CloudMargin launches cloud-based collateral management tech

CloudMargin launches cloud-based collateral management tech

http://www.finextra.com/News/Announcement.aspx?pressreleaseid=51271

Source: CloudMargin Limited

CloudMargin Limited, a London-based specialist collateral management software developer, has today launched a new, cost-effective approach to OTC derivatives collateral management for the buy-side.

“Until now, much of the buy-side had been priced out of having a dedicated collateral management platform and had no viable alternative to spreadsheets,” commented Andy Davies, co-founder and CEO of CloudMargin. “I am thrilled that CloudMargin’s innovative approach and use of the latest cloud-computing technology means we can offer a full featured, full-cycle collateral and margin management platform that’s well within the reach of even the smallest buy-side firm.”

CloudMargin supports the full process of collateral and margin management, from storing CSA parameters through calculating and issuing margin calls to handling disputes, selecting eligible collateral and instructing market movements. Real-time reporting and a unique dashboard bring a new level of oversight. Furthermore, CloudMargin cleverly supports the drive towards CCP mandated by Dodd-Frank and EMIR, giving a harmonized view of bilateral and cleared derivatives and a simple yet controlled process.

CloudMargin will be bringing this new approach to a broad spectrum of buy-side firms, from hedge-funds and asset managers, pension fund managers and insurance companies through to corporate treasury departments and energy firms. All of these are seeing collateral volumes rocket and operational complexity soar while at the same time internal and external scrutiny over the collateral process has never been higher.

Even for firms below the threshold for central clearing, regulatory changes under Dodd-Frank and EMIR are stretching manual processes and the use of spreadsheets to breaking point.

CloudMargin gives the buy-side an alternative to spreadsheets so they can finally have a secure, controlled, efficient and cost-effective collateral management operation. 

Reuters – Swaps clients plan US bank exodus

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/12/markets-credit-idUSL2N0GD1JA20130812

 

NEW YORK, Aug 12 (IFR) – US banks are at risk of losing overseas swaps market share as European clients have begun making every effort to avoid getting caught up in costly cross-border derivatives rules that were finalised by the CFTC last month, and come into effect this October.

European hedge fund and asset managers are threatening to transfer their swaps trading activities away from branches of US banks and towards European competitor houses to ensure they avoid the reaches of Dodd-Frank, which mandates an array of costly compliance measures, including the central clearing of standardised over-the-counter derivatives.

Many European clients would rather ditch their US bank relationships than bear that cost – just one of the unintended consequences of bad rule-writing according to dealers.

“It’s the one rule that risks the most competitive disadvantage,” said a lawyer at a US dealer. “There’s no way these clients are going to clear with us at this stage.”

Swaps executed by a European client with the foreign branch of a US bank will be required to clear through a central counterparty starting on October 9 – the date that an exemption from compliance with the CFTC’s recently finalised cross-border guidance will expire.

US banks say the deadline is unreasonable and compliance will be near-impossible. And at least one of the CFTC commissioners sympathises.

“My frustration has consistently been with the Commission establishing arbitrary dates that we pluck out of thin air to establish compliance without asking, ‘is this possible?'” said CFTC commissioner Scott O’Malia.

“The cross-border guidance should have required notice and a comment period to find out if the time periods for compliance are adequate. We claim to be having a comment period but I suspect that anyone who does so will have their comments completely ignored.”

Conversely, the October clearing deadline comes two months before the CFTC forces US branches to comply with the rest of the agency’s transaction-level requirements, such as trade execution, documentation, and real-time public reporting.

“The CFTC is asking us to pull a rabbit out of a hat,” said an executive at the London branch of a US bank. “They have offered ‘substituted compliance’ but the European rules are not even done yet. Nobody in their right mind thinks we can demonstrate substituted compliance by the deadline.”

 

AFFILIATED ALTERNATIVE

For end-user clients, mandatory clearing can be a costly business. Clients must negotiate and document relationships with clearing houses and clearing member banks, and are required to post initial margin against all swaps that are passed through the system.

