FiNETIK – Asia and Latin America – Market News Network

Asia and Latin America News Network focusing on Financial Markets, Energy, Environment, Commodity and Risk, Trading and Data Management

A-TEAM launches Big Data 4 Finance

 A-Team Group launched today – BigDataForFinance.com where it will cover the emerging science of big data and how it relates to financial markets applications – such as analysis of time series pricing, management of reference data and determination of sentiment from news archives.  A-Team will also cover the evolving technology infrastructure that underpins big data applications, from storage to analytics and business intelligence.

A-TEAM: Let’s start by addressing a working definition for big data, as we see it.  Wikipedia has a pretty good starter: “Datasets that grow so large that they become awkward to work with using on-hand database management tools.”

But here’s our improvement on that: “Datasets whose characteristics – size, data type and frequency – are beyond efficient processing, storage and extraction by traditional database management tools.”

And let’s be clear, the focus is as much on the analysis of data to derive actionable business information as it is on handling different data types and high frequency updates.

Make sure that you don’t miss news and contributions that could be valuable.  Be sure to sign up for the weekly email update here.

Source: A-TEAM, 18.01.2012

Filed under: Risk Management, Data Vendor, Data Management, Reference Data, Market Data, , , , , , , , , ,

Deutsche Börse launches algo news feed in Brazil

Availability in Sao Paulo data center marks expansion of “AlphaFlash” into Latin America.

Deutsche Börse – Market Data & Analytics has launched “AlphaFlash”, its algorithmic news feed, in a data center in Sao Paulo. The feed is available now in Brazil, marking AlphaFlash’s official expansion into South America.
AlphaFlash is hosted at a data center at a local exchange in Sao Paulo.

“Brazil is considered the leader in algorithmic and high frequency trading in Latin America. As this growing market continues to develop, we see greater demand from local quant traders, hedge funds and market participants to consume machine-readable news quickly and efficiently. The new data center allows customers to access AlphaFlash as fast as possible—right on the spot in Brazil, so they can swiftly execute their automated trades,” said Georg Gross, Head of Front Office Data & Analytics at Deutsche Börse.

Launched in April 2010, AlphaFlash delivers low latency, machine-readable economic indicators and corporate news. Subscribers can choose among several data packages, e.g. U.S., Canadian, European or Asia-Pacific economic indicators, U.S. and Global Treasury Auctions, the Chicago PMI as well as the Corporate News Germany feed. AlphaFlash is available in a number of data centers across the globe, including Chicago, Secaucus (New Jersey), Washington D.C., Sao Paulo, Frankfurt, London, Sydney, Tokyo and Singapore.

Source: Deutsche Börse, 25.01.2012

Filed under: Brazil, Data Management, Latin America, Market Data, News, Reference Data, , , , , ,

IDC White Paper: Solving Big Data’s Big Challenges Can Lead to Big Advantages

Solving Big Data’s Big Challenges Can Lead to Big Advantages

The volumes and complexity of market data required by financial institutions today are immense and growing rapidly. Ongoing market changes are accelerating the growth in demand for data, and forcing financial institutions to address the challenges of what has come to be known as “Big Data”. This demand is fueled as firms develop and deploy new, more sophisticated cross-asset investment strategies.

At the same time regulatory changes are also forcing firms to source and report increasingly larger amounts of trade data, as well as to adopt higher-quality – and usually data-hungry – risk and pricing models. Investors are making similar demands of their asset managers.

Interactive Data, the reference data powerhouse, has authored a new white paper which describes these challenges in depth. It also outlines the steps financial firms may need to take in order to address them effectively. Those that do could have a notable competitive advantage over their more slow-footed rivals.

Download your complimentary copy here.

