The leading knowledge platform for the financial technology industry
The leading knowledge platform for the financial technology industry

A-Team Insight Blogs

Are Barcodes Really the Answer to the Industry’s Ref Data Woes?

Share article

Given the repeated calls for the financial services industry to learn from other industries with regards to data management techniques, it was really only a matter of time before the idea of barcodes was mooted as a potential solution to entity and instrument identification. But is this a realistic idea or just another to add to the ever-growing list of reference data initiatives going on across the market? And how much work would it take to introduce barcodes for every entity and instrument out there?

Certainly, the regulatory community and financial institutions are more aware than ever before of the need to more accurately track entity and instrument data cross border; Lehman and the fallout from the financial crisis have made sure of that. The Office of Financial Research’s presence in the Dodd-Frank Act is also proof enough that regulators are taking the issue seriously. But, in turning to other industries to learn valuable data management lessons, should the financial services industry replicate what the retail industry has been doing for the last 40 years?

Allan Grody, president of advisory firm Financial InterGroup, certainly thinks so. His firm and standards organisation GS1 have teamed together to examine whether the UPC barcode could be used in the world of financial documents, financial transactions and financial institutions via what they have dubbed a “joint exploration” of the possibilities. The idea is to determine whether GS1 System identification numbering standards can be used to tag financial products and business entities, and the starting point is to bounce the idea off those in the market (namely, you).

Grody, who has previously championed issues such as the introduction of a central counterparty for data management, reckons the numbering standards could result in lower capital costs and processing efficiencies in the back and middle office. He contends that, much like XBRL, these standards could be used to tag prospectuses at the start of the financial transaction lifecycle. According to Grody, the GS1 System of standards could allow users to uniquely identify their products, documents and other assets; capture identification numbers; and share related information with their trading partners or counterparties.

The idea of tagging prospectuses at this point is not a new concept; as the Committee of European Banking Supervisors’ (CEBS) suggestions around tagging asset backed securities (ABS) documents with XBRL prove. But is adding yet another numbering standard into the mix a good idea?

Grody is convinced that GS1 can be used in conjunction with XBRL, but given that XBRL is far from standard across the industry at the moment and much has yet to be proven, he may be slightly jumping the gun on this one.

Granted, what Grody describes rather graphically as the “long festering problem of multiple, non-standard, proprietary coding schemes used to represent financial products and business entities” is a problem that needs to be solved in some manner. But are barcodes the answer?

My job, of course, is to ask the questions. But I warrant that introducing a whole new system of GS1 numbering standards across the industry would be no mean feat. The industry has always struggled with adopting new standard formats (ISO 15022 anyone?) and there is no doubt that GS1 would be faced with same challenges.

Of course, the group could go direct to the regulatory community to get them on board and fashion the Office of Financial Research into a barcodes repository, which isn’t beyond the realms of possibility (given that the utility managed to get into legislation in the first place). But at what cost to the firms required to fundamentally alter their systems to cope with these changes? It’s all very well having a great idea, but practicalities must come first.

Related content

WEBINAR

Recorded Webinar: The Transformation of Buy-Side Market Surveillance

Asset managers, hedge funds, insurance firms, and other buy-side firms globally are becoming more active in their approach to market surveillance, as regulatory pressure to up their game mounts. Buy-side firms are now building out their surveillance infrastructure as they seek to respond to the requirements posed by Dodd-Frank, MiFID II and the Market Abuse...

BLOG

SteelEye and UnaVista Partner on Reporting Solution Following CME Announcement

SteelEye, the compliance technology and data analytics firm, and UnaVista, the regulatory reporting platform from London Stock Exchange Group, have joined forces to support financial firms with best-in-class reporting services as they migrate from CME’s European Trade Repository (TR) and NEX Abide regulatory reporting services, which will close in November 2020. SteelEye has been a technical...

EVENT

Data Management Summit Virtual

The Data Management Summit Virtual will bring together the global data management community to share lessons learned, best practice guidance and latest innovations to emerge from the recent crisis. Join us online to hear from leading data practitioners and innovators from the UK, US and Europe who will share insights into how they are pushing the boundaries with data to deliver value with flexible but resilient data driven strategies.

GUIDE

Regulatory Data Handbook 2020/2021 – Eighth Edition

This eighth edition of A-Team Group’s Regulatory Data Handbook is a ‘must-have’ for capital markets participants during this period of unprecedented change. Available free of charge, it profiles every regulation that impacts capital markets data management practices giving you: A detailed overview of each regulation with key dates, data and data management implications, links to...