The CFTC guidance provides that foreign branches of US banks could apply to substitute their home country compliance for US rules in cases such as these if the rules were considered “comparable and comprehensive”.

It is likely to be the longer-term answer for most European branches of US houses, but the European rules for clearing are not yet finalised, leaving nothing concrete for comparison.

Some banks are moving to plan B, which involves transferring all client relationships from their foreign branches to affiliates – a separate legal entity that would protect European funds from the clearing mandate.

But that would not be easy, considering that firms such as JP Morgan have more than 10,000 clients booked through their UK branches.

“There are a number of impediments; it’s very difficult to move clients to another legal entity. Plus, many of those affiliates have regulators of their own who will raise concerns about wholesale transfers of clients,” said the lawyer.

 

NO-ACTION REQUEST

US banks say they have sent the Commission requests for an extension to the deadline, by way of no-action relief or some other format. Given the Commission’s penchant for issuing no-action relief – the agency has issued more than 100 in connection with Dodd-Frank to date, a pushback of the compliance date seems possible – if not likely.

If history is anything to go by, the CFTC is likely to keep the industry in suspense until the eleventh hour.

“There’s no rhyme or reason for how the no-actions are issued,” said O’Malia. “It creates a confusing ad hoc process that leaves a lot of people trying to understand a lot of moving parts when we are not following the Administrative Procedure Act. We’re using and abusing the no-action relief system.”

The development represents another trough in the often tumultuous process of aligning cross-border implementation of new rules for the OTC derivatives market between Europe and the US.

For the past two years, US banks have been warning that the CFTC’s hurried pace in implementing the rules of Dodd-Frank would put US dealers at a competitive disadvantage.

Just over a year ago, the agency issued proposals that would have forced branches of US banks to comply with all transaction-level requirements in July of this year.

But European entities and US lawmakers levied heavy criticism of CFTC chairman Gary Gensler’s approach to international harmonisation of derivatives rules.

In response, Gensler pledged closer co-ordination with European regulators in a joint statement with the EC’s internal market and services commissioner Michel Barnier just before the original proposals were due to take effect.

The scaled-back proposal reduced the CFTC’s powers in determining whether foreign regulations could be substituted for US rules and issued no-action relief for most requirements until European regulators could catch up.

But the proposal may still have over-reached, according to banks. Whether the US banks are able to move their clients over to affiliates in time or the agency issues a no-action relief remains to be seen, but for the moment banks are facing a significant cross-border dislocation.

FTT, HFT…WTF? Political pressure for an EU financial transaction tax poses threats

FTT, HFT…WTF? Political pressure for an EU financial transaction tax poses threats

http://www.automatedtrader.net/articles/feature/143912/ftt–hftwtf-political-pressure-for-an-eu-financial–transaction-tax-poses-threats

First Published in Automated Trader Magazine Issue 30 Q3 2013 : Feature

As European regulators and politicians try to find agreement on a broad-based European financial transaction tax (FTT) for some EU members, Automated Trader Editor Adam Cox looks at the implications if such a levy finally emerges

Financial markets, to borrow from the film The Big Lebowski, could be about to enter a world of pain. That is, if the past is any guide to the future and if plans for a broad-based European financial transaction tax (FTT) continue to make headway. Industry figures say the tax, as mooted, could push bid-offer spreads in many markets much wider, siphon off liquidity and drive up volatility for a range of assets or instruments. In a twist of irony, the levy could end up punishing, rather than helping, a number of shaky sovereign bond markets with potentially disastrous results for the global financial system.

The process for agreeing the tax is somewhat opaque and fraught with uncertainties due to a complex political backdrop and a cacophony of views. So the uncertainties are large and numerous. But while there are plenty of questions about the scope, scale and timing of the tax, there does seems to be little doubt that the political will is there and many industry figures believe that some kind of a cross-border FTT will emerge, albeit one that is potentially not as draconian as what is currently being discussed.