Source: IDC, 18.01.2012

Filed under: Data Management, Data Vendor, Market Data, Reference Data, Risk Management, Trading Technology, , , , , , ,

SunGard -10 Historical Market Data Trends for 2012

Oliver Muhr, senior vice president of SunGard’s MarketMap business unit, said, “Economists, equity, fixed income researchers and quant traders need historical data to better understand growth opportunities and validate market positions and trading strategy. This requires not only more data, but more minute and granular information provided in a fast and efficient manner. SunGard offers information management tools that help enterprises filter and deliver accurate data for price discovery, financial modeling, risk management and business intelligence.”

The ten market data trends SunGard has identified for 2012 in historical data management are:

Transparency (Transparency and Evaluation Prices White Paper):

1. Firms need more consistent and timely reporting to meet new regulations and investor demands, creating greater strain on data infrastructures that feed risk reporting
2. Risk reports will be required by regulators and investors almost daily, while on-demand data will be needed to meet more advanced analytics
3. Greater transparency in analyzing the relationships between asset classes, such as complex derivatives, is driving the need for standardized entity and security identifiers, and cross symbology

Efficiency:

4. Larger data sets are required to feed predictive models, as more historical data over longer time periods and increased granularity of data sets power back-tests, forecasts and trading impacts throughout the day
5. Firms are focused on controlling variable data costs by centralizing historical data in one location to assess best price
6. Practitioners such as MBAs and CFAs want more flexible data management solutions that require less IT support so that they can spend more time discovering market opportunities
7. With globalization of markets, historical data brings greater complexity in terms of cross-border currencies, valuations and accounting standards – requiring improved accuracy and more market data coverage across assets and regions

Networks:

8. In order to perform advanced analytics and calculations required to support electronic trading strategies, firms must implement platforms that can store greater quantities of data and quickly retrieve and accurately process historical and time series data.
9. Vector storage, rather than traditional relational databases, will be needed to understand complex trends and scenarios
10. Cleaning and storing historical data is driving firms to seek plug-and-play technology that fits with industry standard infrastructures

Paul Rowady, senior analyst at TABB Group, said, “Data management has been, and always will be, an among the most critical components of the quantitative process. It is well known in the quant world that the depth of historical archive – the timeframe of data used for backtesting – is inversely proportional to the turnover of the strategy in question. Therefore, today’s trend toward slower-turnover strategies means that a proportional increase in the scale of the data will be required, as well as the most granular data possible in order to provide maximum flexibility for strategy development today and down the road.  In fact, dealing with data at the granular level and in a hands-on environment is paradoxically the most valuable exercise a quant can do to understand subtle market inefficiencies.”

Source: SunGard, 09.01.2012

Filed under: Risk Management, Data Vendor, Data Management, Reference Data, Market Data, , , , , , ,

LEI (Legal Entity Identifier) set to arrive in waves

A new system giving financial institutions standardized Legal Entity Identifiers (LEIs) will start to be phased in next year after an international organization finalizes new standards in January 2012.

LEI requirements for a Global Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) Solution May 2011
LEI industry progress and  recommendation July 2011

The Geneva-based International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is expected to approve a plan for LEIs at the beginning of next year, calling for them to consist of 20 alphanumeric characters. After that happens, the infrastructure is already in place to start issuing the IDs early in 2012, according to officials with the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.

“Assuming the standard is approved by early January, our expectations are that legal entities will be able to register in short order for an LEI,” said Tom Price, managing director and head of SIFMA’s technology, operations and business continuity planning group.

During the financial crisis, both regulators and institutions realized they did not have the information available to quickly address issues of counterparty risk. LEIs aim to change that by using a universal code that would allow counterparties to be easily identified.

The United States has provided much of the leadership behind the push for LEIs, but the concept enjoys broad support around the globe. The registering authority for LEIs will not come from any government, but rather from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT).

After the ISO finalizes the standard, the next step will be rule writing, which is already underway at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission with respect to swaps. Price said LEIs will be used first for swaps participants and then gradually adopted for transactions involving other types of assets until they are required for all trades.

David Strongin, who is also a managing director at SIFMA, said the U.S. will be the first country to require LEIs, but Hong Kong and Canada will likely follow fairly quickly. The European Union has committed to adopting LEIs as well, though it is unclear whether Europe will adopt the system all at once or phase it in country by country.

