The document discusses how financial institutions need technology solutions that can future proof their post-trade matching processes to address increasing regulation, changing trading patterns, and risk mitigation needs. Specifically, it mentions how regulations like Dodd-Frank, FIN48, HIRE, MiFID, EMIR, and UCITS are driving more regulatory uncertainty. It also notes trends like equity and ETF growth that are changing trading scales and how the 2008 financial crisis and continuing into 2011 has driven a focus on further reducing risks. The document raises that legacy systems present challenges and that connectivity and scale will be important for matching solutions to address these issues.
In a fast-moving post-trade environment, financial institutions are often hard-pushed to ensure that their technology can keep up with changing requirements. Changing regulation, increasing volumes across multiple asset classes, and a desire to reduce risk all lead to new requirements for communicating and matching data. In particular, connecting internal systems to external ones, whether post-trade counterparties, CCPs, settlement locations, or other services becomes ever more complex and unpredictable. This presentation will look at what's driving the changes, and discuss more flexible approaches to communication and matching, including real-time matching as opposed to T+1 reconciliation a single-window approach to complex communications Why asset class sometimes really doesn’t matter
real-time matching as opposed to T+1 reconciliation a single-window approach to complex communications Why asset class sometimes really doesn’t matter
Known unknowns – regulatory uncertainty, changing trading patterns, risk mitigation All lead to requirements for additional external connectivity, matching & handling of changes of scale Problem needs to be tackled in light of legacy ops.
Known unknowns – regulatory uncertainty, changing trading patterns, risk mitigation All lead to requirements for additional external connectivity, matching & handling of changes of scale Problem needs to be tackled in light of legacy ops.
Known unknowns – regulatory uncertainty, changing trading patterns, risk mitigation All lead to requirements for additional external connectivity, matching & handling of changes of scale Problem needs to be tackled in light of legacy ops.
Known unknowns – regulatory uncertainty, changing trading patterns, risk mitigation All lead to requirements for additional external connectivity, matching & handling of changes of scale Problem needs to be tackled in light of legacy ops.
real-time matching as opposed to T+1 reconciliation a single-window approach to complex communications Why asset class sometimes really doesn’t matter