How worried are the members of the International Swaps and Derivatives Association?

Richard Metcalfe, deputy regional director and senior regulatory advisor for the association, summed it up in one word:

“Very.”

Richard Metcalfe, International Swaps and Derivatives Association

An FTT for the whole European Union is out of the question, with countries such as Britain and Sweden firmly against the idea. But under a procedure known as “enhanced cooperation”, the tax can be agreed for some EU countries as long as at least nine sign up. The euro itself was created through enhanced cooperation.

Mention the FTT, however, and the word “cooperation” is not the first thing that springs to mind for many in the market.

“Contrary to what some of the proponents of the tax are saying, the FTT clearly hits investors,” said Keith Lawson, senior counsel for the Investment Company Institute, which represents US buy side companies. “Any FTT that’s paid by a mutual fund is paid by its shareholders through a lower return.”

But before delving into the implications of the tax, it helps to understand the background and the basics of what falls in the scope of the current proposal.

In September 2011, the European Commission issued an initial proposal for a wide-ranging FTT, having explored the idea of how to make the financial sector bear more of the cost for the fallout of the 2008 global financial crisis. Then, in October of last year, the Commission proposed that enhanced cooperation be allowed for an FTT. This had the backing of 11 countries and was supported by the European Parliament. Those countries, representing more than 90% of the euro zone economy, were: Austria, Belgium, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain.

Finally, in February of this year, the Commission put forward a plan for the so-called EU-11. The tax would be for 10 basis points of the nominal amount transacted. It would be both issuance-based and residence-based. Issuance-based meant it would apply to any security issued in one of the participating countries, regardless of where the trading took place. Residence-based meant it would apply to any transaction that involved a firm deemed to be in the EU-11. It would cover equities, fixed income and derivatives.

Meanwhile, while all of this had been going on, two prominent EU countries – France and Italy – had already been implementing their own national FTTs. The idea was that these would be replaced by the EU-11 version once it was introduced.

Then, in late May, signs emerged that the Commission was scaling back its ambitions. This was hailed by market participants as a victory for common sense. Brussels had been besieged by industry representatives who sought to show the harm that could come from a tax of that size and scale. The Commission, it emerged in a Reuters report, was said to be looking at a much smaller tax of one basis point, one that initially would only apply to stocks and only later (if at all) to fixed income and derivatives.

Algirdas Šemeta, the European Commissioner for Taxation and Customs Union, who has been spearheading efforts to enact the tax. Soon after the Reuters report, Šemeta was quoted as saying it was premature to say what the final outcome would be, although he has since suggested the Commission could consider lower rates for some market segments. 

Stealing from the rich?

These taxes are often called Tobin taxes, named after Nobel laureate James Tobin who proposed the idea of taxing financial transactions. They’re also known as Robin Hood taxes, and the idea of taxing the rich to help the poor has generated massive popular support in many European countries in the wake of the global financial crisis.

 

The EMIR Delusion

The EMIR Delusion
by Michael Beaton
DRS’ Michael Beaton explains the potential problems with counterparty classification under EMIR now and with upcoming regulatory obligations

Introduction

Under EMIR, parties to OTC derivative transactions are classified as either:

• financial counterparties (“FC”);
• non-financial counterparties which have exceeded the clearing threshold (“NFC+”); or
• non-financial counterparties which have not exceeded the clearing threshold (“NFC-”).

Whilst primarily used to determine whether a counterparty is subject to the obligation to clear, in reality a number of different EMIR requirements can apply depending on the exact counterparty classification. This poses few practical problems with respect to the sell-side as the definition of “financial counterparty” is relatively static in nature. However, classification as an NFC+ or NFC- is a function of the gross notional value of derivatives contracts executed by the party in question and so is liable to change over time. Unfortunately, the impact of the consequences that flow from this fact are not restricted to the non-dealer community, highlighting the fact that understanding, confirming and monitoring of counterparty classification represents the first step in ensuring general EMIR compliance for both buy-side and sell-side firms – a step which many firms are yet to take.