Strongin stressed, however, that there is a global consensus to move forward, even if not every nation and region mandates LEIs at the same time.

“The G20, both the finance ministers and leaders, have all endorsed this,” Strongin said. “From a very high level, you don’t see disagreement that an LEI is needed. I think everyone agrees that it’s an important tool to build the foundation for risk management.”

Strongin said that while many traders might not see it right now, most firms are currently working hard to prepare for LEIs. Eventually, however, the changes will touch every facet of the industry. ”There’s a lot of work going on, though there’s only so much you can do until you see the final rules,” Price added.

Source: Traders Magazine, 18.11.2011

Filed under: Data Management, Reference Data, Risk Management, Standards, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Special Report: Evaluated Pricing Oct 2011 – A-TEAM

Valuations and pricing teams are facing a much higher degree of scrutiny from both the regulatory community and the investor community in the glare of the post-crisis data transparency spotlight. Fair value price transparency requirements and the gradual move towards a more harmonised accounting standards environment is set within the context of the whole debate about data quality across the financial services business, in light of incoming regulations such as Basel III and the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD). Whether it is related to risk management, pricing, trading or reporting, firms need to be able to stand behind their numbers.

The goal of the AIFMD is to create a level playing field and set basic standards for the operation of alternative investment funds in Europe via new reporting and governance requirements. On the pricing and valuations side of things, firms must establish what the directive calls “appropriate and consistent” procedures to allow for the independent valuation of a fund’s assets. In order to achieve this, the valuation must either be performed by an independent third party or by the asset manager, as long as there is functional separation between the pricing and portfolio management functions.

Download free report here

Source: A-Team, 12.10.2011

Filed under: Data Management, Data Vendor, Market Data, Reference Data, Standards, , , , , , , , , , ,

SIBOS Toronto Round Up: LEI, TS2, Standards – A-Team

Unsurprisingly given the host’s recent market positioning, the dominant theme at last week’s Swift user conference Sibos in Toronto was standards, in many different flavours. The one at the top of the list in terms of reference data, however, had to be the legal entity identifier (LEI) and there was certainly no shortage of discussions on the subject (see the list from my preview here). A total of three sessions were dedicated to the topic and the exhibition hall was abuzz with the potential that the LEI holds for the vendor community in terms of revenue generation.

As I noted in my interview with Fabian Vandenreydt, Swift’s head of Securities and Treasury Markets, at the conference last week (see more here), the industry messaging network provider has made reference data a key part of its 2015 strategy and its selection by the Sifma led committee to act as the issuing body for the proposed ISO 17442 standard is a significant element in these endeavours. However, the US Office of Financial Research (OFR) has not made a final decision on whether the Swift, ISO and Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC) team will get the gig (see more on which here) and there are many factors to be considered before a new data infrastructure is put in place, not least of which is governance.

Although it was not addressed at length during the three panel discussions on the LEI (in fact, it was only briefly noted), the notion of a privately run, public data utility is something of a challenge in terms of governance. Given that DTCC owned Avox is currently run as a commercial operation with a number of large customers such as Citi, how will the vendor’s technology be deployed as the backbone of a data utility without granting the DTCC unfair advantage over the market? Ditto with Swift, given that it plans to offer “value added” services on top of the basic reference data set provided by the OFR.

This was a subject I raised offline with a number of the DTCC and Swift execs at the show and the response was that it is an issue that is due to be tackled over the coming months. Given the European Commission investigations of players such as Thomson Reuters and S&P’s Cusip Global Services (CGS) on the subject of potential anti-competitive issues regarding reference data, it will be an active participant in this debate. That is, if Europe agrees to go down the utility route.

A lot seems to be predicated on this week’s Financial Stability Board (FSB) discussions in Basel; an event that nearly everybody I spoke to was planning to attend. The hope seems to be that the new global body will make a final recommendation about whether Europe and the rest of the world will adopt the LEI as it has been proposed. Given that the FSB is working on tricky issues such as tackling the shadow banking sector in a coordinated fashion (see more on which here), it seems likely that there will be some pressure to adopt such a standard.

