The hedge fund fraud is in the residuals

Good Quafafew event in NYC this week, with Michael Markov of MPI on "Hedge Fund Replication: Methods, Challenges and Benefits for Investors". To cut a relatively long but enjoyable presentation short, Michael presented some interesting empirical evidence about hedge fund performance.

Firstly, he showed how many (most) hedge fund styles were able to deliver performance that had better risk/return profile than many mainstream investment portfolios, obviously including the ubiquitous 60% in equity 40% in bonds strategy. Given this relative outperformance in terms of risk and return for many hedge fund styles, Michael put forward the idea that asset managers seeking to invest in hedge funds should take more interest in indices of hedge funds than is currently the case. 

For a particular hedge fund style, to obtain a performance level that was better than 50% of the managers was actually quite good, particularly when he showed that the risk level was approximately better than 75% of the hedge funds within each class. Also, when you look at the performance over longer time periods (rolling 3 years say) an index outperformed many more of the funds in a particular investment style (sounds like a bit of the advantages of geometric vs. arithmetic averaging at work somewhere in this to me).

As an aside, he said that most hedge fund replication products do not mention tracking error and often instead talk about near perfect correlation with the hedge fund index being replicated. He was at pain to point out that it was possible to construct portfolios with near perfect correlation that have massive tracking errors, and so investors in these products should be aware of this marketing tactic (or failing, depending on your viewpoint).

Michael should some good examples of how his system had replicated the performance of a particular hedge fund style index, and how this broadly uncovered what kinds of investments were broadly being made by the hedge fund industry during each time period under consideration. He is already doing some work with some regulators on this, but most interestingly he showed how he took a few hedge funds that were later found to be involved in fraudulent activity, and worked backwards to find out what his system thought were the investments being made.

He then showed how by taking away the performance of the replicated fund away from the actual hedge fund results posted, the residual performance for these fraudulent funds was very large, and he implored investors in "stellar" perfoming hedge funds to do this analysis and really quiz the hedge fund manager for where this massive residual performance actually comes from before deciding to invest. In summary a good talk by an interesting speaker, which surprisingly for a New York Quafafew event was not interupted too many times by questions from the hosts.



CVA - a business driver for breaking down asset silos

Xenomorph's analytics partner Numerix sponsored a PRMIA event at New York's Harvard Club this week on Credit Valuation Adjustment (CVA). The event also involved Microsoft, with a surprisingly relevant contribution to the evening on CVA and "Big Data" (I still don't feel comfortable losing the quotes yet, maybe soon...). Credit Valuation Adjustment seems to be the hot topic in risk management and pricing at the moment, with Numerix's competitor Quantifi having held another PRMIA event on CVA only a few months back. 

The event started with an introduction to CVA from Aletta Ely of JP Morgan Chase. Aletta started by defining CVA as the market value of counterparty credit risk. I am new to CVA as a topic, and my own experience on any kind of adjustment in valuation for instrument was back at JP Morgan in the mid-90s (those of you under 30 are allowed to start yawning at this point...). We used to maintain separate risk-free curves (what are they now?) and counterparty spread curves, which would be combined to discount the cashflows in the model.

Whilst such an adjustment could be calibrated to come up with an adjusted valuation which would be better than having no counterparty risk modelled at all, it seems one of the key aspects of how CVA differs is that a credit valuation adjustement needs to be done in the context of the whole portfolio of exposures to the counterparty, and not in isolation instrument by instrument. The fact that a trader in equity derivatives was long exposure to a counterparty cannot be looked at in isolation from a short exposure to a portfolio of swaps with the same counterparty on the fixed income desk.

Put another way, CVA only has context if we stand to lose money if our counterparty defaults, and so an aggregated approach is needed to calculate the size of the positive exposures to the counterparty over the lifetime of the portfolio. Also, given this one sided payoff aspect of the CVA calculation, then instrument types such as vanilla interest rate swaps suddenly move from being relatively simple instrument that can be priced off a single curve to instruments that needed optionality to be modelled for the purposes of CVA.

So why has CVA become such a hot topic at the banks? Prior to the 2008/2009 crisis CVA was already around (credit risk has existed for a long time I guess, regardless of whether you regulate or report to it), but given that bank credit spreads were at that time consistently low and stable then CVA had minimal effects on valuations and P&L. Obviously with the advent of Lehmans then this changed, and CVA has been pushed into prominence since it has directly affected P&L in a significant manner for many institutions (for example see these FT articles on Citi and JPMorgan)

A key and I think positive point for the whole industry is the CVA requires a completely multi-asset view, and given regulatory focus on CVA and capital adequacy then as a result it will drive banks away from a siloed approach to data and valuation management. If capital is scarcer and more costly, then banks will invest in understanding both their aggregate CVA and the incremental contribution to CVA of a new trade in the context of all exposures to the counterparty. Looking at incremental CVA, then you can also see that this also drives investment into real or near-realtime CVA calculation, which brings me on to the next talks of the evening by Numerix on CVA calculation methods and a surprisingly good presentation on CVA and "Big Data" from David Cox of Microsoft.

Denny Yu of Numerix did a good job of explaining some of the methods of calculating CVA, and in addition to being cross asset and all the implications that requires for having the ability to price anything, CVA is both data and computationally expensive. It requires both simulation of the scenarios for the default of counterparties through time, but also the valuation of cross-asset portfolios at different points in time. Denny mentioned techniques such as American Monte-Carlo to reduce the computation needed through using the same simulation paths for both default scenarios and valuation.

So on to Microsoft. I have seen some appalling presentations on "Big Data" recently, mainly from the larger software and hardware companies try to jump on the marketing band wagon (main marketing premise: the data problems you have are "Big"...enough said I hope). Surprisingly, David Cox of Microsoft gave a very good presentation around the computation challenges of CVA, and how technologies such as Hadoop take the computational power closer to the data that needs acting on, bringing the analytics and data together. (As an aside, his presentation was notably "Metro" GUI in style, something that seems to work well for PowerPoint where the slide is very visual and it puts more emphasis on the speak to overlay the information). David was obviously keen to talk up some of the cloud technology that Microsoft is currently pushing, but he knew the CVA business topic well and did a good job of telling a good story around CVA, "Big Data" and Cloud technologies. Fundamentally, his pitch was for banks and other institutions to become "Analytic Enterprises" with a common, scaleable and flexible infrastructure for data management and analysis. 

In summary it was a great event - the Harvard Club is always worth a visit (bars and grandiose portraits as expected but also barber shop in the basement and squash courts in the loft!), the wine afterwards was tolerably good and the speakers were informative without over-selling their products or company. Quick thank you to Henry Hu of IBM for transportation on the night, and thanks also to Henry for sending through this link to a great introductory paper on CVA and credit risk from King's College London. Whilst the title of the King's paper is a bit long and scary, it takes the form of dialogue between a new employee and a CVA expert, and as such is very readable with lots of background links.

 

 

 

NoSQL - the benefit of being specific

NoSQL is an unfortunate name in my view for the loose family of non-relational database technologies associated with "Big Data". NotRelational might be a better description (catchy eh? thought not...) , but either way I don't like the negatives in both of these titles, due to aestetics and in this case because it could be taken to imply that these technologies are critical of SQL and relational technology that we have all been using for years. For those of you who are relatively new to NoSQL (which is most of us), then this link contains a great introduction. Also, if you can put up with a slightly annoying reporter, then the CloudEra CEO is worth a listen to on YouTube.

In my view NoSQL databases are complementary to relational technology, and as many have said relational tech and tabular data are not going away any time soon. Ironically, some of the NoSQL technologies need more standardised query languages to gain wider acceptance, and there will be no guessing which existing query language will be used for ideas in putting these new languages together (at this point as an example I will now say SPARQL, not that should be taken to mean that I know a lot about this, but that has never stopped me before...)

Going back into the distant history of Xenomorph and our XDB database technology, then when we started in 1995 the fact that we then used a proprietary database technology was sometimes a mixed blessing on sales. The XDB database technology we had at the time was based around answering a specific question, which was "give me all of the history for this attribute of this instrument as quickly as possible".

The risk managers and traders loved the performance aspects of our object/time series database - I remember one client with a historical VaR calc that we got running in around 30 minutes on laptop PC that was taking 12 hours in an RDBMS on a (then quite meaty) Sun Sparc box. It was a great example how specific database technology designed for specific problems could offer performance that was not possible from more generic relational technology. The use of database for these problems was never intended as a replacement for relational databases dealing with relational-type "set-based" problems tough, it was complementary technology designed for very specific problem sets.

The technologists were much more reserved, some were more accepting and knew of products such as FAME around then, but some were sceptical over the use of non-standard DBMS tech. Looking back, I think this attitude was in part due to either a desire to build their own vector/time series store, but also understandably (but incorrectly) they were concerned that our proprietary database would be require specialist database admin skills. Not that the mainstream RDBMS systems were expensive or specialist to maintain then (Oracle DBA anyone?), but many proprietary database systems with proprietary languages can require expensive and on-going specialist consultant support even today.

The feedback from our clients and sales prospects that our database performance was liked, but the proprietary database admin aspects were sometimes a sales objection caused us to take a look at hosting some of our vector database structures in Microsoft SQL Server. A long time back we had already implemented a layer within our analytics and data management system where we could replace our XDB database with other databases, most notably FAME. You can see a simple overview of the architecture in the diagram below, where other non-XDB databases (and datafeeds) can "plugged in" to our TimeScape system without affecting the APIs or indeed the object data model being used by the client:

Data Unification Layer

Using this layer, we then worked with the Microsoft UK SQL team to implement/host some of our vector database structures inside of Microsoft SQL Server. As a result, we ended up with a database engine that maintained the performance aspects of our proprietary database, but offered clients a standards-based DBMS for maintaining and managing the database. This is going back a few years, but we tested this database at Microsoft with a 12TB database (since this was then the largest disk they had available), but still this contained 500 billion tick data records which even today could be considered "Big" (if indeed I fully understand "Big" these days?). So you can see some of the technical effort we put into getting non-mainstream database technology to be more acceptable to an audience adopting a "SQL is everything" mantra.

