 26, 2015 by Leave a Comment
It’s 2015, the mid-point of the decade and a good time to start looking at major trends in Asian financial services over the next five to ten years. One of the major themes will be regional integration, which is another way of saying the development of cross-border markets. There are at least two important threads here: the ongoing internationalization of China’s currency, and the development of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) in Southeast Asia. RMB internalization is really about the loosening of China’s capital controls and its full-fledged integration into the world economy. And everyone seems to want a piece of this action, including near neighbors such as Singapore who are vying with Hong Kong to be the world’s financial gateway to China. The AEC is well on its way to becoming a reality in 2015, with far-reaching trade agreements designed to facilitate cross-border expansion of dozens of services industries, including financial sectors. While AEC is not grabbing global headlines the way China does, we see increasing interest in Southeast Asia among our FSI and technology vendor clients. From Celent’s point of view, both trends will open significant opportunities across financial services. In banking, common payments platforms and cross-border clearing. In capital markets, cross-border trading platforms for listed and even OTC products. In insurance, the continued development of regional markets. Financial institutions will be challenged to create new business models and technology strategies to extract the opportunities offered by regional integration. It’s the mid-point of the decade, and the beginning of something very big.