As part of my efforts as chair of the standards working group, which sits under the Clearing and Settlement Working Group, I’m examining the current market practice and standards efforts of a range of post-trade focused associations in the capital markets sector (regional and global). The aim is to draw up a roadmap of these efforts across the sector in order to highlight any gaps or duplicative initiatives, and I’ve certainly come across the latter.
Given that around five of the industry associations that I’ve looked at thus far (and I’m by no means finished) are working on efforts to standards the electronic trade confirmation and broker matching space, it’s no wonder the industry struggles to push through change. With the individual sell-side and buy-side constituents not talking to each other or within their own communities – T1 banks not communicating with T3, for example – how does any association hope to be able to effect a market-wide change?
Duplication of effort, a lack of communication, vested interests, downright belligerence in some cases – the industry has to work a lot smarter than this if it hopes to be able to tackle very important post-trade issues like reducing settlement risk, influencing regulatory decisions, setting standards for post-trade infrastructures to follow etc.
Our group is hoping to tie some of this work together and at least inform these respective bodies about what is going on within other key associations. Carrying on regardless is not a smart choice.