Fast forward to 2012, and the explosion of interest in "Big Data" (I guess I should drop the quotes soon?) and in NoSQL databases. It finally seems that due to the usage of these technologies on internet data problems that no relational database could address, the technology community seem to have much more willingness to accept non-RDBMS technology where the problem being addressed warrants it - I guess for me and Xenomorph it has been a long (and mostly enjoyable) journey from 1995 to 2012 and it is great to see a more open-minded approach being taken towards database technology and the recognition of the benefits of specfic databases for (some) specific problems. Hopefully some good news on TimeScape and NoSQL technologies to follow in coming months - this is an exciting time to be involved in analytics and data management in financial markets and this tech couldn't come a moment too soon given the new reporting requirements being requested by regulators.

 

 

 

Data Visualisation from the FT

Data visualisation has always been an interesting subject in financial markets, one that seems to always have been talked about about as the next big thing in finance, but one that always seems to fail to meet expectations (of visualisation software vendors mostly...). I went along to an event put on by the FT today about what they term "infographics", set in the Vanderbilt Hall at Grand Central Station New York:

One of my first experiences of data visualisation was showing a partner company, Visual Numerix (VNI), around the Bankers Trust 's London trading floor in 1995. The VNI folks were talking grandly about visualising a "golden corn field of trading oportunities, with the wind of market change forcing the blades of corn to change in size and orientation" - whilst maybe they had been under the influence of illegal substances when dreaming up this description, their disappointment was palpable at trading screen after trading screen full of spreadsheets containing "numbers". Sure there was some charting being used, but mostly and understandably the traders were very focussed on the numbers of the deal that they were about to do (or had just done).

I guess this theme ultimately continues today to a large extent, although given the (media hyped) "explosion of data", visualisation is a useful technique for filtering down a large (er, can I use the word "big"?) data problem to get at the data you really want to work with (quick plug - the next version of our TimeScape product includes graphical heatmaps for looking for data exceptions, statistical anomolies and trading opportunities, which confirms Xenomorph buys into at least this aspect of the "filtering" benefits of visualisation).

Coming back to the presentation, Gillian Tett of the FT said at the event today that "infographics" is cutting edge technology - not sure I would agree although given the location some of the images were very good, like this one representing the stock pile of cash that major corporations have been hoarding (i.e. not spending) over recent years:

There was also some "interactive" aspects to the display where by stepping on part of the hall floor changed the graphic displayed. Biggest problem the FT had with this was persuading anyone to step into the middle of the floor to use it (more of an English reaction to such a request, so the reticience from New Yorker's surprised me):

Videos from the presentation can be found at http://ftgraphicworld.ft.com/ and the journalist involved, David McCandless is worth a listen to for the different ways he looks at data both on the FT site but also in a TED presentation.

The Semantics are not yet clear.

I went along to "Demystifying Financial Services Semantics" on Tuesday, a one day conference put together by the EDMCouncil and the Object Management Group. Firstly, what are semantics? Good question, to which the general answer is that semantics are the "study of meaning". Secondly, were semantics demystified during the day? - sadly for me I would say that they weren't, but ironically I would put that down mainly to poor presentations rather than a lack of substance, but more of that later.

Quoting from Euzenat (no expert me, just search for Semantics in Wikipedia), semantics "provides the rules for interpreting the syntax which do not provide the meaning directly but constrains the possible interpretations of what is declared." John Bottega (now of BofA) gave an illustration of this in his welcoming speech at the conference by introducing himself and the day in PigLatin, where all of the information he wanted to convey was contained in what he said, but only a small minority of the audience who knew the rules of Pig Latin understood what he was saying. The rest of us were "upidstay"...

Putting this in the more in the context of financial markets technology and data management, the main use of semantics and semantic data models seem to be as a conceptual data model technique that abstract away from any particular data model or database implementation. To humour the many disciples of the "Church of Semantics", such a conceptual data model would also be self-describing in nature, such that you would not need a separate meta data model to understand it. For example take a look at say the equity example from what Mike Aitkin and the EDM Council have put together so far with their "Semantics Repository".

Abstraction and self-description are not new techniques (OO/SOA design anyone?) but I guess even the semantic experts are not claiming that all is new with semantics. So what are they saying? The main themes from the day seem to be that Semantics:

• can bridge the gaps between business understanding and technology understanding
• can reduce the innumerable transformations of data that go on within large organisations
• is scaleable and adaptable to change and new business requirements
• facilitates greater and more granular analysis of data
• reduces the cost of data management
• enables more efficient business processes

Certainly the issue of business and technology not understanding each other (enough) has been a constant theme of most of my time working in financial services (and indeed is one of the gaps we bridge here at Xenomorph). For example, one project I heard of a few years back was were an IT department had just delivered a tick database project, only for the business users to find that that it did not cope with stock splits and for their purposes was unusable for data analysis. The business people had assumed that IT would know about the need for stock split adjustments, and as such had never felt the need to explicitly specify the requirement. The IT people obviously did not know the business domain well enough to catch this lack of specification. 

I think there is a need to involve business people in the design of systems, particularly at the data level (whilst not quite a "semantic" data model, the data model in TimeScape presents business objects and business data types to the end user, so both business people and technologist can use it without showing any detail of an underlying table or physical data structure). You can see a lot of this around with the likes of CADIS pushing its "you don't need a fixed data model" ETL/no datawarehouse type approach against the more rigid (and to some, more complete) data models/datawarehouses of the likes of Asset Control and GoldenSource. You also get the likes of Polarlake pushing its own  semantic web and big data approach to data management as a next stage on from relational data models (however I get a bit worried when "semantic web" and "big data" are used together, sounds like we are heading into marketing hype overdrive, warp factor 11...)

So if Semantics is to become prevalent and deliver some of these benefits in bringing greater understanding between business staff and technologists, the first thing that has addressed is that Semantics is a techy topic at the moment, which would cause drooping eyelids on even the most technically enthused members of the business. Ontology, OWL, RDF, CLIF are all great if you are already in the know, but guaranteed to turn a non-technical audience off if trying to understand (demystify?) Semantics in financial markets technology.

Looking at the business benefits, many of the presenters (particularly vendors) put forward slides where "BAM! Look at what semantics delivered here!" was the mantra, whereas I was left with a huge gap in seeing how what they had explained had actually translated into the benefits they were shouting about. There needed to be a much more practical focus to these presentations, rather than semantic "magic" delivering a 50% reduction in cost with no supporting detail of just how this was achieved. Some of the "magic" seemed to be that there was no unravelling of any relational data model to effect new attributes and meanings in the semantic model, but I would suggest that abstracting away from relational representation has always been a good thing if you want to avoid collapsing under the weight of database upgrades, so nothing too new there I would suggest but maybe a new approach for some.

So in summary I was a little disappointed by the day, especially given the "Demystifying" title, although there were a few highlights with Mike Bennett's talk on FIBO (Financial Instruments Business Ontology) being interesting (sorry to use the "O" word). The discussion of the XBRL success story was also good, especially how regulators mandating this standard had enforced its adoption, but from its adoption many end consumers were now doing more with the data, enhancing its adoption further. In fact the XBRL story seemed to be model for regulators could improve the world of data in financial markets, through the provision and enforcement of the data semantics to be used with each new reporting requirement as they are mandated. In summary, a mixed day and one in which I learned that the technical fog that surrounds semantics in financial markets technology is only just beginning to clear.

 

PRMIA - From Risk Measurement to Risk Management by Samuel Won

I attended the PRMIA event last night "Risk Year in Review" at Moody's New York offices. It was a good event, but by far the most interesting topic of the evening for me was from Samuel Won, who gave a talk about some of the best and most innovative risk management techniques being used in the market today. Sam said that he was inspired to do this after reading the book "The Information" by James Gleik about the history of information and its current exponential growth. Below are some of the notes I took on Sam's talk, please accept my apologies in advance for any errors but hopefully the main themes are accurate.

Early '80s ALM - Sam gave some context to risk management as a profession through his own personal experiences. He started work in the early 80's at a supra-regional bank, managing interest rate risk on a long portfolio of mortgages. These were the days before the role of "risk manager" was formally defined, and really revolved around Asset and Liability Management (ALM).

Savings and Loans Crisis - Sam then changed roles and had some first hand experience in sorting out the Savings and Loans crisis of the mid '80s. In this role he become more experienced with products such as mortgage backed securities, and more familiar with some of the more data intensive processes needed to manage such products in order to account for such factors such as prepayment risk, convexity and cashflow mapping.

The Front Office of the '90s - In the '90s he worked in the front office at a couple of tier one investment banks, where the role was more of optimal allocation of available balance sheet rather than "risk management" in the traditional sense. In order to do this better, Sam approached the head of trading for budget to improve and systemise this balance sheet allocation but was questioned as to why he needed budget when the central Risk Control department had a large staff and large budget already.

Eventually, he successfully argued the case that Risk Control were involved in risk measurement and control, whereas what he wanted to implement was active decision support to improve P&L and reduce risk. He was given a total budget of just $5M (small for a big bank) and told to get on with it. These two themes of implementing active decision support (not just risk measurement) and have a profit motive driving better risk management ran through the rest of his talk.

A Datawarehouse for End-Users Too - With a small team and a small budget, Sam made use of postgraduate students to leverage what his team could develop. They had seen that (at the time) getting systems talking to each other was costly and unproductive, and decided as a result to implement a datawarehouse for the front office, implementing data normalisation and data scrubbing, with data dashboard over the top that was easy enough for business users to do data mining. Sam made the point that useability was key in allowing the business people to extract full value from the solution.

Sam said that the techniques used by his team and the developers were not necessarily that new, things like regression and correlation analysis were used at first. These were used to establish key variables/factors, with a view to establish key risk and investment triggers in as near to real-time as possible. The expense of all of this development work was justified through its effects on P&L which given its success resulting in more funding from the business.