EMIR Current Status

EMIR came into force on 16 August 2012. However, the regulation is, in part, an example of enabling legislation in which many of the detailed provisions are published in secondary legislation (in the form of regulatory technical standards (RTS) and implementing technical standards). As a result, many EMIR obligations – including those relating to reporting and clearing (generally regarded as the main focus of EMIR) – do not yet apply. Current estimates suggest that the EMIR reporting requirement is unlikely to take effect before 23 September 2013 (and then only with respect to interest rate derivatives and credit derivatives) and the first clearing of trades under EMIR is unlikely to occur before Q1/Q2 2014. Nonetheless, this should not be taken to mean that aspects of EMIR do not currently impact market participants or that planning for its implementation can be delayed. In reality, a number of EMIR provisions which require an understanding of counterparty classification are already in force and more are looming on the horizon, as detailed below.

EMIR Provisions Already in Force

EMIR Counterparty Classification Reporting

Under Article 10(1) of EMIR, from 15 March 2013, all non-financial counterparties (i.e. both NFC+ and NFC-) that enter into OTC derivatives contracts that exceed the clearing threshold must notify their competent authority. In practice, regulators such as the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) require non-financial counterparties to notify both when they exceed, and no longer exceed, the clearing threshold.

Timely Confirmation Requirements

Under Article 11(1)(a) of EMIR, from 15 March 2013, FCs, NFCs+ and NFCs- have been required to put in place documented policies and procedures with their counterparties to facilitate the confirmation of non-cleared OTC derivative contracts within specified deadlines. The exact deadlines are a function of transaction type, the date upon which the transaction was executed, but also counterparty classification.

Unconfirmed Transaction Reporting

Under Article 12(4) of the “Risk Mitigation RTS” , from 15 March 2013, FCs are required to establish procedures to report, on a monthly basis, the number of unconfirmed OTC derivative transactions that have been outstanding for more than five business days. Whether a transaction has been unconfirmed for more than five business days depends on when it should have originally been confirmed, itself a function of counterparty classification.

Upcoming EMIR Obligations

Portfolio Reconciliation

Under Article 11(1)(b) of EMIR, from 15 September 2013, counterparties to OTC derivatives transactions are required to establish “formalised…robust, resilient and auditable” processes in order to facilitate portfolio reconciliation. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 13 of the Risk Mitigation RTS, the frequency with which any reconciliation must be performed is again a function of counterparty classification.

The Reporting Obligation

Under the RTS dealing with trade reporting , a number of the data points to be reported to trade repositories (as detailed in Table 1 of the Annex to the RTS) are a function of EMIR counterparty classification. For example, in reporting the “Financial or non-financial nature of the counterparty”, parties to OTC derivatives transactions are required to distinguish between FC and NFC status. Additionally, in reporting against the “Clearing threshold” field, counterparties are required to further distinguish between NFC+ and NFC- status. Finally, NFCs- are not subject to the requirement to report collateral, mark to market, or mark to model valuations, an exemption which implies an understanding of whether the reporting party actually has NFC- status.

The EMIR Delusion

Anecdotal and empirical evidence would suggest that the market is currently doing very little in the way of understanding, confirming or monitoring EMIR counterparty classifications. As of 14 May 2013, only seven entities had adhered to the ISDA 2013 NFC Representation Protocol, the purpose of which is to enable parties to amend ISDA Master Agreements to reflect their status under EMIR as FCs, NFC+ or NFC-. Moreover, the alternative solution offered by the British Bankers’ Association (see this blog post for more detail) seems yet to have been adopted to any material extent by the dealer community. Although there is some encouraging talk within the market regarding the creation of a central database to house EMIR counterparty classification data, by its very nature, this will take a significant amount of time to develop and will face many legal and logistical hurdles along the way.

