Conflicts of Perception
![james-rundle-waters james-rundle-waters](/sites/default/files/styles/landscape_750_463/public/import/IMG/283/261283/james-rundle-waters.jpg.webp?h=4a6b0616&itok=EjSrsvc6)
One of the largest changes in European markets for a long time happened this month, and nobody really noticed. For those unaware, Europe shifted its settlement cycle to T+2 in anticipation of requirements in the Central Securities Depository Regulation (CSD Reg), standardizing and harmonizing the cycle from its previous T+2/T+3 blend.
And what happened? Nothing. No reports of abnormal settlement fails ─ if anything, volumes were higher than normal, too ─ no major screw-ups. Not a dicky bird.
All of which is good, right? It shows that people can work together effectively when they need to, and it gives a bit of a boost to the beleagured European Commission, which hasn't had the rosiest reputation for stable financial overhaul over the past decade. Given the hubbub in the US about T+2, too, with the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC) taking the lead (albeit through committee), it's encouraging that it can work as well as it does among EU states. Except for Spain, of course, which isn't tackling it until 2015.
On a related market-structure note, regular readers of Sell-Side Technology may be interested to give Dan DeFrancesco's feature on the consolidated audit trail a read, along with his accompanying analysis piece looking at how fair it really is that Finra can be both a contestant in and arbiter of the bidding process.
The regulator protests that Chinese walls keep it all separate, and there's no reason to doubt that ─ the US Securities and Exchange Commission, after all, hasn't been shy about fining Finra in the past, so it's in its best interests to keep them separated. But as with so many other areas, in finance, it's the perception that can be the killer, rather than the reality.
Just look at the row over central counterparties (CCPs), and the systemic risk they supposedly present, if you believe JPMorgan and a (fair) few others. Nobody is saying they're perfect, but there are elements of hyperbole that go into this, such as recent stories in Waters' stablemate Risk that have Fed officials criticize the secondment of traders to a CCP in the event of a bank default, so as to hedge positions quickly. It can never work, they say in one breath, then point out that this happened at LCH.Clearnet during the Lehman collapse with the other.
The point is that for such a deeply intellectual field as investment banking, it's strange that so much is driven by how people see things on the surface, and how often this perception obfuscates the beneficial role that market elements such as CCPs can introduce. Yes, there are cogent arguments for CCPs transitioning to not-for-profit status, but the more hysterical sides of the debate are a little overwrought.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@waterstechnology.com or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.waterstechnology.com/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@waterstechnology.com to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@waterstechnology.com to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@waterstechnology.com
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@waterstechnology.com
More on Regulation
The costly sanctions risks hiding in your supply chain
In an age of geopolitical instability and rising fines, financial firms need to dig deep into the securities they invest in and the issuing company’s network of suppliers and associates.
Industry associations say ECB cloud guidelines clash with EU’s Dora
Responses from industry participants on the European Central Bank’s guidelines are expected in the coming weeks.
Regulators recommend Figi over Cusip, Isin for reporting in FDTA proposal
Another contentious battle in the world of identifiers pits the Figi against Cusip and the Isin, with regulators including the Fed, the SEC, and the CFTC so far backing the Figi.
US Supreme Court clips SEC’s wings with recent rulings
The Supreme Court made a host of decisions at the start of July that spell trouble for regulators—including the SEC.
This Week: FCA, Plato/Turquoise, Franklin Templeton, and more
A summary of the latest financial technology news.
Insurers deny cyber premiums are rising
Contrary to banks’ complaints, underwriters and brokers claim current market for policies is soft.
Size matters: US equity market players wrangle over new tick size regime
The industry expects the SEC to finalize the Reg NMS shake-up as soon as late summer. While there is broad agreement about the need for change, the extent of the reduction in access fees and tick sizes will have a big impact on markets.
CME: CFTC OKs clearing move to Google Cloud
The CFTC has given the Chicago-based exchange approval to run its clearing and settlement infrastructure on the Google Cloud Platform, while the exchange and vendor have extended their partnership to last until at least 2037.