Poor Sell-Side Risk Innovation - Sam has seen the most innovative risk techniques being used on the buy-side and was disappointed by the lack of innovation in risk management at the banks. He listed the following sell-side problems for risk innovation:

• politically driven requirements, not economically driven
• arbitrary increases in capital levels required is not a rigorous approach
• no need for decision analysis with risk processes
• just passing a test mentality
• just do the marginal work needed to meet the new rules
• no P&L justification driving risk management

Features of Innovative Approaches - Sam said that he had noted a few key features of some of the initiatives he admired at some of the asset managers:

1. Based on a sophisticated data warehouse (not usually Oracle or Sybase, but Microsoft and other databases used - maybe driven by ease of use or cost maybe?)
2. Traders/Portfolio Managers are the people using the system and implementing it, not the technical staff.
3. Dedicated teams within the trading division to support this, so not relying on central data team.

A Forward-Looking Risk Model Example - The typical output from such decision analysis systems he found was in the form of scenarios for users to consider. A specific example was a portfolio manager involved in event-driven long-short equity strategies around mergers and acquisitions. The manager is interested in the risk that a particular deal breaks, and in this case techniques such as Value at Risk (VaR) do not work, since the arbitrage usually requires going long the company being acquired and short the acquiror (VaR would indicate little risk in this long-short case). The manager implemented a forward looking model that was based on information relevant to the deal in question plus information from similar historic deals. The probabilities used in the model where gathered from a range of sources, and techniques such as triangulation where used to verify the probabilities. Sam views that forward-looking models to assist in decision support are real risk management, as opposed to the backward-looking risk measurement models implemented at banks to support regulatory reporting.

Summary - Sam was a great speaker, and for a change it was refreshing to not have presentation slides backing up what the speaker was saying. His thoughts on forward looking models being true risk management and moving away from risk measurement seem to echo those of Ricardo Rebanato of a few years back at RiskMinds (see post). I think his thoughts on P&L motivation being the only way that risk management advances are correct, although I think there is a lot of risk innovation at the banks but at a trading desk level and not at the firm-wide level which is caught up in regulation - the trading desks know that capital is scarce and are wanting to use it better. I think this siloed risk management flies in the face of much of the firm-wide risk management and indeed firm-wide data management talked about in the industry, and potentially still shows that we have a long way to go in getting innovation and forward looking risk management at a firm level, particularly when it is dominated by regulatory requirements. However, having a truly integrated risk data platform is something of a hobby-horse for me, I think it is the foundation for answering all of the regulatory and risk requirementst to come, whatever their form. Finally, I could not agree more easy analysis for end-users is a vital part of data management for risk, allowing business users to do risk management better. Too many times IT is focussed on systems that require more IT involvement, when the IT investment and focus should be on systems that enable business users (trading, risk, compliance) to do more for themselves. Data management for risk is key area for improvement in the industry, where many risk management sytem vendors assume that the world of data they require is perfect. Ask any risk manager - the world of data is not perfect and manual data validation continues to be a task that takes time away from actually doing risk management.

A-Team event – Data Management for Risk, Analytics and Valuations

My colleagues Joanna Tydeman and Matthew Skinner attended the A-Team Group's Data Management for Risk, Analytics and Valuations event today in London. Here are some of Joanna's notes from the day:

Introductory discussion

Andrew Delaney, Amir Halton (Oracle)

Drivers of the data management problem – regulation and performance.

Key challenges that are faced – the complexity of the instruments is growing, managing data across different geographies, increase in M&As because of volatile market, broader distribution of data and analytics required etc. It’s a work in progress but there is appetite for change. A lot of emphasis is now on OTC derivatives (this was echoed at a CityIQ event earlier this month as well).

Having an LEI is becoming standard, but has its problems (e.g. China has already said it wants its own LEI which defeats the object). This was picked up as one of the main topics by a number of people in discussions after the event, seeming to justify some of the journalistic over-exposure to LEI as the "silver bullet" to solve everyone's counterparty risk problems.

Expressed the need for real time data warehousing and integrated analytics (a familiar topic for Xenomorph!) – analytics now need to reflect reality and to be updated as the data is running - coined as ‘analytics at the speed of thought’ by Amir. Hadoop was mentioned quite a lot during the conference, also NoSQL which is unsurprising from Oracle given their recent move into this tech (see post - a very interesting move given Oracle's relational foundations and history)

Impact of regulations on Enterprise Data Management requirements

Virginie O’Shea, Selwyn Blair-Ford (FRS Global), Matthew Cox (BNY Melon), Irving Henry (BBA), Chris Johnson (HSBC SS)

Discussed the new regulations, how there is now a need to change practice as regulators want to see your positions immediately. Pricing accuracy was mentioned as very important so that valuations are accurate.

Again, said how important it is to establish which areas need to be worked on and make the changes. Firms are still working on a micro level, need a macro level. It was discussed that good reasons are required to persuade management to allocate a budget for infrastructure change. This takes preparation and involving the right people.

Items that panellists considered should be on the priority list for next year were:

· Reporting – needs to be reliable and meaningful

· Long term forecasts – organisations should look ahead and anticipate where future problems could crop up.

· Engage more closely with Europe (I guess we all want the sovereign crisis behind us!)

· Commitment of firm to put enough resource into data access and reporting including on an ad hoc basis (the need for ad hoc was mentioned in another session as well).

Technology challenges of building an enterprise management infrastructure

Virginie O’Shea, Colin Gibson (RBS), Sally Hinds (Reuters), Chris Thompson (Mizuho), Victoria Stahley (RBC)

Coverage and reporting were mentioned as the biggest challenges.

Front office used to be more real time, back office used to handle the reference data, now the two must meet. There is a real requirement for consistency, front office and risk need the same data so that they arrive to the same conclusions.

Money needs to be spent in the right way and fims need to build for the future. There is real pressure for cost efficiency and for doing more for less. Discussed that timelines should perhaps be longer so that a good job can be done, but there should be shorter milestones to keep business happy.

Panellists described the next pain points/challenges that firms are likely to face as:

· Consistency of data including transaction data.

· Data coverage.

· Bringing together data silos, knowing where data is from and how to fix it.

· Getting someone to manage the project and uncover problems (which may be a bit scary, but problems are required in order to get funding).

· Don’t underestimate the challenges of using new systems.

Better business agility through data-driven analytics

Stuart Grant, Sybase

Discussed Event Stream Processing, that now analytics need to be carried out whilst data is running, not when it is standing still. This was also mentioned during other sessions, so seems to be a hot topic.

Mentioned that the buy side’s challenge is that their core competency is not IT. Now with cloud computing they are more easily able to outsource. He mentioned that buy side shouldn’t necessarily build in order to come up with a different, original solution.

Data collection, normalisation and orchestration for risk management

Andrew Delaney, Valerie Bannert-Thurner (FTEN), Michael Coleman (Hyper Rig), David Priestley (CubeLogic), Simon Tweddle (Mizuho)

Complexity of the problem is the main hindrance. When problems are small, it is hard for them to get budget so they have to wait for problems to get big – which is obviously not the best place to start from.

There is now a change in behaviour of senior front office management – now they want reports, they want a global view. Front office do in fact care about risk because they don’t want to lose money. Now we need an open dialogue between front office and risk as to what is required.

Integrating data for high compute enterprise analytics

Andrew Delaney, Stuart Grant (Sybase), Paul Johnstone (independent), Colin Rickard (DataFlux)

The need for granularity and transparency are only just being recognised by regulators. The amount of data is an overwhelming problem for regulators, not just financial institutions.

Discussed how OTCs should be treated more like exchange-traded instruments – need to look at them as structured data.

Internal model approval, risk management and regulatory compliance

Achieving regulatory approval can be challenging if we consider that regulators are concerned about both the risk calculation methodology in place but also the quality, consistency and auditability of the data feeding the risk systems used for regulatory reporting.

The data management project at LBBW (Landesbank Baden-Württemberg), for example, was initiated to support LBBW’s internal model for market risk calculations, combined with the additional aim of enabling risk, back office and accountancy departments to have transparent access to high quality and consistent data.

This required a consolidated approach to the management of data in order to support future business plans and successful growth and we worked with LBBW to provide a centralised analytics and data management platform which could enhance risk management, deliver validated market data based upon consistent validation processes and ensure regulatory compliance.

More information on the joint project at LBBW can be found in the case study, available on our website. Any questions, drop us a line!

 

 

 

Data Unification - just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water...

Sitting by the sea, you have just finished your MATLAB reading and now are wondering what to read next?

No worries! 

We have just published our "TimeScape Data Unification" white paper. Not a pocket edition I am afraid, but some of you may find it interesting.

It describes how - post-crisis - a key business and technical challenge for many large financial institutions is to knit together their many disparate data sources, databases and systems into one consistent framework than can meet the ongoing demands of the business, its clients and regulators. It then analyses the approaches that financial institutions have adopted to respond to this issue, such as implementing a ETL-type infrastructure or a traditional golden copy data management solution. 

Taking on from their effectiveness and constraints, it then shows how companies looking to satisfy the need for business-user access to data across multyple systems should consider a "distributed golden copy" approach. This federated approach deals with disparate and distributed sources of data and should also provide easy and end-user interactivity whilst maintaining data quality and auditability. 

The white paper is available here if you want to take a look and if you have any feedback or questions, drop us a line!

 

MATLAB - The perfect read for the beach...

For those who are wondering what summer reading to take on holiday, we have just published our white paper "TimeScape and MATLAB", a pocket edition which outlines how TimeScape and MATLAB can be combined to provide enhanced data analysis and visualisation tools to financial organisations.

Whilst swimming in the blue ocean, walking in the countryside or enjoying a new country, take a break and find out how TimeScape's best of breed data capture and storage can be combined with the analytical capabilities of MATLAB to produce compelling solutions to real-world problems encountered within financial services. 

Ok, ok, kidding here. Just go on holiday and enjoy your time off from complex financial problems!

But when you are back or if you are very interested (or sadly not going on holiday soon), please take a look at our white paper. It details how:

• TimeScape data and analytics can be accessed from MATLAB
• MATLAB computational and visualization tools can be used to manipulate and analyse TimeScape data
• Complex data sets generated in MATLAB can be saved back to TimeScape for persisted storage
• MATLAB components can be called from TimeScape to enrich TimeScape hosted functionality

and much more. 

Feel also free to suggest this summer reading to your friends (or enemies!). 