However, whether the FSB has the teeth to be able to get the global regulatory community to listen and get on the same page as each other is another matter entirely. After all, China has already indicated it will be developing its own entity identification standard. How many more can the industry expect? As noted by UBS’ Daniel Maury, who is the global lead for the firm’s Enterprise Client Data Programme (ECDP), during the LEI session there could be 10 or more if regulators don’t agree on one; a development that could prove especially costly for the industry as a whole.

The party that these developments will prove most beneficial too, however, will be the vendor community. Maury admitted that there is no appetite within the investment banking community to build a vast library of cross references to these new standards, hence these firms will turn to vendors for the solution. Thomson Reuters’ announcement on the first day of the conference (see more here) that it has expanded its legal entity data solution is a case in point of vendors scaling their capabilities ahead of the requirements. It follows a similar move by Bloomberg earlier this year and it will certainly not be the last.

Turning away from the LEI for a second, the other main news from the conference from a post-trade perspective was the announcement by the European Central Bank (ECB) that the Target2-Securities (T2S) settlement infrastructure would be delayed by up to another year (see my guide to T2S from back in 2009 here). Rather than launching in September 2014, the pan-European settlement platform will be delayed until an unspecified date in 2015, according to T2S programme board chairman Jean-Michel Godeffroy.

Speaking during a panel debate on the Tuesday of the conference, Godeffroy said the delay was caused by a need for additional user requirements to be taken into account and for user testing with central securities depositories (CSDs) to be extended beyond the originally scheduled nine month period. However, the buzz from the conference and exhibition halls was that given the loss of T2S champions at the ECB Jean-Claude Trichet and Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell, the central may back away entirely from the project and leave it up to the industry to sort out.

What does all of this mean for the data standardisation space? T2S has been a driver for a lot of work around corporate actions standardisation and, as such, a delay or even a complete reversal will have an impact on these developments, as well as more general data standardisation efforts (see more on which here). The main impact of the T2S developments relate to the fact it would take settlement out of the hands of CSDs and thus result in a complete re-evaluation of their business models and those of all the other players in the securities market active in Europe. Taking this pressure away could therefore have a whole host of consequences.

Of course, a roundup of the Sibos week couldn’t go without a mention of my standards forum panel, during which myself and Bob Masina, head of technology and operations for the Australian Payments Clearing Association (APCA), and Dan Retzer, CTO at corporate actions solution vendor XSP, debated whether ‘standards innovation’ was an oxymoron (see my earlier blog here). Our conclusion was that being innovative with standards is all well and good, but it takes the big players adopting these standards (and thus bringing the rest of the market with them) to make a difference. Standards development is merely the first step.

Source: A-TEAM, 26.09. 2011, Virginie O’Shea

Filed under: Corporate Action, Data Management, Data Vendor, Market Data, Reference Data, Standards

Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (MiFIR): A New Breed of Data Requirements – A-TEAM

Rather than opting for an all in one directive to herald the second coming of MiFID, the European Commission has split the update into two parts: a regulation and a directive. The Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (MiFIR) should be of particular interest to the data management community due to its focus on all aspects of data transparency, from trade data through to transaction reporting.

According to the draft of MiFIR, which is available to download at the bottom of the blog, the regulation: “sets out requirements in relation to the disclosure of trade transparency data to the public and transaction data to competent authorities, the authorisation and ongoing obligations applicable to providers of data services, the mandatory trading of derivatives on organised venues, and specific supervisory actions regarding financial instruments and positions in derivatives.” The data transparency requirements have therefore been neatly tied together under one regulatory banner, leaving the directive to deal with aspects such as the provision of investment services and conduct of business requirements for investment firms.

