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.

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.

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!

Analytics Management by Sybase and Platform

I went along to a good event at Sybase New York this morning, put on by Sybase and Platform Computing (the grid/cluster/HPC people, see an old article for some background). As much as some of Sybase's ideas in this space are competitive to Xenomorph's, some are very complimentary and I like their overall technical and marketing direction in focussing on the issue of managing of data and analytics within financial markets (given that direction I would, wouldn't I?...). Specifically, I think their marketing pitch based on moving away from batch to intraday risk management is a good one, but one that many financial institutions are unfortunately (?) a long way away from.

The event started with a decent breakfast, a wonderful sunny window view of Manhattan and then proceeded with the expected corporate marketing pitch for Sybase and Platform - this was ok but to be critical (even of some of my own speeches) there is only so much you can say about the financial crisis. The presenters described two reference architectures that combined Platform's grid computing technology with Sybase RAP and the Aleri CEP Engine, and from these two architectures they outlined four usage cases.

The first use case was for strategy back testing. The architecture for this looked fine but some questions were raised from the audience about the need for distributed data cacheing within the proposed architecture to ensure that data did not become the bottleneck. One of the presenters said that distributed cacheing was one option, although data cacheing (involving "binning" of data) can limit the computational flexibility of a grid solution. The audience member also added that when market data changes, this can cause temporary but significant issues of cache consistency across a grid as the change cascades from one node to another.

Apparently a cache could be implemented in the Aleri CEP engine on each grid node, or the Platform guy said that it was also possible to hook in a client's own C/C++ solution into Platform to achieve this, and that their "Data Affinity" offering was designed to assist with this type of issue. In summary their presentation would have looked better with the distributed cacheing illustrated in my view, and it begged the question as to why they did not have an offering or partner in this technical space. To be fair, when asked whether the architecture had any performance issues in this way, they said for the usage case they had then no it didn't - so on that simple and fundamental aspect they were covered.

They had three usage cases for the second architecture, one was intraday market risk, one was counterparty risk exposure and one was intraday option pricing. On the option pricing case, there was some debated about whether the architecture could "share" real-time objects such as zero curves, volatility surfaces etc. Apparently this is possible, but again would have benefitted by being illustrated first as an explicit part of the architecture.

There was one question about the usage of the architecture applied to transactional problems, and as usual for an event full of database specialists there was some confusion as to whether we were talking about database "transactions" or financial transactions. I think it was the latter, but this wasn't answered too clearly but neither was the question asked clearly I guess - maybe they could have explained the counterparty exposure usage case a bit more to see if this met some of the audience member's needs.

The latter question on transactions above got a conversation going on about resilliancy within the architecture, given that the Sybase ASE database engine is held in-memory for real-time updates whilst the historic data resides on shared disk in Sybase IQ, their column-based database offering. Again full resilience is possible across the whole architecture (Sybase ASE, IQ, Aleri and the Symphony Grid from Platform) but this was not illustrated this time round.

Overall good event with some decent questions and interaction.

Counterparty Event

I went along to a morning panel on counterparty data management on Tuesday, sponsored by GoldenSource, Avox and Interactive Data, and hosted by Virginie O'Shea of the A-Team. Counterparty data obviously has a very high profile currently in light of recent events, however the advice from the panel fundamentally seemed to be get the basics of data management right (ownership, control, consistency, quality, transparency), rather than anything radically new.

There was some debate about the possible extension of BIC (Bank Identifier Code) to be used more generally as a standard for a unique business entity identifier - this seemed to be received well but there were concerns that such an initiative would not solve the problem but rather become an addition to the already complex entity-mapping process.

The "Data Utility" from the ECB was also debated, and it was refreshing to here some negative (realistic?) things said about it, such as the concern raised by Interactive that this might involve huge public spend without necessarily understanding why a new government sponsored entity would be able to do better than existing data providers. Obviously a data provider would say that, but I have to agree, it seems there is too much focus on having a data utility and not looking at the different options for solving industry data issues (one option obviously being a data utility, but lets not pre-package the problem with a solution but more of that in later posts...).

For more detail on the event, then take a look at Virginie's blog post.