PRMIA on Data and Analytics

Final presentation at the PRMIA event yesterday was by Clifford Rossi and was entitled "The Brave New World of Data & Analytics Following the Crisis: A Risk Manager's Perspective".

Clifford got his presentation going with a humorous and self-depricating start by suggesting that his past employment history could in fact be the missing "leading indicator" for predicting orgnisations in crisis, having worked at CitiGroup, WaMu, Countrywide, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. One of the other professors present said that he didn't do the same to academia (University of Maryland beware maybe!).

Clifford said that the crisis had laid bare the inadequacy and underinvestment in data and risk technology in the financial services sector. He suggested that the OFR had the potential to be a game changer in correcting this issue and in helping the role of CRO to gain in stature.

He gave an example of a project at one of the GSEs he had worked at called "Project Enterprise" which was to replace 40 year old mainframe based systems (systems that for instance only had 3 digits to identify a transaction). He said that he noted that this project had recently been killed, having cost around $500M. With history like this, it is not surprising that enterpring risk data warehousing capabilities were viewed as black holes without much payoff prior to the crisis. In fact it was only due to Basel that data management projects in risk received any attention from senior management in his view.

During the recent stress test process (SCAP) the regulators found just how woeful these systems were as the banks struggled to produce the scenario results in a timely manner. Clifford said that many banks struggled to produce a consistent view of risk even for one asset type, and that in many cases, corporate acquisitions had exascerbated this lack of consistency in obtaining accurate, timely exposure data. He said that the mortgage processing fiasco showed the inadequacy of these types of systems (echoing something I heard at another event about mortgage tagging information being completely "free-fromat", without even designated fields for "City" and "State" for instance)

Data integrity was another key issue that Clifford discussed, here talking about the lack of historical performance data leading to myopia in dealing with new products and poor defintions of product leading to risk assessments based on the originator rather than on the characteristics of the product. (side note: I remember prior to the crisis the credit derivatives department at one UK bank requisitioning all new server hardware to price new CDO squared deals given it was supposedly so profitable, it was at that point that maybe I should have known something was brewing...) Clifford also outlined some further data challenges, such as the changing statistical relationship between Debt to Income ratio and mortgage defaults once incomes were self-declared on mortgages.

Moving on to consider analytics and models, Clifford outlined a lot of the concerns covered by the Modeller's Manifesto, such as the lack of qualitative judgement and over-reliance on the quantitative, efficiency and automation superceding risk management, limited capability to stress test on a regular basis, regime change, poor model validation, and cognitive biases reinforced by backward-looking statistical analysis. He made the additional point that in relation to the OFR, they should concentrate on getting good data in place before spending resource on building models.

In terms of focus going forward, Clifford said the liquidity, counterparty and credit risk management were not well understood. Possibly echoing Ricardo Rebonato's ideas, he suggested that leading indicators need to be integrated into risk modelling to provide the early warning systems we need. He advocated that the was more to do on integrating risk views across lines of business, counterparties and between the banking and trading book.

Whilst being a proponent of the OFRs potential to mandate better Analytics and data management, he warned (sensibly in my view) that we should not think that the solution to future crises is simply to set up a massive data collection and Modelling entity (see earlier post on the proposed ECB data utility)

Clifford thinks that Dodd-Frank has the potential to do for the CRO role what Sarbanes-Oxley did in elevating the CFO role. He wants risk managers to take the opportunity presented in this post-crisis period to lead the way in promoting good judgement based on sound management of data and Analytics. He warned that senior management buy-in to risk management was essential and could be forced through by regulatory edict.

This last and closing point is where I think where the role of risk management (as opposed to risk reporting) faces it's biggest challenge, in that how can a risk manager be supported in preventing a senior business manager from seeking a overly risky new business opportunity based on what "might" happen in the future - we human beings don't think about uncertainty very clearly and the lack of a resulting negative outcome will be seen by many to invalidate the concerns put forward before a decision was made. Risk management will become known as the "business prevention" department and not regarded as the key role it should be.

IKEA and Market Risk Management – Choice is a worrying thing!

Risk management and data control remain at the top of the agenda at many financial institutions. Many have said that the recent crisis highlighted the need for more consistent, transparent, high quality data management, which I totally agree with (but working for Xenomorph, I would I guess!). Although the crisis started in 2007, it would seem that many organizations still do not have the data management infrastructure in place to achieve better risk management.

I moved apartment last week and had to face the terrifying prospect of visiting IKEA to buy some new furniture. On walking through the endless corridors of furniture ideas I wondered whether the people at major financial institutions feel as I did: I knew I needed two wardrobes, I knew the dimensions of the rooms, I knew how many drawers I wanted. Then I got to the wardrobes showroom, sat in front of the “Create your own wardrobe” IKEA software and the nightmare started. How many solutions are there to solve your problems? And how many solutions, once you get to know of their existence, make you aware of a problem you didn’t know you had? That’s how I spent 2 days at IKEA choosing my furniture and still I wonder whether in the end I got the right solution for my needs.

Coming back to risk management, I imagine the same dilemma may be faced by financial institutions looking to implement a data management solution. How many software providers are out there? What data model do they use? Are they flexible enough to satisfy evolving requirements? How can we achieve an integrated data management approach? Will they support all kind of asset classes, even the most complex? 

In these times of new regulations where time goes fast and budget is tight, selection processes have become more scrupulous. 

As often happens in life, when we need a plumber for example, or a new dentist, we look for positive recommendations, people willing to endorse the efficiency and reliability of the service. So, with this in mind, please take a look at the case study we put together with Rabobank International, who have been using our TimeScape analytics and data management system at their risk department since 2002 for consolidated data management. More client stories are also available on our website here: www.xenomorph.com/casestudies. 

I hope that many of you will benefit from reading the case study and for any questions (on IKEA wardrobes too!), please get in touch...

 

More formal management of instrument valuation needed

Xenomorph has today released its white paper “Instrument Valuation Management: management of derivative and fixed income valuations in a multi-asset, multi-model, multi-datasource and multi-timeframe environment”.

The white paper expands on the “Rates, Curves and Surfaces – Golden Copy Management of Complex Datasets” white paper Xenomorph published recently (see earlier post) and describes how, despite the increasing importance of instrument valuation to investment, trading and risk management decisions, valuation management is not yet formally and fully addressed within data management strategies and remains a big concern for financial institutions.

Too often, says Xenomorph, valuations (and the analytics used to process input and calculate output data) fall between traditional data management providers and pricing model vendors. This leads to the over–use of tactical desktop spreadsheets where data “escapes” the control of the data management system, leading to an increased operational risk.

Whilst instrument valuation is certainly not the primary cause of the recent financial crisis, the lack of high quality, transparent valuations of many complex securities resulted in market uncertainty and in the failure of many risk models fed by untrustworthy valuations.

“A deeper understanding of financial products reduces operational risk and promotes quality, consistency and auditability, ensuring regulatory compliance”, says Brian Sentance, CEO Xenomorph. “Clients’ requirements have evolved and portfolio managers, traders and risk managers recognize that it is no longer sufficient to treat valuation as an external, black-box process offered by pricing service providers”, he adds.

Nowadays, regulators, auditors, clients and investors demand even more drill-down to the underlying details of an instrument’s valuation. It is therefore important to implement an integrated, consistent analytics and data management strategy which cuts across different departments and glues together reference and market data, pricing and analytics models, for transparent, high quality, independent valuation management.

“Our TimeScape solution provides a valuation environment which offers rapid and timely support for even the most complex instruments, allowing our clients to check easily the external valuation numbers, based on their choice of model and data providers”, says Sentance. “Otherwise, what is the point of good data management if the valuations and the analytics used are not based on the same data management infrastructure principles?”

For those who are interested, the white paper is available here.

 

Rates, curves and derived data management remains a neglected area following the crisis

Xenomorph has released its white paper 'Rates, Curves and Surfaces – Golden Copy Management of Complex Datasets'. The white paper describes how, despite the increasing interest in risk management and tighter regulations following the crisis, the management of complex datasets – such as prices, rates, curves and surfaces - remains an underrated issue in the industry. One that can undermine the effectiveness of an enterprise-wide data management strategy.

In the wake of the crisis, siloed data management, poor data quality, lack of audit trail and transparency have become some of the most talked about topics in financial markets. People have started looking at new approaches to tackle the data quality issue that found many companies unprepared after Lehman Brothers' collapse. Regulators – both nationally and internationally – strive hard to dictate parameters and guidelines.

In light of this, there seems to be a general consensus on the need for financial institutions to implement data management projects that are able to integrate both market and reference data. However, whilst having a good data management strategy in place is vital, the industry also needs to recognize the importance of model and derived data management.

Rates, curves and derived data management is too often a neglected function within financial institutions. What is the point of having an excellent data management infrastructure for reference and market data if ultimately instrument valuations and risk reports are run off spreadsheets using ad-hoc sources of data?

In this evolving environment, financial institutions are becoming aware of the implications of a poor risk management strategy but are still finding it difficult to overcome the political resistance across departments to implementing centralised standard datasets for valuations and risk.

The principles of data quality, consistency and auditability found in traditional data management functions need to be applied to the management of model and derived data too. If financial institutions do not address this issue, how will they be able to deal with the ever-increasing requests from regulators, auditors and clients to explain how a value or risk report was arrived at?

For those who are interested, the white paper is available here.

Risk USA - 15 cents in the dollar isn't good...

I went along to the Risk USA event yesterday and caught a good panel in the afternoon called “Garbage in, garbage out” Servicing the data supply and analytic needs for risk management.

In particular, one of the speakers, Frank R. Brown, described some work he had done as a consultant at one financial institution on tracking and rebalancing an index product. To do this, Frank had to integrate the constituent instrument symbology of the:

• Custodian
• Index Provider
• Real-Time Data Provider
• Rebalancing Software
• In-house Trading System

On top of this, corporate events might result in changes to symbology that not all providers would be up to date on, with various lags before all had caught up with the corporate action (rebalancing software often late, custodian often not changing symbol at all). He mentioned that he did all of this symbology management manually in Excel.