The current situation will not be allowed to persist for much longer. Buy-side firms cannot simply avoid the issue or expect dealers to ride to the rescue. As per the ESMA EMIR Questions and Answers document, from 15 March 2013, NFCs which trade OTC derivatives have been obliged to determine their own status against the clearing threshold and notify their National Competent Authority accordingly. This can only be right given that the clearing threshold is calculated by reference to the total gross notional value of OTC derivatives executed by a party (calculated on a 30-day rolling average basis) – a metric that, in almost all circumstances, will be available only to the party in question and not to any single dealer.

For their part, sell-side firms must avoid the misconception that EMIR counterparty classification is entirely the responsibility of clients, that counterparty classification information will simply fall into their laps or that there is currently nothing that needs to be done once this information is acquired. The ESMA EMIR Questions and Answer document makes clear that dealers must obtain representations from their counterparties as to EMIR status. Once obtained, these may be relied upon unless the dealer is in possession of information which clearly demonstrates that they are incorrect. This implies both a requirement to make contact with clients for the purposes of initial classification and the establishment of a process to monitor continuing accuracy of EMIR status.

Once obtained, robust procedures will be necessary in order to govern the maintenance and use of counterparty classification data. In reality, it is likely that much of the obligation to report will be delegated, either to dealers or to third parties. As a consequence of this, the reporting party will understandably require trade counterparties to accurately reflect their EMIR status at all times. Moreover, the limits on the extent to which dealers can rely on client representations regarding EMIR classification implies a change of process in order to mitigate risk in this area. Similarly, changes in process will be required in order to comply with unconfirmed transaction reporting requirements, as even those regulators (such as the FCA) which do not require FCs to submit information unless requested, still require firms to have procedures in place to do so when requested. Timely confirmation and Portfolio Reconciliation requirements promise to go even further, requiring firms to apply counterparty classifications (and recognising that these classifications may be subject to change) in the context of executing potentially large-scale amendments to portfolios of derivative documentation.

Both FCs and NFCs need to act now in relation to client classification. The nature and impact of the EMIR obligations which reference client classification should be fully scoped. A remediation plan which makes realistic assumptions about the level of resource and timeframes required in order to implement change should follow. The process is unlikely to be quick or easy. However, the current situation will not continue for much longer and any firm that can show its regulator that it is making efforts to tackle the issue of EMIR compliance generally and counterparty classification specifically is likely to be in a much better position that those who continue to operate under the EMIR delusion.

http://www.thetradenews.com/news/Regions/Europe/NLX_confirms_founding_lineup_ahead_of_launch.aspx

http://www.thetradenews.com/news/Regions/Europe/NLX_confirms_founding_lineup_ahead_of_launch.aspx.

Asset Manager PEAK6 Selects SunGard for a comprehensive Portfolio Management and risk system

Asset Manager PEAK6 Selects SunGard for a comprehensive Portfolio Management and risk system

http://www.derivsource.com/articles/asset-manager-peak6-selects-sungard-comprehensive-portfolio-management-and-risk-system

PEAK6 Advisors LLC (“PEAK6”), a Chicago-based asset manager specializing in alternative investments, has gone live with SunGard’s Front Arena and Monis solutions. The solutions help PEAK6 better service its clients by providing customized portfolio and risk management, valuations and trade processing.

SunGard’s Front Arena and Monis help increase operational efficiency by allowing PEAK6 to concentrate on what they do best – delivering returns and achieving agile growth.

“We wanted to ensure we are conducting ongoing due diligence by offering our investors a well-defined investment management system that can handle our assets under management in an efficient way. SunGard’s Front Arena and Monis help mitigate our internal risk and automate our validation processes – giving our investors piece of mind.” – Scott Kramer, chief technology officer, PEAK6

The implementation was completed in less than four months and PEAK6’s requirements were met in terms of open architecture and highly configurable functionalities.