RiskMinds - from Blame to Bubble Indices...

I am attending the RiskMinds Conference in Geneva this week. Given what has happened over the past year, its somewhat intellectual name seems less appropriate than it once did, but I guess not many of us are smelling of roses on that point...

Seems to be very good attendance with the main hall full to overflowing for the first full day of the conference - unsurprisingly I think many people are looking for answers (from "what did I do wrong?" to "who can I blame?"). From a quick survey of the attendees, there seems to be no doubt that regulators and the credit rating agencies seem to be the favoured candidates to blame.

Robert Shiller (author of Irrational Exuberance) gave the openning talk on the current credit crisis and what to do about it. He made the point that behavioural finance (stock market pyschology) is becoming much more integrated with financial markets theory, and put forward the positive point that financial theory needs to be expanded to encompass what we have experienced over the past year, not that all financial theory should be thrown away (a jibe at Taleb on this point?)

Much of Professor Shiller's talk was spent on illustrating various "bubbles" in real asset prices in various markets against long run trends, usually involving a comparison with the data of the Great Depression of the 1930's, and an occaisional mention of his book (I haven't read it (yet) but I would guess it spends a lot of time on bubbles too). He is very keen on the democratisation of finance, more particularly of financial advice (it would seem that the FSA has been listening in the UK, with the recent action against commission-based financial advisors).

He also proposes greater usage of macro economic indices and related derivatives to make risks of house price falls, inflation, economic growth, employment etc more transparent to all and to allow easier hedging of these risks. He raised some eye-brows of many banking staff by proposing mortgages whose payments went down when these factors moved against a house owner (with the originator hedging these risks using futures on the indices he proposes). He was not so clear what should happen when these factors went in favour of the house owner!

One thought struck me though the talk, is that if it is relatively easy to illustrate/calculate these real asset price bubbles illustrated by Professor Shiller, then why not go further than just having indices on direct macro-economic variables and have indices based on these "bubble" calculations? If everyone could see that the "bubble" index for a particular risk factor was high then you could hedge your "irrational exuberance" or at the very least there would be a transparent indicator that a market was moving into dangerous price territory. Stupid idea? Maybe, but if it has legs please remember you heard the nickname"Aero" for the cocoa index here first!...

Here today. Where tomorrow?

These may be the words on the lips of many bankers today, as they survey the continuing turmoil in global financial markets. In fact, this was the incredibly apposite tagline on a recent magazine advertisement for a major bank which (maybe unsurprisingly) was subsequently nationalised.

In the fluid (many would say “bloody”) landscape of financial services, with the next merger or acquisition just around the corner, it means that now, more than ever, data integration is a growing challenge. Accompanying this activity is the ever-growing need for consistency, accuracy, transparency and control of both the data itself and the movement of that data.

Data architecture itself is an evolving discipline and one approach worth looking at is data federation – deftly described in an article by Dain Hansen. Basically, the approach is to leave the data where it is but aggregate it into a single view, available as a service to your applications. It is an approach that Xenomorph has advocated for many years, going back to our founding days in the mid-90s, with the normalized database driver approach implemented in our Connectivity Services.

Hansen’s article explains both the advantages (simplicity, no need to copy or synchronize) and the disadvantages (performance) of this approach, and argues for a solution that incorporates both federation and consolidation of data. He shows that it is possible to architect a system that will provide consistency and control as well as agility.

It’s difficult to say whether better data management would have assisted the world’s banks in avoiding their current troubles, but greater transparency of where exactly their exposures lay would certainly have helped.