Of his time, he said he spent:

• 65% on managing the symbology and dealing with data issues
• 20% managing the various vendor APIs in Excel to update the data
• 15% on tracking and rebalancing

To sum up, he said that a productive work level of 15 cents in the dollar wasn't good value for the client and yet the issue continues on and on. I don't think that his example was particularly earth shattering in terms of newness, but it put in a very simple and pragmatic context the importance of doing some of the simple things right and the benefits of a more automated approach to data management, even before you delve into the data quality/validity issues of the market data itself.

Just to end on an entertaining note, then back to the title of the talk on "Garbage-in, garbage-out..." the panel moderator (Domenic Iannaccone of Sybase) put forward a good quote he had heard:

"If everyone used the same garbage at least that would be a step forward!"

Transparency and consistency can take many forms, but I didn't know it needed to apply to incorrect data too!...

 

A French Slant on Valuation

Last Thursday, I went along to an event organized by the Club Finance Innovation on the topic of “Independent valuations for the buy-side: expectations, challenges and solutions”.

The event was held at the Palais Brongniart in Paris, which, for those who don’t know (like me till Thursday), was built in the years 1807-1826 by the architect Brongniart by order of Napoleone Bonaparte, who wanted the building to permanently host the Paris stock exchange.

Speakers at the roundtable were:

• Eric Benhamou, CEO  Pricing Partners
• Francis Cornut, Président  DeriveXperts
• Jean-Marc Eber, Président LexiFi
• Patrick Hénaff, Associated Professor at the University of Bretagne (see model validation paper for additional background)
• Claude Martini, CEO  Zeliade Systems

The event focussed on the role of the buy-side in financial markets, looking in particular at the concept of independent valuations and how this has taken an important role after the financial downturn.  However, all the speakers agreed that remains a large gap between the sell-side and buy-side in terms of competences and expertise in the field of independent valuations. The buy-side lacks the systems for a better understanding of financial products and should align itself to the best practices of the sell-side and bigger hedge funds.

The roundtable was started by Francis Cornut of DeriveXperts, who gave the audience a definition of independent valuation. Whilst valuation could be defined as the “set of data and models used to explain the result of a valuation”, Cornut highlighted how the difficulty is in saying what independent means; there is in fact a general confusion on what this concept represents: internal confusion, for example between the front office and risk control department of an institution, but also external confusion, when valuations are done by third-parties.

Cornut provided three criteria that an independent valuation should respect:

• Autonomy, which should be both technical and financial;
• Credibility and transparency;
• Ethics, i.e.: being able to resist to market/commercial pressure and deliver a valuation which is free from external influences/opinions.

Independent valuations are the way forward for a better understanding of complex, structured financial products. Cornut advocated the need for financial parties (clients, regulators, users and providers) to invest more and understand the importance of independent valuations, which will ultimately improve risk management.

Jean-Marc Eber, President LexiFi, agreed that the ultimate objective of independent valuations is to allow financial institutions to better understand the market. To accomplish this, Eber pointed to the fact that when we speak about services to clients, we should first think of what are their real needs. The bigger umbrella of “buy-side” implies in fact different needs and there is often a contradiction on what regulators want: on one side, having independent valuations provided by independent third parties; on the other side, independent valuations really mean that internal users/staff do understand what there is underline the products that a company have.In the same way, we don’t just need to value products but also measure their risk and periodically  re-value them.It is important, in fact, to have the whole picture of the product being evaluated in order to make the buy-side more competitive.

Another point on which the speakers agreed is traceability: as Eber said, financial products don’t exist just as they are, but they go under transformation and change several times. Therefore, the market needs to follow the products across its life cycle till its maturity stage and this pose a technology challenge, in providing scenario analysis for compliance and keeping track of the audit trail.

At the question, ‘what has the crisis changed’ panellists answered:

Eber: the crisis showed the need to be more competent and technical to avoid risk. He highlighted the need to understand the product and its underlying. Many speak of having a central repository for OTCs, obligations, etc but this needs more thinking from the regulators and the financial markets. Moreover, the markets should focus more on quality data and transparency.

Eric Benhamou, CEO pricing Partners, sees an evolution of the market as the crisis showed underestimated risks which are now being taken in consideration.

Claude Martini, CEO Zeliade, advocated the need for financial markets to implement best practices for product valuations: buy-side should apply the same practices already adopted by the sell-side and verify the hypotheses, price and risk related to a financial product.  

Cornut admitted  things have changed since 2005, when they launched DerivExperts and nobody seemed to be interested in independent valuations. People would ask what value they would get from an investment in independent valuations: yes, regulators are happy but what’s the benefit for me?

This is changing now that financial institutions know that a deeper understanding of financial products increases their ability to push the products to their clients. The speech I enjoyed the most was from Patrick Hénaff, associated professor at the University of Bretagne and formerly Global Head of Quantitative Analysis - Commodites at Merrill Lynch / Bank of America.

He took a more academic approach and contested the fact that having two prices to confront is thought to reduce the incertitude on the product but highlighting as this is not always the case. I found interesting his idea of giving a product price with a confidence interval or a ‘toxic index’ which would represent the incertitude about the product and reproduce the model risk which may originate from it.

We speak too often about the risk associated to complex products but Hénaff, explained how the risk exists even on simpler products, for example the calculation of VAR on a given stock positioning. A stock is extremely volatile and we can’t know its trend; providing a confidence interval is therefore crucial. What is new instead, it is the interest that many are showing in assigning a price to a determinate risk, whilst before model risk was considered a mere operational risk coming out from the calculation process. Today, a good valuation of the risk associated to a product can result in less regulatory capital used to cover the risk and as such it is gaining much more interest from the market.

Henaff describes two approaches currently taken from academic research on valuations:

1) Adoption of statistic simulation in order to identify the risk deriving from an incorrect calibration of the model. This consists in taking historical data and test the model, through simulations and scenarios, in order to measure the risk associated in choosing a model instead of another;)

2) Have more quality data. Lack of quality data implies that models chosen are inaccurate as it is difficult to identify exactly what model we should be using to price a product.

 

Model risk, which as said above was before considered  an operational risk, now becomes of extremely importance as it can free up capital. Hénaff suggested that is key to find for model risk the equivalent of the VAR for market risk, a normalized measure. He also spoke about the concept of a “Model validation protocol”, giving the example of what happens in the pharmaceutical and biologic sectors: before launching a new pill into the market, this is tested several times.

Whilst in finance products are just given with their final valuation, the pharmaceutical sector provides a “protocol” which describes the calculations, analysis and processes used in order to get to the final value and their systems are organized to provide a report which would show all the deeper detail. To reduce risk, valuations should be a pre-trade process and not a post-trade.

This week, the A-Team group published a valuations benchmarking study which shows how buy-side institutions are turning more and more often to third-parties valuations, driven mainly by risk management, regulations and client needs. Many of the institutions interviewed also admitted that they will increase their spending in technology to automate and improve the pricing process, as well as the data source integration and the workflow.

This is in line on what has been said at the event I attended and confirmed by the technology representatives speaking at the roundtable.

I would like to end with what Hénaff said: there can’t be a truly independent valuation without transparency of the protocols used to get to that value.

Well, Rome wasn’t built in a day (and as it is my city we’re speaking about, I can say there is still much to build, but let’s not get into this!) but there is a great debate going on, meaning that financial institutions are aware of the necessity to take a step forward. Much is being said about the need for more transparency and a better understanding of complex, structured financial products and still there is a lot to debate.  Easier said than done I guess but, as Napoleon would say, victory belongs to the most persevering!

A Crisis Needs a Utility?

I heard Francis Gross of the ECB speak at one of the panel events at the XTrakter Conference last week, and found that I couldn't avoid asking him whether the aims of the "Data Utility" initiative by the ECB could be better separated from the means by which the ECB proposes to solve them. At the moment, reference data issues for the industry and the data utility seem to be presented as a single "package". I can't say that the response to my question was a clear one to my understanding; however I would say that Francis was helpful after the panel had finished and provided a recent presentation of their ideas, of which you can find a copy here.

Looking through the presentation, the motivations put forward for why the industry needs a data utility seem to include:

• Data processing must be done in an automated manner, since data volumes have moved beyond the capabilities of manual processing.
  - can't see anyone arguing with this
• Data is a major bottleneck, with multiple providers/sources each with the own "data dialect"
  - agreed and to some extent what keeps data/data management vendors in business, but sounds sensible to standardise if possible as there are plenty of other problems to address
• These data dialects lead to increased cost, operational risk and reduced responsiveness
  - agreed, mainly a cost aspect I would suggest
• The recent crisis was not helped by weak data management in the industry
  - but nor was it the cause, so not a great premise for a data utility
• • lack of transparency of data
    - "transparency" is an over-used word at the moment, but certainly clarity and quality were/are needed
  • systematic risk could not be assessed due to the availability of data
    - using terms like "systematic risk" seems to imply the regulators could calculate something, whereas this discipline is new so I guess we are really talking about simply knowing who is exposed to who and how.
• We need the capability to run large scale computing analysis on a vast pool of micro data, sometimes on an ad-hoc basis when a crisis begins
  - fundamentally agreed but also good to qualify with what you propose to be calculated - having a set of "numbers" doesn't seem to have helped much recently...

I started the above bullet point list by saying it contains the motivations for "why the industry needs a data utility" but I guess looking at the above list they really point to the more general aim of "why we need better industry-level data management". In the presentation the above points are then used to state:

"We all need the same good basic reference data. Why build more than one infrastructure?"

Maybe "Why build more than one infrastructure?" should really be changed to say "Why maintain more than one infrastructure?" given that Bloomberg, Thomson Reuters, Six Telekurs, Interactive, Markit and all the other vendors already infrastructure to do this. Not sure if I should read anything into the wording but more logical leaps of faith are to follow.

The presentation then moves on to state that shared reference data standards are a must, to which I cannot see many consumers of data disagreeing with that statement. Not sure I agree though with the overly simplistic statement that "Data will be good for all users or good for none". Trying telling that to the accountancy and risk departments for example but I suppose what we are talking about here is basic reference data not the more subjective price and valuation data. Reference data on instruments and entities is either right or wrong, and the presentation makes the good point that no amount of "data cleaning" can help this i.e. if wrong, the data needs to be re-captured from an accurate source.

