SFTR, Brexit, and technology reign at IMN
18 September 2018
As the securities lending industry descended on London for two days of insight and discussion at this year’s annual European Securities Finance and Collateral Management Conference, SFTR remained at the forefront of attendees’ minds
Image: Shutterstock
At this year’s annual European Securities Finance and Collateral Management Conference, the Securities Finance Transaction Regulation (SFTR) was mentioned in most panels, while Brexit, technology disruption, and opportunities of pledge were also hot talking points.
In the first panel, the speakers hit the ground running by agreeing and predicting that the SFTR was going to drive the market for the rest of this year.
During the panel, speakers agreed that providing data and delivering data for counterparties will drive where business goes, and as a reporting obligation, while SFTR isn’t meant to change market practices, it will.
One panellist warned: “If you’re not at a point where you can transmit and reconcile the data [for SFTR], you will not be a participant in the market.”
One panellist said: “Borrowers will be very dependent on the lenders for that data. If they can’t get the data in the right format, they will have to move the business. The regulation is very complicated. SFTR is definitely going to drive business.”
Another panellist affirmed: “We have our best people on the industry working on this. We will resolve it as a regulatory issue. Clients should not be impacted by it. Like every other piece of regulation, we have to deal with it and get through it. We’re already putting our best people on it, and generally, the data vendors are participating. They are doing a good job on that, but it is our job to fix it.”
Also discussed was the impact of Brexit and what it could mean for the securities lending market.
One panellist said: “I don’t think Brexit is an opportunity, it’s a disappointing outcome. It’s a distraction and a disruption, something that you have to commit resources towards.”
Another panellist, giving a US perspective, said: “I think when we talk about regulation and Brexit, it’s all about resource distraction and documentation distraction. That’s always a challenge.
But as with all regulatory issues, the industry has ways to get through them.”
Brexit was also discussed in a separate panel on macroeconomic factors and their implications for the European securities finance market.
One panellist asked another whether the “noise” being made about Brexit in the UK was reflected across the EU, or if it wasn’t that big of an issue for Europeans.
In response, the panellist said that those in the EU needed to ensure that the wheat was separated from the chaff when it comes to Brexit. The panellist explained that those in the EU are “aware of the key decisions”, but try to avoid the politics of Brexit.
“Most investors can handle it, we’ve got to remain stable,” the panellist added.
Another panellist, who said he was speaking from the broker community, said that Brexit is a “multidimensional issue which spans pretty much everything we touch on a day-to-day basis”.
“There are the political angles to it, which we are all watching every day. It’s very hard to pick the middle ground.”
“From our point of view, we are asking clients to come to the table, some of us are hoping some of this will go away, but the reality is we need to plan for Brexit in March. The more effort we can put into that, the better given the timing.”
“There’s a massive amount to be done in a short amount of time. We want to be ready ahead of March. There’s a risk of a lack of awareness at a regulatory level of the critical importance of securities lending and repo in the continued functioning of the market.”
During another session, concentrating on critical issues heading the agendas of beneficial owners, the panellist questioned whether lenders struggle to keep up with their clients.
“Do securities lenders live by a vanilla-type business report?”, questioned one panellist. The panellist challenged the lenders on the panel suggesting “the minute a client wants to step outside that norm, some of you struggle to keep up with that client”.
In answer to this comment, one panellist said: “There has been a legacy thought process in this business to standardise and push that standardisation through. There’s increasing agility in providers and across providers. We have the infrastructure, so we’re increasingly seeing clients coming to us around initial margin, where they need to generate cash on short notice.”
The panellist explained that one reason for this aforementioned struggle to “keep up with the client”, might be the increasing level of regulatory compliance, as well as the need to keep up with the speed of technological innovation.
They added: “There’s so much going on with emerging technology now, we’re spending a huge amount of time around innovation. We’re looking at a lot of technology solutions for things like peer-to-peer lending.”
One panellist compared the level of innovation available before the financial crisis to now, stating: “In terms of innovation, [in the context of] the financial crisis 10 years ago, lending programmes, across the board, then and now, are hugely different.”
Another said: “Times have changed–we understand a borrower’s perspective more now than perhaps we may have 20 to 30 years ago.”
In the same panel discussion, another topic discussed was the consideration of pledge becoming an increasingly viable alternative to market.
The panellist said although the economics might stack up staying where you are, “it does make sense to look at alternatives, and sovereign or state type entities are more likely to want that”.
One panellist agreed, but added: “Pledge has been designed by borrowers, but beneficial owners want to commit to certain transaction types.”
In a separate panel, which looked at evaluating collateral management and optimisation strategies in today’s market, a panellist discussed the recent implementation of phase three of initial margin (IM) requirements for non-centrally cleared derivatives, which formally began on 1 September.
This continues a long-term process launched in response to the global financial crisis of 2008 to 2009, when the G20 agreed to a financial regulatory reform agenda covering the over-the-counter derivatives markets and market participants.
The panellist said phases four and five will have a major impact on the way banks are organised to understand collateral. One panellist affirmed: “We see more collateral post-global financial crisis. The overall trend is toward collateralisation–whether in derivatives forms or pledge forms of collateralisation, these days it’s almost moving in
real time.”
However, when discussing exchange-traded funds (ETFs), one panellist said these type of funds are not ready to be eligible for collateral.
They said: “ETFs, in a lot of cases, are not eligible for collateral, they’re not available, or not worth it, you have to consider practical operational considerations.”
They added: “From a regulator’s perspective, there is still some way to go to make ETFs appeal as an asset class of their own.”
On the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the financial crisis, one panellist asked, as the financial market stands, could the financial crisis happen again today, and would it be repeated or avoided.
One panellist stated: “It should not happen again, we are more organised.”