The draft regulation is the culmination of the work of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) and its predecessor over the last couple of years to gather industry feedback on the implementation of the first version of MiFID and to fill in any gaps, as well as to extend the regulation beyond the equities market. The draft paper notes that the European Commission has focused on assessing the impact of these new requirements including cost effectiveness and transparency; hence it is adopting a defensive stance ahead of any possible industry backlash on the subject.

Much like its predecessor, MiFIR is focused on improving cross border transparency and ensuring a level playing field with regards to data reporting requirements and access. Although the regulation contains a number of important pre-trade data transparency requirements such as equal access to data about trading opportunities, the most important aspects for data managers will likely reside in the post-trade section of MiFIR.

The extension of transparency requirements to OTC derivatives and fixed income instruments and the multilateral trading facility (MTF) and organised trading facility (OTF) contingents in the market is one such development. These markets, however, will not face the same level of transparency requirements as the equity markets, although “equity like” instruments such as depository receipts and exchange traded funds will see the MiFID requirements extended to cover them directly. All trading venues and their related trades will therefore now be subject to the same level of transparency requirements, but these will be tailored to the individual instrument types in question (the level of transparency will be determined by instrument type rather than venue).

On transaction reporting (the area of most relevance with regards to reference data standards), MiFIR aims to improve the quality of the data underlying these reports (a common theme across a lot of recent regulation – see commentary on which here) by being much more prescriptive in the standards that must be used. The idea is for firms to provide “full access to records at all stages in the order execution process” and for trading venues, beyond just traditional exchanges to encompass MTFs and OTFs, to store relevant data for a period of five years. This data includes legal entity identification data that the regulation indicates must be reported via approved mechanisms and formatted in a certain manner that will make it accessible for regulatory oversight purposes cross border.

The exact nature of the legal entity identification (LEI) and instrument identification standards that are to be used by firms in their transaction reports is likely to be impacted by the ongoing work at a global level as part of the systemic risk monitoring effort (see more here). At the moment, a range of identifiers is acceptable, but the regulatory community has been pushing towards the Bank Identifier Code (BIC) for some time (see more on which here), but this may change before MiFIR comes into force.

Another important section of MiFIR is the one devoted to the “increased and more efficient data consolidation” for market data, which necessarily entails a reduction in the cost of this data. A City of London paper published earlier this year addressed this issue directly, noting that the majority of the European firms participating in the study believe poor data quality, high costs of pricing data and a reliance on vendors are the main barriers to post-trade transparency (see more here), and MiFIR appears to be aiming to directly address those issues.

The argument for some form of consolidated tape or tapes is an integral part of that endeavour (see recent industry commentary on this issue here) and MiFIR indicates that the aim is for data to be “reliable, timely and available at a reasonable cost.” On that last point, the regulation also includes a provision that all trading venues must make post-trade information available free of charge 15 minutes after execution, thus enabling data vendors to stay in business but increasing transparency overall (or so the logic goes). Moreover, the regulator is keen for a number of consolidated tape providers to offer market data services and improve access to a comparison of prices and trades across venues, rather than a single utility version.

In order to tackle the issue of a lack of data quality for trade reporting, all firms will also be required to publish their trade reports through approved publication arrangements (APAs), thus ensuring certain standards are adhered to.

The full MiFIR Draft paper is downloabale here  from A-TEAM

Source: A-Team Virgina´s Blog, 08.09.2011

Filed under: Data Management, Market Data, News, Reference Data, Risk Management, Standards, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bloomberg Pushes Benefits, Value of Data License New Commercial Model

Bloomberg is redoubling efforts to convince customers of the value of its new pricing model for its Bloomberg Data License service of intraday and end-of-day market and reference data—known as the New Commercial Model (NCM)—which it originally introduced in March, and which could see the cost of Data License increase by between 30 and 100 percent over three years.

 The pricing model, which is part of the vendor’s new customer engagement model for enterprise Data License customers, came into effect from the start of June for existing contracts facing renewal and from April 1 for new accounts, according to a letter sent to clients in March by Bloomberg president and chief executive Daniel Doctoroff. However, in recent weeks, sources say the vendor’s sales management team has contacted Data License clients to obtain feedback on the structure of the NCM, and to visit customers in person to re-explain the model.