The call for the establishment and use of reference data standards in the presentation then seems to be used to "slide "into a call for a standard reference data infrastructure. Unless I am very much mistaken, these two things are not necessarily the same thing and so it seems a logical leap has been taken here. The presentation talks about the possible necessity of "top down" legal compulsion for the industry, again something that I could agree and see the need for, but both the issues and legal compulsion do not automatically drive us to a "data utility" as the only option? Why couldn't legal compulsion be applied to the existing data vendors to standardise on common IDs for instance? ISIN is proposed as a standard in the presentation, but I can only assume that this is due to the ECB being mainly focussed on the bond world where to a large degree ISIN's work (i.e. are unique), whereas in the world of equities ISIN needs a lot of qualification (currency, exchange, share class...) before it uniquely identifies a quoted equity.

In summary, the presentation starts with showing how great the ECB's Centralised Security DataBase is (7 million securities, 3 million record updates/day etc...) and it does look good. The data issues for the industry seem clear, although I think the "crisis" is a bit of a red herring to the aim of data cost reduction, however the logical jump from industry need to effectively "we must have a data utility" is an interesting one, one where I would prefer that more options were discussed. It seems ironic that in these days of "transparency" it is not at all that transparent to me why more alternative solutions are not being discussed and a choice justified. Talking of choice and as a final thought, I am also not sure why the data vendors are not up in arms about this initiative - are they frantically lobbying behind the scenes? - do they simply think the utility won't go ahead? - or are they afraid of upsetting the EU? Any insight is very welcome, and maybe more of update from me when I get chance to speak with Francis in more detail.

XTrakter Conference

I went along to the XTrakter Annual User Conference in London on Thursday - Good event with some great speakers. Angela Knight, CEO of the British Bankers Association, gave a talk to start off the day. Angela seemed a lot less on the defensive than when I have heard her on national radio here in the UK, usually being interrogated by some journalist who wants answers to difficult questions on the financial crisis and the banks role within it.

Angela said that we were in year 3 of the "crisis" with 2008 being about the banks, 2009 being about governments and politics and 2010 being the year of sovereign debt. I guess she enjoyed saying this but that everyone is blaming "Anglo Saxon Banking" for our problems and yet it was not the banks that contributed to the fundamental problems that Greece is facing.

One major theme of her talk was decidedly Euro-Sceptic in tone, which was that the UK idea of internationality and international trade was different from that of Europe. She perceived that in the UK one of our trading parties is Europe, whereas international trade in Europe was more about inter-European and not world-wide trade - I think that there are elements of truth in this but not sure that Germany industry for example would agree that it is not conscious of truly "global" trade? She said that she was concerned by the rules and regulation being put up by governments, particularly in respect of there being too much and in too short a time.

Angela was an engaging speaker and at the very least her opinions prompt reaction, however I have to end this quick post with the best quote of the morning from Anthony Belchambers, CEO of the Futures and Options Association. Anthony said that current frenzy around political and regulatory initiatives to control the financial markets remind him of:

"A bar room brawl, where the brawlers don't punch the person that started the fight, they punch the person they have always wanted to punch..."

Cloudy definitions

Given that I am English and can tend to start many personal introductions with a short conversation about the weather (generally either "awful" or "not bad for this time of year"...), then maybe I should be very receptive to the use of weather-related expressions in technology such as the "cloud". Maybe not however since the "cloud" and "cloud computing" have reached that zenith of marketing hype, when everyone is talking about a new technology regardless of if they are sure what it actually is (or might be, or could become...).

Anyway, I finally swallowed my cynicism and on Thursday morning went along to "Migrating Business to the Cloud", an event by Microsoft hosted at Bafta (small venue where the UK deals out its equivalent (?) of the Oscars). The master of ceremonies was Mark Taylor of Microsoft, who gave a general introduction to what Microsoft are doing in the "cloud", and of particular note he described the four types of computing scenarios where cloud computing can optimally be applied:

• Predictable Bursting - where computing needs come and go in predictable waves of usage/demand
• Growing Fast - where computing needs are rising exponentially like in a successful internet start-up
• Unpredictable Bursting - where computing demand comes in unpredictable bursts, such as that associated with say usage of a backup computer centre in disaster recovery
• On and Off - where you might run a process once a month or at an interval you decide

The above definitions seem ok to me but there is (probably understandably) some overlap in usage cases. The "Growing Fast" case for start-ups is interesting and more of that later.

Mark handed over to David Chappell who gave his perspective on cloud platforms as they are today in the market. David was a very entertaining and knowledgeable speaker, despite wearing a dodgy suit (what happened to those trousers?!) and having a peculiar wide foot stance when speaking. Anyway I digress, on to what he said. David started by saying what the "Cloud" is comprised of:

• Cloud Applications - basically this is Software as a Service (SaaS) and some current examples of this would be Salesforce.com CRM, Microsoft Exchange Online and Google Apps.
• Cloud Platforms - a platform for developing cloud applications, with the following characteristics that it:
  • is aimed at developers for creating and running cloud applications, not end consumers
  • provides self-service access to computing resources
  • allows very granular, on-demand allocation of computing resources
  • charges for the consumption of computing resources in a very granular manner

David then explained that due to its ambiguity he disliked the usage of the term "Private Cloud" in the ongoing debate about publicly available cloud services (such as those provided my Amazon, Microsoft and Google) vs. private clouds deployed within private institutions. David said the main difference was that private clouds do not have the economics of public clouds (i.e. pay for what you use only when you need it). That point seemed straightforward, however I would have thought that with a large global organisation with many different departmental computing demands the economics of a private cloud would be similar to a public one.

David then went on to explain that there are two kinds of Cloud Platform:

• Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) - this is a cloud platform the provides a developer with a virtual machine (VM) that has (almost) full access within it; put another way the development environment gives the developer total control but with that control comes responsibility.
• Platform as a Service (PaaS) - this is a cloud platform that runs an application that a developer has created; it is easy to use but has limited control for the developer.

David put forward that there has been only 5 major software technology platforms over the past 50 years:

• Mainframe
• Mini-Computer
• PC
• PC-based Server
• Mobile

He perceives that the Cloud is the 6th major software technology platform, and as such he is extremely enthusiastic about the opportunity and benefits that this presents to the whole of the software industry and its consumers.

David categorised Microsoft's cloud platform as (mostly) PaaS, which had three main components:

• Windows Azure - for environment for running cloud applications within the platform
• SQL Azure - relational storage within the platform
• Windows Azure Platform AppFabric – (David noted the long name and sympathised with trying to name things sensibly) this provides and manages the infrastructure within the platform

He then moved on to describe the main usage scenarios for Windows Azure, for applications that:

• need massive scale, such as Web 2.0 applications
• need high reliability
• have highly variable loading
• have short or unpredictable lifetimes
• need parallell processing
• will either fail fast or scale fast
• do not fit easily in a single organisation's data centre, such as joint venture
• need external storage

David said that in the fail quickly or scale quickly scenario, this was squarely aimed at technology start-ups where using Cloud technologies would effectively increase the frequency at which new ideas could be tried out at less economic cost if they go wrong, but are ready to scale massively if they become the new "Facebook" - so much so that many of the VCs in Silicon Valley are now insisting that start-ups use cloud technology as a condition of funding.

Amazon's Elastic Compute Cloud (Amazon EC2) was the first major commercial cloud platform, and David categorised this as IaaS, where effectively you get a Virtual Machine (VM) environment that provides a lot of control but requires more effort to control than an PaaS such as Azure.

David said that he was surprised that the Google App Engine, which has Python and now Java as its programming languages, did not come with any traditional relational storage (unlike most other cloud platforms) but on speaking with Google he found that the storage engine and the whole platform is again designed primarily for Web 2.0 apps and as such storage usage was more about retrieving photos, video etc and less about querying across many records.

David was very complimentary about the cloud platform from Salesforce.com called Force.com, He said that the sales pitch from Salesforce.com would be straight to business users, effectively saying that they could build scaleable, resilient applications without involving the IT department and without needing programming expertise. He asked the audience if anyone had used these tools and a few folks confirmed that they were extremely impressed by what the platform offered.

Bob Muglia (President, Server and Business Tools, Microsoft) then gave a quick talk on Microsoft's plans for Azure. He mentioned how Microsoft's new search engine, Bing, was based on several hundred thousand servers running in Azure, but only had a handful of operating staff in contrast with the usual economics (taken from Gartner) that usually 1 operations person was needed for every 50 servers. He emphasised that Microsoft was committed to the further development of "on premises" operating systems but that Microsoft was totally committed to cloud computing, its development and its support.

He said that some of the tools found in the Microsoft technology suite, such as SQL Reporting Services, are not yet available in the cloud on Azure/SQL Azure (due end of year though) - he said that he hoped that people understood that re-engineering an existing application for the cloud sometimes took time to ensure the scaleable and reliability demanded when providing the functionality through the cloud. The vision put forward by Bob for development of cloud applications seemed very compelling, with Microsoft aiming to make things such enabling resilience for a globally available cloud application as simple as ticking a check-box in Microsoft Visual Studio. He put forward that the major barrier to cloud adoption was the human aspect of trust of moving applications "off premises". He said that he saw a fundamental shift across all industries to cloud development and deployment, but added there may be some areas such as government and finance where this process takes a lot longer.

The event then switched to presentations by EasyJet, RiskMetrics and SeeTheDifference. The head of IT at EasyJet gave his pitch first. His department get an annual budget of 0.75% (small?) of turnover of £2.5bn (larger, so translating to £18.75m) and has around 60 people. He presented how EasyJet has taken an incremental approach to the adoption of cloud computing, utilising both "on-premises" and cloud ("off-premises") technology together (exposing end points of applications into the cloud at first). He advised this approach since it:

• was a smaller step than full-blown adoption
• was lower risk
• demonstrated big value in a short time-frame
• leveraged the rich functionality available in Azure
• accelerated acceptance of cloud technology

Dr Rob Fraser of RiskMetrics was next up. He explained whilst Moore's Law says that computing power doubles every 18 months, the calculations needed for risk management have doubled every six months. This has driven the need for parallel computing to meet this calculation need, and that RiskMetrics' RiskBurst service uses around 2,500 64-bit Opteron cores in their data centre but combines this with use of Azure to meet the peaks in calculation needed during each day (the similarities with power consumption management were pretty apparent). He said that average CPU consumption was around 18% of peak, hence a combination of both on and off premises compute power was a good solution for them. He mentioned that the management of this hybrid combination of technologies, and in particular being able to show real-time billing for it was a key area of investment for RiskMetrics.