Another panellist concluded: “The past shows it’s clear what happens in a crisis situation that puts stress on the market, now we have a much greater level of transparency.”
In the first panel, the speakers hit the ground running by agreeing and predicting that the SFTR was going to drive the market for the rest of this year.
During the panel, speakers agreed that providing data and delivering data for counterparties will drive where business goes, and as a reporting obligation, while SFTR isn’t meant to change market practices, it will.
One panellist warned: “If you’re not at a point where you can transmit and reconcile the data [for SFTR], you will not be a participant in the market.”
One panellist said: “Borrowers will be very dependent on the lenders for that data. If they can’t get the data in the right format, they will have to move the business. The regulation is very complicated. SFTR is definitely going to drive business.”
Another panellist affirmed: “We have our best people on the industry working on this. We will resolve it as a regulatory issue. Clients should not be impacted by it. Like every other piece of regulation, we have to deal with it and get through it. We’re already putting our best people on it, and generally, the data vendors are participating. They are doing a good job on that, but it is our job to fix it.”
Also discussed was the impact of Brexit and what it could mean for the securities lending market.
One panellist said: “I don’t think Brexit is an opportunity, it’s a disappointing outcome. It’s a distraction and a disruption, something that you have to commit resources towards.”
Another panellist, giving a US perspective, said: “I think when we talk about regulation and Brexit, it’s all about resource distraction and documentation distraction. That’s always a challenge.
But as with all regulatory issues, the industry has ways to get through them.”
Brexit was also discussed in a separate panel on macroeconomic factors and their implications for the European securities finance market.
One panellist asked another whether the “noise” being made about Brexit in the UK was reflected across the EU, or if it wasn’t that big of an issue for Europeans.
In response, the panellist said that those in the EU needed to ensure that the wheat was separated from the chaff when it comes to Brexit. The panellist explained that those in the EU are “aware of the key decisions”, but try to avoid the politics of Brexit.
“Most investors can handle it, we’ve got to remain stable,” the panellist added.
Another panellist, who said he was speaking from the broker community, said that Brexit is a “multidimensional issue which spans pretty much everything we touch on a day-to-day basis”.
“There are the political angles to it, which we are all watching every day. It’s very hard to pick the middle ground.”
“From our point of view, we are asking clients to come to the table, some of us are hoping some of this will go away, but the reality is we need to plan for Brexit in March. The more effort we can put into that, the better given the timing.”
“There’s a massive amount to be done in a short amount of time. We want to be ready ahead of March. There’s a risk of a lack of awareness at a regulatory level of the critical importance of securities lending and repo in the continued functioning of the market.”
During another session, concentrating on critical issues heading the agendas of beneficial owners, the panellist questioned whether lenders struggle to keep up with their clients.
“Do securities lenders live by a vanilla-type business report?”, questioned one panellist. The panellist challenged the lenders on the panel suggesting “the minute a client wants to step outside that norm, some of you struggle to keep up with that client”.
In answer to this comment, one panellist said: “There has been a legacy thought process in this business to standardise and push that standardisation through. There’s increasing agility in providers and across providers. We have the infrastructure, so we’re increasingly seeing clients coming to us around initial margin, where they need to generate cash on short notice.”
The panellist explained that one reason for this aforementioned struggle to “keep up with the client”, might be the increasing level of regulatory compliance, as well as the need to keep up with the speed of technological innovation.
They added: “There’s so much going on with emerging technology now, we’re spending a huge amount of time around innovation. We’re looking at a lot of technology solutions for things like peer-to-peer lending.”
One panellist compared the level of innovation available before the financial crisis to now, stating: “In terms of innovation, [in the context of] the financial crisis 10 years ago, lending programmes, across the board, then and now, are hugely different.”
Another said: “Times have changed–we understand a borrower’s perspective more now than perhaps we may have 20 to 30 years ago.”
In the same panel discussion, another topic discussed was the consideration of pledge becoming an increasingly viable alternative to market.
The panellist said although the economics might stack up staying where you are, “it does make sense to look at alternatives, and sovereign or state type entities are more likely to want that”.
One panellist agreed, but added: “Pledge has been designed by borrowers, but beneficial owners want to commit to certain transaction types.”
In a separate panel, which looked at evaluating collateral management and optimisation strategies in today’s market, a panellist discussed the recent implementation of phase three of initial margin (IM) requirements for non-centrally cleared derivatives, which formally began on 1 September.
This continues a long-term process launched in response to the global financial crisis of 2008 to 2009, when the G20 agreed to a financial regulatory reform agenda covering the over-the-counter derivatives markets and market participants.
The panellist said phases four and five will have a major impact on the way banks are organised to understand collateral. One panellist affirmed: “We see more collateral post-global financial crisis. The overall trend is toward collateralisation–whether in derivatives forms or pledge forms of collateralisation, these days it’s almost moving in
real time.”
However, when discussing exchange-traded funds (ETFs), one panellist said these type of funds are not ready to be eligible for collateral.
They said: “ETFs, in a lot of cases, are not eligible for collateral, they’re not available, or not worth it, you have to consider practical operational considerations.”
They added: “From a regulator’s perspective, there is still some way to go to make ETFs appeal as an asset class of their own.”
On the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the financial crisis, one panellist asked, as the financial market stands, could the financial crisis happen again today, and would it be repeated or avoided.
One panellist stated: “It should not happen again, we are more organised.”
Another panellist concluded: “The past shows it’s clear what happens in a crisis situation that puts stress on the market, now we have a much greater level of transparency.”
NO FEE, NO RISK
100% ON RETURNS If you invest in only one securities finance news source this year, make sure it is your free subscription to Securities Finance Times
100% ON RETURNS If you invest in only one securities finance news source this year, make sure it is your free subscription to Securities Finance Times