Although Bloomberg declines to comment on why it was revisiting customers, banks and buy-side firms have criticized the model, which will lead to unbudgeted price rises of up to—and in some cases more than—100 percent. “Originally they gave us a detailed breakdown of every single security license, back-office license, estimated dollar spend, renewal dates and all the instruments that had been consumed on the feed,” says a source at one sell-side firm. “Then in the last two weeks they came back and said they want to re-present this….  Bloomberg is keen to make sure customers understand everything and show that it is not as bad as it first looks.”

Under the old commercial model, customers paid a monthly charge per security, with prices based on six categories of instrument type and three categories of data type—a security master incorporating corporate actions and prices; derived data; and issuer data—plus a sub-category of price-only data. Under the NCM, Bloomberg has retained the monthly charges and the link between prices and data/instrument type, but has replaced existing categories with a greater number of new categories which result in higher fees overall than in the old model. For example, the security master, corporate actions data and prices for a corporate security were previously bundled together for $1.50 per security per month, but are now sold separately for $1.70, $0.50 and $0.75 per security per month, respectively—a total of $2.95 per security per month.

Bloomberg has also expanded the six instrument categories—including a category covering corporate, government, and money market assets; one for municipals; agency pools; collateralized mortgage obligations, commercial mortgage-backed securities, whole loans and asset-backed securities; equity options, futures, warrants, funds indexes and currencies; and economic statistics—to 11 categories, by splitting out different asset types into new, individual categories, such as separate categories for funds, US government and syndicated loans.

Meanwhile, the vendor has divided issuer data into three component categories—credit risk data, fundamentals and estimates—meaning that monthly fees for a corporate security have more than doubled from $2.50 to $6.50 in the NCM. The cost of derived data has risen by up to 50 percent depending on the asset class, while the vendor now charges for accompanying corporate actions data, regardless of whether a corporate action event actually occurred that month. Under the NCM, multiple requests from firms who wish to view the data more than once per month will also now be charged between one and three cents per security per day, depending on the asset class and data type, whereas previously the first multi-request was free.

More Flexible
Bloomberg officials say the new model is intended to provide more flexibility and value, and to allow clients to “only pay for the data that they want and need.” But one market data manager at a European asset manager calls the change a “pure slicing and dicing” exercise, adding that if a business needs to subscribe to all the content, “You get nothing new or extra—you just have to pay a lot more for the same data.”

To soften the impact of the changes for existing clients, Bloomberg’s Data Solutions group will provide enterprise data license consultants to help clients manage their data usage, and is phasing in the increases, so clients renewing their Data License contract this year and early next year will see stepped cost increments, limited to a total increase of no more than 7 percent in the first year and a further 7 percent in the second. Some clients praise this softly-softly approach but are concerned about the impact after that initial two-year period.

“In our peer group, we are sharing knowledge on how much it will impact us. For some, it’s 2 percent, for others it’s 30 or 100 percent, depending on what data you take and how exposed you are to certain services,” says a market data vendor manager at a second European asset manager. “Seven percent in the first year, then another 7 percent in the second is fine, but after that, when it hits you fully—that’s what we’re worrying about.”

In addition to incremental rises, Bloomberg will also offer “optimization,” whereby if a firm has multiple contracts with the vendor across different branches or business units and requests the same data on the same security in the same month via those contracts, then—excluding intraday and derived data—the vendor will only charge between one and three cents for the second request, rather than twice the full price, which it expects to deliver better value for clients.

However, Jean-Pierre Gottdiener, manager at Paris-based consultancy Lucidine Conseil, says firms who have made the biggest efforts so far to reduce costs and administration by consolidating multiple contracts across branches will not be eligible to take advantage of optimization, and will have to pay the most. “If you only have one contract because you have already rationalized your request to Bloomberg, there will be no optimization and you will support nearly the full increase of the prices,” he says. “Some firms have made no optimization on Bloomberg and their increase was only 30 percent, whereas those who have already made an investment to rationalize Bloomberg face a rise of 100 percent.”