The final presentation was by SeeTheDifference. The main point of this presentation was that this charitable organisation had zero permanent staff involved in IT, but regardless was able to deliver a very professional, reliable and scaleable website using external consultants to build on Azure.

Final section of the morning was a roundtable discussion with questions from the audience. The EasyJet guy said that the human mindset was key to the adoption of cloud computing. In terms of what keeps him awake at night was the thought that what would happen/how would attitudes change if any of the cloud infrastructure failed - so far it has experienced 100% up time. Rob of RiskMetrics was concerned about the stability of the platform, trying to ensuring that any changes introduced do not damage reliability. He added that he disagreed with Bob Muglia and thought that financial institutions would adopt public clouds quickly – he cited their experience of their revenues now being 90% based from service provision not on-premises applications. David said that he took some of the comments from Bob to indicate that Microsoft would also offer more of a pure VM (IaaS) soon in addition to the PaaS approach of Azure. David said that trust was the major issue in cloud adoption and he advised an incremental approach so "get your feet wet" then build from there.

On the whole the presentations were good and my knowledge of cloud technology has improved a bit - certainly it is fantastically appealing to develop globally available applications with no scaling, no resilience or data replication issues - it sounds too good to be true which generally means it is, so I guess there is much more work to do in gaining trust and acceptance for this technology. So my (pragmatic?) cynicism remains - but cloudy days are certainly coming and for a change maybe this is something to very much look forward to.

 

Data Management Panel

Thomson Reuters held a panel event on data management at their London offices on Tuesday last week, with speakers from Barcap, LCH.Clearnet, DB, Mizuho and Citi. This event was held in follow up to their recent report "Beyond Golden Copy". Below are some of my notes on the summary points the panelists made:

• The Value of Data - Kris Bhattacharjee of Barcap said that there were currently two main drivers behind the perceived business value of data; i) Regulators are expecting more information, adding additional requirements and conducting more adhoc reporting requests. ii) Business users/decision makers want more granular understanding of trading and risk management data, in order to decide how best to allocate scarce capital to what trading positions.
• Data Metrics - Kris said that the metrics were many but timeliness of data was becoming a key metric - over the past two years regulators have moved from allowing say 2 months as a reporting timeline down to 10 days recently. Additionally timeliness is again vital as regulators demand adhoc reporting in response to market events.
• Accuracy/Completeness - Again regulators are driving this, with the "bad numbers in, bad numbers out" as the main motivation. Unsurprisingly, counterparty data is also being required at a new level of detail and accuracy down to a portfolio level in light of the crisis.
• Granularity of Data - Deeper granularity of data being driven by scarce capital and the need to understand how efficiently it is being used. Basel II has also driven greater granularity over Basel I. Reflecting what I have heard from some our clients, Kris added that the data associated with securitised products had increased greatly as people need to understand exposure/risk and pricing in more detail (rather than assume blanket statistical behaviour for a whole basket of assets).
• Stress Scenarios - Kris again mentioned the understanding of counterparty exposure driving the need for new data sets, as had the initiative of banks having "living wills" to allow a bank to be wound down in an orderly manner.
• Everybody has Left the Building! - Martin Taylor of LCH.Clearnet was a great speaker and said that the biggest new problem that the collapse of Lehman's created was that ordinarily there are people around to help with extracting from systems what the exposure is to the various counterparties. In the Lehman's case there was nobody around to help, making the process very difficult and leading to the need for changes to address this problem.
• Mandating Data Integrity - Martin added that data security, integrity and auditabiliy were vital, and in particular put emphasis on the people that are running the systems that they have their own form of integrity so that an institution knows that the people can trusted but is also capable to deal with a situation where the people are not around to help. Martin felt that this level of data management should be mandated on the industry and that there was an awful lot that finance could learn from industries such as Pharmaceuticals in terms of product approval and management/robustness of data.
• Data with No Cost or Value - Neil Fletcher of DB was another good speaker who started his talk by saying that pre-crisis people thought of data as project based, otherwise dealt with it on an adhoc basis and considered data as having no cost or value. Institutions had a spaghetti approach to data, with systems/projects being process not data based i.e. the systems get only the isolated data sets they need only when they need it.
• Quality is Now the Data Driver - Neil said that 18 months on from the crisis, then whilst ROI is still important for data projects then quality of data is the key driver.
• Sponsorship and Ownership of Data - Neil added that quality data is an asset as are the systems that produce data quality, and to ensure success data management projects needed high level business sponsorship, but also ongoing and clearly defined ownership of all data sets and their quality.
• Enterprise Data Virtualisation - Neil said that DB were embarking on a long term project to ensure that all systems get data from the same logical place on a global basis, and that they were investing heavily in data virtualisation technology as a key means of achieving this goal. DB are starting with reference data, moving to transactional/positional data and on to other data types. For each type/category of data ownership would be clearly defined across all systems and would enable real-time transformation of the data into whatever format it is needed in.
• Enterprise Data Model - Neil said that as a result of this virtualisation approach then you have to invest in putting together an enterprise data model for all data used in an institution. From my point of view this could be interpreted as a move back to "big EDM" (with all the project risk that implies) but I guess it is being approach on a more staged manner.
• Lip Service to Data has Ended - Neil summarised by saying that lip service to data management has ended with the start of the crisis and that 18 months on the enthusiasm for dealing with the data problem has not diminished.
• Publish/Validate/Subscribe - Simon Tweddle of Mizuho echoed a lot of what Neil said in approach to global data management and ownership, but added that he believed that the model of publish/subscribe needs to change to publish/validate/subscribe to ensure data quality.

Most of the panelists agreed that bringing in experience from external industries (Pharma, Oil & Gas, Internet Search etc) would be beneficial since we should not assume that the financial market has the expertise to get data management right first time (take a look at this article from the FT for a related idea). Martin of LCH.Clearnet was convinced that mandated data management would come and would be beneficial, which some of other panelists did not agree with and suggested that the industry needs to get ahead of the regulators to head this possibility off. Simon said that the focus on complex data/products was wrong given that the basics (what is our exposure to this counterparty?) were not being done (not sure I agree with this totally, both are needed given the losses from CDOs etc). Overall it was good panel with some interesting debate and speakers.

Fund administrator or data distributor?

Just caught up with this article appeared on the A-Team website - Bloomberg is facing pressure from the industry with regards to users concerns about its initiative to make its codes freely available (see previous post Truly "Open" Bloomberg?). In the article, Max Woolfenden, managing director of FOW Tradedata, recognizes the potential of the BSYM website but advocates more progresses to be made in order to improve completeness of the data offered and in particular to clarify what exactly 'open' means.

According to A-Team, Bloomberg is also facing pressure with regards to a possible introduction of a new licensing structure for Service Provider Agreement (SPA) contracts for fund administration clients. Under the new system, fund administrators would be required 'to pay per security in each individual client portfolio', effectively changing the status of the fund manager to that of data re-distributor with all the cost increases that implies. It will be interesting to see where this heads - will the administrators simply pass the data costs through to their clients, absorb some costs as a competitive play or simply move away from using Bloomberg data? 

Views on Fair Value...

Busy week last week for events in London, this time over at the Goodacre / Six Telekurs on Thursday morning. Guy Sears of the IMA was chair of the event, and the event did have a "buy-side" focus to it. Richard Newbury of Six Telekurs started the event and made the following points on the current state of regulation:

• UCITS IV - Richard cited the stats that there are around 37,500 funds in the EU with average value of approximately $180M each as compared to only 8,000 funds in the US with average value over $1B. Richard said that such a proliferation of funds was costly and the more EU could standardise funds and their ability to be transacted everywhere in the EU the better.
• Reg NMS - Richard took a little humorous dig at US regulators when he reminded us that Congress authorised the SEC to form a "National Markets System" in 1975 and so this had taken around 30 years to implement. Whilst Reg NMS is often compared to MiFID, he said that Reg NMS had led to consolidation in the US while obviously MiFID has led to fragmentation in the EU.
• Hedge Funds - Both EU and US regulators are looking at the hedge fund industry. He mentioned the battle the UK was having with some of the (misguided?) regulation that the EU is trying to introduce with over 30,000 HF related jobs in London. The new regulation is likely to increase reporting requirements leading to more need for regular, standardised fair value reporting.
• Credit Rating Agencies - Richard mentioned how there will be more ratings and more ratings types, and the regulation introduced to ensure the CRA do not fall into the conflict of interest trap.
• Data Management - He mentioned the importance of data management within what is happening in the industry and noted how the profile of data management was on the increase.

Mike Jenkins of Ernst & Young tried his best to make the accountancy treatment of derivatives interesting and didn't do too bad an effort but I only took the following few notes from his talk:

• Unlike US GAAP with FAS 157 there is no single standard Fair Value (FV) definition in IFRS, and unsurprisingly IASB are addressing this.
• Mike spent some time mentioning Level 1(quoted), Level 2 (observable) and Level 3 (unobservable) pricing inputs for securites, taken from the IASB exposure draft ED/2009/5 (also see Rowe in earlier post)

Matthew Cox of BoNY Mellon Security Services then gave his presentation on the difficulties/challenges of providing a valuation service to their asset management clients:

• His division often have a "2 hour" window to produce valuations for NAV reporting, often for a 12 midday valuation
• Data exceptions for investigation went through the roof this year due to increased volatility (comment: didn't get chance to ask whether the validations set were "normalised" for market volatility i.e. a price movement threshold would not be fixed but rather be multiplied by a factor relating to recent volatility levels)
• Matthew was very complimentary about the efforts his team put in to cope with this increase in data exceptions.
• He mentioned how many of his clients of established "Fair Value Committees" over the past couple of years, comprised of staff from compliance, risk management, portfolio management etc.
• Matthew mentioned the importance of time zones in valuation and the timeliness of data, with the availability of intraday CDS prices contrasting with bonds who price only from the evening close of the day before.