What the ICE/NYSE Merger Means for the Industry courtesy of the TABB Group

With each passing day, the acquisition of NYSE Euronext by ICE seems more likely to receive final approval. Here are 5 ways the deal will impact the capital markets.

February 15, 2013, marked the end of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act waiting period in the acquisition of NYSE Euronext by IntercontinentalExchange(ICE). With each passing day, the acquisition seems more likely to receive final approval. As we await the next phase of regulatory approval from the SEC, we wanted to share a few thoughts on how we believe the acquisition will impact current clearing, reporting and trading operations, as well as how the two exchanges can benefit from the merger.

1. Need for Physical Trading Floor

The future format of the NYSE trading floor seems to be on the minds of everyone. There are analyst speculations that ICE’s CEO, Jeffrey Sprecher, will close the trading floor, as was done to the New York Board of Trade in 2012 four years after it was acquired by ICE. However, according to interviews, Sprecher has expressed intentions to keep the physical trading floor intact.

[Related: “It May Be ‘Bye-Bye to the Big Board,’ But the NY Times Should Get Its Story Right”]

Both companies have robust electronic trading, and Sprecher has acknowledged the value of NYSE’s legacy in voice brokering. As technology continues to dominate the exchange space, there has been recognition of the value of voice brokering (by which the NYSE is defined). The market has ironically become too complex to rely only on computer-to-computer trading, showing the physical trading floor still provides an intrinsic value in keeping an orderly marketplace.

2. Impact on Clearing

US-based firms that are major players in the derivative space will benefit by having a local trading and clearing venue, through reductions in clearing costs and operational risks. Typically, coordinating multiple back-office processes and reconciliations between the US and UK calls for duplicate efforts, resulting in back-to-back bookings to flatten balance sheets and delays in handling breaks; having the ability to manage these operational processes will make for a more efficient process.

Title VII of the Dodd Frank Act, which requires central clearing for certain derivatives contracts, has limited NYSE’s presence in the US-based interest rate swaps clearing business. Currently, the NYSE has a small presence in the US-based interest rate swap clearing business, due to a lack of access to a central clearinghouse, now mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act. Through the acquisition, NYSE will be able to benefit from ICE’s presence in European fixed income derivative trading and clearing.

3. Impact on Market Participants

Reductions in clearing costs can translate into cost savings for market participants. Just last year, ICE had to increase its trading and clearing fee due to “regulatory burdens,” and with the merger of NYSE Euronext, ICE will also have to compete with other exchanges on transaction costs. Even if fees increase after the merger, market participants would still fare better than if the two companies operated independently. This newly merged exchange will be able to offer a larger array of products and services, so that market participants can look to fewer companies for trading execution and clearing services, thereby decreasing expenses associated with initial client on-boarding.

4. Impact on Reporting

NYSE’s core data products make U.S. market data free and available, using consolidated tapes, giving transparency to last-sales price and quotes. It also sells its non-core data products to analytics traders, researchers and academics. ICE will be able to leverage NYSE’s experience in data reporting, as it looks to setup its own swap data repository (SDR), in order to meet CFTC mandates for real time swap reporting.

[Related: “Commissioner O’Malia Talks Derivatives Reform: Assessing and Improving the Change”]

ICE has already set up a registered SDR — and the ICE Trade Vault, which will offer both recordkeeping and reporting services for credit default swaps. However, as reporting requirements go live for additional asset classes, it will be necessary to offer data recordkeeping and reporting services to these as well. This is where NYSE’s existing core data products can benefit ICE.

5. Benefits in Merging of Exchanges

Although ICE and NYSE’s product offerings differ vastly, the functions of trading, clearing and settlement demands often overlap, and both are registered with the CFTC as designated contract markets. Efficiencies can be gained when these two exchanges tackle the requirements in swaps reporting and recordkeeping, external business conduct rules and documentation standards in this era of heightened standards for SIFI. As regulatory mandates increase the operating costs for exchanges, it is becoming prudent to explore additional mergers.