Industry Trends - Larry Tabb at Sifma NY

Main points from a good talk given by Larry Tabb of the Tabb Group last week in New York:

• The total loss so far from the sub-prime/credit crisis world-wide is around the USD 280 Billion mark – although the final figure could be as high as USD 400 Billion as in some cases the dust has not fully settled.
• With a few notable exceptions, the majority of these losses have been incurred by the major US banks rather than their European counterparts.
• The effect of the situation has hit a number of asset classes, the worst by far is fixed income where trading is down by 80% at the moment but it’s coming back. Equities – particularly US – has also been hit pretty hard but again it’s showing resilience and starting to improve
• In terms of what is going to happen, IT spend is going to decrease from previous levels for a year or to by 10% or so, but is expected to rise after 2010.
• The only areas where IT spend is expected to rise are communications and risk management.
• Communications because there is much more activity in emerging markets, particularly Asia (excluding Japan - mainly India, China and HK) and also Latin America. Connectivity is needed to the exchanges within these markets so there will be IT spend to make this happen. Also, there is going to be more algorithmic trading as people try to get more from ever-tighter markets and reduce costs through lower trader headcount and paying less in broker commissions.
• As manual trading decreases due to algo increases, brokerages may increase their commission rates to compensate and some of them are also going to introduce caps so that clients have to put so much trade traffic through them or else they won’t be interested - thus reducing numbers of clients and streamlining the process. This will force smaller firms to use smaller brokerages, thus splintering the market more.
• Risk management spend is going to increase because firms want to understand why their models failed w.r.t sub-prime situation and why they didn’t see these huge losses coming earlier. They don’t want it to happen again so they want tighter and better tools as a result.
• The breakdown by asset class in algo trading is expected to change. At the moment it is largely Equity, but the biggest increases are expected to be derivatives, futures, fixed income (particularly credit), FX and a lot more OTC to make this automated rather than manual to get these exposures off the balance sheets. This obviously means that the exchanges and banks/funds etc. need the software and equipment necessary to do algo trading in these spaces which currently are quite embryonic so there will be a lot of development in this area. Of course, this means algo engines and risk management/portfolio software will need to be much more adept at handling mixed assets and not just equities.
• All firms, banks and hedge funds, are going to place a lot more of their investments overseas, due to higher expected return and less risk, rather than the US, so all of their systems will need global capability in terms of data acquisition and trading activities, with consolidation and risk management
• Larry also mentioned that he had been to TradeTech and also one in Asia, both of which he had been involved in panel discussions with all of the Exchange Heads (e.g. LSE) – and when asked what the biggest headaches were they all said that clearing was a massive problem with the process being splintered and disparate and if the trading levels are going to increase this process must be a lot more streamlined.

Last point is very topical in news at the moment given LSE assessing whether to get involved in doing its own clearing, plus also the regulators desire to get some form of clearing in place for major classes of OTC derivatives. 

TradeTech Paris 2008 - Chi-X leads the waiting game

We exhibited at the TradeTech Paris event last week - this is a mainly equities/trade execution event and as such most of the speakers were playing the waiting game and not saying much. Everyone seems to want to see more of the new trading venues come on line before they put out any opinions of substance.

The main (only?) news item was the rapid uptake of Chi-X and its share in trading volumes against the exchanges. There was some "competitive" banter between Peter Randall of Chi-X and Eli Lederman of Project Turquoise (Chi-X saying that Chi-X is a live business and not just a "project"). LSE was there too, not doing a great job of defending the record of exchanges - too much emphasis on defending their existance based on the past rather than the future in my opinion.

Higher quality data from the front office?

Sungard had a good event on Thursday night, with four risk managers taking the stage for a "thought leadership" seminar entitled "Regulatory Impact of Market Events" (if the advert is still around on their site, see http://www.sungard.com/ADAPTIV/default.aspx?id=4678&formAction=takeit&formid=48)

The Dresdner risk manager (Ted Macdonald, good speaker) was emphasising that data quality is a real issue for risk management, and that all participants thought that risk managers should spend more time on risk and less on validating/cleaning data (no great surprises there then but interesting to hear it validated again as an issue).

He suggested that more pressure should be put on the front office to get data right first time (as opposed to leaving everyone else to sort out the mess!), even going so far as to suggest that charging the front office for each wrongly-booked trade in the trading and risk management systems - not sure how that would go down with the trading desks, but sounds a good approach if you could agree (and unambiguously measure) these mistakes!

Seems like transfer-costing is becoming a re-occurring theme - also recently mentioned by a grid computing specialist from Credit Suisse about "metering" each desk for the amount of compute power used...anyone retraining as a management accountant out there? - sounds like the banks will be hiring soon!