The panel debate was moderated by Guy Sears, and included the above speakers plus Nigel Reynolds from TD Waterhouse):

• Matthew said that his division sometimes shared the "consensus" price from other clients when one client is looking for some guidance.
• He mentioned that a key timeframe in establishing FV was establishing what is a "reasonable" time frame for sale of a security.
• Nigel Cox said that "suspended stocks" had been a real issue over the past year, where the client "context" (position, situation etc) would very much determine what value a client would want assigned to a holding.
• Guy Sears suggested that valuations should be provided with a confidence interval and not just as a single price
• Mike of E&Y said that this is what full disclosure now requires, other memberrs of the panel suggested this was realistic but not what clients (humans?) expect to receive - they want a single number.
• Guy wondered whether it was an issue that one entity might value an asset at a value X whilst another would value the liability at Y (not equal to X)
• Mike of E&Y pointed out that this was an issue in that current accountancy rules allow a security to be reclassified from "fair value" pricing to "historic cost" basis - this discretion is being removed in future rule implementations
• One member of the audience pointed out that Bloomberg, Reuters and Markit were all trying to extract more revenue from data used for valuation purposes.
• Matthew advocated that the market needed more competition between niche data vendors such as Markit and SuperDerivatives to ensure innovation in service and more competitive pricing.
• The audience asked Guy of the IMA whether the association should have offered more guidance on fair valuation process and best practice.
• Guy said they have provided some, but he advocated that trade associations should not have opinions, since it was not healthy to have the asset management industry collectively herding towards the same valuations.

Well attended event with some good speakers, particularly Guy Sears as host was funny, knowledgeable and kept the other speakers on their toes. I would say the most interesting point was still that "opinions" form prices, opinions formed in the investment/funding "context" of the party with an interest in valuing a security - conceptually this seem to make the asset servicing companies a little uncomfortable since what they are contracted to do is to provide the "right" set of numbers by their clients. Human beings feel more comfortable fixating on a single number than a range of possible outcomes/results it would seem!...

It's in the news...

I went along to the Forum on News Analytics over in Canary Wharf on Monday evening, organised by Professor Gautam Mitra from OptiRisk / Carisma at Brunel University. We seem to be in the early days of transforming news articles into quantifiable/machine-readable data so that it can be processed automatically/systematically in trading and risk management. It was a good event with both vendors and practititioners attending so was reasonably balanced between vendor hype and the current state of market practice.

As background on what is meant by news analytics data, then for example you might count the number of news articles about a particular company and look at whether the quantity of news articles might be a predictor of some change in the company's stock price or volatility. Moving on from this simple approach (assuming that you are clever enough to be certain about what news is about what company), then you can then move towards assessing whether the news is negative, neutral or positive in sentiment about a company/stock.

The context here is about having the capability to automatically process/analyse any kind of text-based news story, not just those from research analysts that might be nicely tagged with such quantifiers of sentiment (see http://www.rixml.org/ on xml standards for analyst data). The way in which the meaning of the text is "quantified" uses some form of Natural Language Processing.

The event started with a brief talk by Dan di Bartolemeo of Northfield Information Services. I hadn't heard of him or his company before (maybe I should pay more attention!) but he seemed a very solid speaker with strong academic and practical background in investment management and modelling. He referenced a few academic papers (available via their web site) on news analytics, and how news analytics and implied volatility could provide better estimates of future volatility than implied volatility alone. He also made some good points about how investment "models" are calibrated to history and how such models need to adapt to "today" - he put it as "how are things different now from the past?" and put forward the idea of a framework for assessing and potentially modifying a model to respond to the "now" situation. He also suggested that the market can react very differently to "expected news" (having a range of investment "what ifs" planned for a known earnings announcement) as opposed to unexpected information (we are back into the realms of the Black Swan and the ultimate in uncertainty wisdom from Donald Runsfeld)

Armando Gonzalez of RavenPack then began by explaining how RavenPack had become involved in applying text analysis to finance (it seems the subject has its origins, like a lot of things, in the military). RavenPack seem to be highest profile quantified news vendor at the moment, and whilst Armando is obviously biassed towards pushing the concept that money can be made by adding quantified news data to trading models, he said that not many firms are as yet systematically processing news and most people are relying upon manual interpretation of the news they buy/use. Some of the studies Ravenpack have on market news and prices are very interesting, showing how a news event can take up to 20 mins before the market settles on a new "fair" price level for a stock. Additionally, and maybe an interesting reflection on human behaviour, was that in bull markets there are usually twice as many positive stories about companies than negative, but strikingly in a bear market there was still almost equal amounts of positive and negative news - so humans are basically optimists! (or delusional, or just plain greedy...take your pick!)

Mark Vreijling of Semlab followed Armando and suggested that a lot of their sales prospects understandably desire "proof" of the benefits of adding quantified news to trading, but this was a little ironic since most financial institutions have been paying to receive "raw" news for years, presumably because they perceive beneift from it. Mark also mentioned that the application of quantified news to risk management was a new but growing area for him and his colleagues.

Gurvinder Brar of Macquarie then went into some of the practicallities of quantifying and using news in automated trading. He suggested that you need to understand what is really "news" (containing information on something that has just happened) and what is merely an news "article" (like a "feature" in a magazine etc). Assessing relevance of news was also difficult and he added that setting a hierarchy of what kind of events are important to your trading was a key step in dealing with news data. Fundamentally he suggested that why wait for five days for analysts to publish their assessment of a market or company-specific event when you could react to the event in near real-time.

The event then went into "panel" mode where the following points came out:

• Dan thought that a real challenge was integrating quantified news with all of the other relevant datasets (market data, but also reference data etc)
• Armando picked up on Dan's point by giving the example news about Gillette which at one point was about Gillette the company but then on acquisition became news about the Gillette "brand" which became a part of Proctor and Gamble.
• Dan said that a key problem with processing news was also understanding what news was simply ignored by the news wires i.e. we know what is being talked about, but what could have been talked about, why was it ignored and is it (even so) relevant to trading?
• Mark and Armando said that the "context" for the news story was vital and that market expectations can turn many "negative" news stories into positive outcomes for trading e.g. the market likes bad news when it is not as "bad" as everyone thought.
• Dan made a very interesting point about trading in terms of categorising trades as "want to" trades and "have to" trades. He gave the example of a trade being observed that seemingly has no news associated/prompting it - so does this mean the trade is occuring because somebody "has to" make the trade (a fund facing an welcome client redemption for example?) or because there has been some information leak to a market participant and such a participant "wants to" make a trade before the news becomes available to the market as a whole.
• I think all of the panel members then collectively hesitated before answering the next question from the audience, with Microsoft having one of their "text search" R&D team (think Bing...) asking about news categorisation and quantification.
• Dan also mentioned something that I have only recently become more aware of, which is that apart from major markets in the US, most exchanges world-wide do not publish whether a trade was a "buy" or "sell" trade (they just publish the price and transaction size). Obviously knowing the direction of the trade would be useful to any trading model, and Dan referred to this as wanting to know the "signed volume".
• A member of the audience then asked whether most quantified news had been based on just the English language and the concensus was that most was based on English, but Natural Language Processing can be trained in other languages relatively easily. A few members of the panel pointed out that all languages change, even English, requiring constant retraining, and also that certain languages, countries and cultures added further complication to the recognition process.
• The next question asked was whether the panel could outline the major areas that quantified news is applied in - the answer included intraday (but not quite real-time) trading, algorithmic execution, lower frequency portofolio rebalancing and in compliance/risk/market abuse detection.
• A good debate ensued about whether "news" was provided by the official newswires or by the web itself. The panel (and audience) concensus seemed to favour the premise the news wires are the source of news and the web is a reflection/regurgitation of this news. That said, Gurvinder of Macquarie gave the nice counter example of the analysts/news wires not making much of the new Apple iPod, when looking at the web it was possible to see that the public were in contrast very enthusiastic about it.

Overall an interesting event. I think the application of "quantified news" to risk management is interesting - maths and financial theory is very interesting but markets are driven by people's behaviour and if "quantified news" can help us understand this better it has to help in avoiding (some!) of the future problems to be faced in the market.

Truly "Open" Bloomberg?

Interesting couple of articles from Inside Reference Data and Inside Market Data. The first is on Bloomberg making its codes freely available to all from its website http://bsym.bloomberg.com - given past standards-based attempts like ISINs falling short of providing the industry with unique and useful security IDs this looks to be a welcome addition. This seems to be a publicity "win" for Bloomberg, especially given rival Thomson Reuters has recently got some indifferent publicity with the EU over RIC licensing (see article). No prizes for anyone who thinks that Thomson Reuters will not respond in some way with regard to RIC usage, maybe giving us two working proprietary standards that go "open" - at least everyone would then be matching up Bloomberg Tickers and Reuters RICs in public rather behind closed doors - and maybe a good opportunity for a Wiki site to do the matching up?

The second relates to Bloomberg providing a open-source data distribution system called "The Platform", I presume as less expensive alternative to Reuters RMDS. Meanwhile Reuters is busying itself with the plans for its competitor to the Open Bloomberg terminal with "Project Utah". Obviously Bloomberg is comparatively unproven with regard to systems provision so this is a big change and will be very interesting to watch - from a technology point of view but also culturally since can Bloomberg turn away from thinking in "Terminals" all of the time?

Tick Size Harmony...

...in a rare show of co-operation (I wonder what is the carrot or (regulatory) stick here to motivate this?) European exchanges and MTFs seem to have agreed on standardising tick sizes (or at least to have two standards rather than twenty five!). Extract from article on AutomatedTrader:

"From the perspective of each trading venue, strong incentives exist to undercut others in terms of tick sizes, which is not in the interest of market efficiency or the users and end investors. This might, in turn, lead to excessively reduced tick sizes in the market. Excessively granular tick sizes in securities can have a detrimental effect to market depth (i.e. to liquidity). An excessive granularity of tick sizes could lead to significantly increased costs for the many users of each exchange throughout the value chain; and have spillover costs for the derivatives exchanges' clients."