New International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) Protocol for Swap Documentation

On March 22, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) published a new protocol (March 2013 Protocol) as part of its ongoing Dodd-Frank Documentation Initiative, which has the goal of assisting market participants in complying with rules for swaps promulgated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission under the authority of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

The March 2013 Protocol provides swap market participants with an efficient means to supplement their swap agreements to comply with requirements of three new CFTC rules:

Confirmation, Portfolio Reconciliation, Portfolio Compression, and Swap Trading Relationship Documentation Requirements for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants, 77 Fed. Reg. 55904 (Sept. 11, 2012);

End-User Exception to the Clearing Requirement for Swaps, 77 Fed. Reg. 42559 (July 19, 2012); and

Clearing Requirement Determination Under Section 2(h) of the CEA, 77 Fed. Reg. 74284 (Dec. 13, 2012).
The bulk of the March 2013 Protocol deals with specific matters arising from the rules for Swap Trading Relationship Documentation (STRD). For instance, it allows for protocol adherents to incorporate 2002 ISDA master agreements into their dealings in order to meet the requirement that parties have STRD in place before or contemporaneously with entering into any swap.

The March 2013 Protocol has the same architecture as the ISDA protocol published in August 2012, consisting of 1) a protocol agreement, 2) a questionnaire and 3) a supplement. A party adheres to the March 2013 Protocol by paying a $500 fee, submitting an adherence letter and exchanging (electronically or otherwise) questionnaires and supplements with counterparties.

The March 2013 Protocol is now open for adherence and the relevant documents (plus an official set of Frequently Asked Questions) can be found here.

ISDA anticipates that the “ISDA Amend” electronic platform for exchanging Protocol documents will be updated in May to cover the March 2013 Protocol, but until then it will only cover the ISDA protocol published in August 2012. The ISDA Amend site can be found here.

©2013 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

BNY Mellon releases regulatory update on securities lending

The white paper is avaialble directly here:–>securitieslending-0213

BNY Mellon releases regulatory update on securities lending

I have to admit; I really like white papers. They are relatively short, to the point, and highlight all these issues someone should focus on.

In this installment , BNY provide an update on some of the reforms discussed in their prior publication and summarize the major developments that took place in 2012. The news is that Securities Lending are now viewed as part of global rules impacting all market participants rather than indirectly focused through firm-specific supervision.

List of TMX ATRIUM TRADING VENUES

TMX Atrium has a wide range of customers including venues, buy side, brokers, clearers, ISVs, market data vendors.

TMX Atrium covers a wide range of the financial community.

Venue City Country
Alpha Trading Toronto Canada
BATS Europe London UK
BATS US Weehwken USA
BME Madrid Spain
BOX Secaucus USA
CBOE Secaucus. USA
CNSX Toronto Canada
Borse de Luxembourg Luxembourg Luxembourg
Burgundy. Stockholm Sweden
CHI-X Canada Toronto Canada
CHI-X Europe Slough UK
CME Chicago USA
Deutsche Boerse Frankfurt Germany
Direct Edge Secaucus USA
Equiduct London UK
FX All Weehwken USA
FXCM Bergen USA
HotSpot Jersey City USA
International Sec Exchange New York USA
LMAX London UK
London Metal Exchange London UK
Match Now Toronto Canada
Montreal Exchange Toronto Canada
Moscow Exchange Moscow Russia
NASDAQ OMX (Nordic) Stockholm Sweden
NASDAQ OMX (US) Carteret USA
Oslo Bors London UK
Nordic Growth Markets Stockholm Sweden
NYSE Euronext (Europe) Basildon UK
NYSE Euronext (US) Mahwah USA
Omega ATS Toronto Canada
Pure Trading Toronto Canada
Sigma-X London UK
TOM Stockholm Sweden
TRAD-X London UK
TSX Toronto Canada
Warsaw Stock Exchange Warsaw Poland