Some acknowledge that the vendor’s prices are fair, given that data volumes have increased considerably since the last time the vendor increased prices—more than a decade ago, according to Bloomberg officials—but Gottdiener adds that Bloomberg’s leading position in the market means “the industry is facing a real issue from the policy, and will probably need to find alternative solutions.”

In fact, the NCM has prompted dissatisfied buy- and sell-side firms to reassess their data consumption. Some participants have even said they will look to alternative parties for cheaper data for some parts of the Data License, such as corporate actions, where plenty of alternative providers exist. “Often with Bloomberg, you just absorb the whole universe and pump it everywhere, so it’s good that we now have to look at what data do we use, where we use it, and why,” adds the source at the second asset manager.

Source: Waters Technology 08.08. 2011

Filed under: Corporate Action, Data Management, Data Vendor, Market Data, News, Reference Data, Standards, , , , , , ,

Integration of Histroical Reference Data

Historical data is becoming more crucial to managing risk, but to make it useful, data updates must be reconciled with the moments actual changes in data occurred, says Xenomorph’s Brian Sentance.

There has been much talk recently about integrated data management, as the post-crisis focus on risk management demands a more integrated approach to how the data needed by the business can be managed and accessed within one consistent data framework. Much of the debate has been around how different asset classes are integrated within one system, or how different types of data—such as market and reference data—should be managed together.

However, there has been little discussion on how historical components can be integrated into the data management infrastructure. This will have to change if the needs of regulators, clients, auditors and the business are to be met in the future.

Why is history and historical data becoming more important to data management? There are many reasons. First, data management for risk needs historical data in a way that simply was not necessary for the reference data origins of the industry over a decade ago.

Another reason would be the increasing recognition that market data and reference data need to be more integrated, and that having one without the other limits the extent of the data validation that can be performed. For example, how can terms and conditions data for a bond be fully validated if the security is not valued by a model and prices not compared to the market?

As another example, how many data management staff were overloaded by the “false positives” of price movement exceptions during the highly volatile markets of the financial crisis? I would suggest many organizations would have saved hours of manual effort if the price validation thresholds used could have automatically adjusted to follow levels of market volatility derived from historical price data.

Regulators and other organizations in the financial markets now want to know more of the detail behind the headline risk and valuation reports. The post-crisis need for an increase in the granularity of data should be taken as a given. This is progressing to an extent where external and internal oversight bodies not only want to know what your data is now, but want the ability to see what the data was at the time of market or institutional stress. Put another way, can you easily reproduce all the data used to generate a given report at a specific point in time? Can you also describe how and why this data differs from the data you have today?

“But I already have an audit trail on all my data,” I hear you say. Yes, that is a necessary condition on being able to “rewind the tape” to where you were at a given time, but is that sufficient? An audit trail could be considered as a sparse form of historical “time series” storage for data, but as we all are aware, there are not many pieces of “static” data that do not change over time (corporate events being the main cause behind these kinds of changes). The main issue with audit trail use here is that it can only represent the times when the data value was updated in the database, which is not necessarily the same time as when the data value was valid in the real world.

So for example, for the sovereign, that forces a change in the maturity dates of its issued bonds. You can only capture when your data management team implemented the change in the database, not necessarily when the change was actually made in the market. Hopefully, the two times may turn out to be the same if your data management team is efficient and your data suppliers are accurate and timely. But don’t count on it, and don’t be too surprised if a regulator, client or auditor is displeased with your explanation of what the data represents and why it was changed when it was. We are heading into times where not knowing the data detail beneath the headline numbers is no longer acceptable, and historic storage of any kind of data—not just market data—will necessarily become much more prevalent.

Source: Xenomorph, 13.07.2011

Filed under: Corporate Action, Data Management, Data Vendor, Market Data, Reference Data, Risk Management, Standards, , , , , , , , ,

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.