About a-team Marketing Services
The knowledge platform for the financial technology industry
The knowledge platform for the financial technology industry

A-Team Insight Blogs

Will SLA’s be Re-Evaluated After Tumultuous Times Highlight Response Issues?

Subscribe to our newsletter

Service level agreements were a key topic in this morning’s roundtable discussions at FIMA 2008, with one data manager at a Tier 1 financial institution suggesting that many SLA’s are now likely to be revisited in order to achieve better responses from their data suppliers after the current market conditions highlighted the need for faster answers to questions from the vendors.

SLAs between data vendors and their financial institution clients can become elaborate, but the more elaborate they get, the more it will cost to support, said a major vendor representative. When agreeing SLAs for offshored services, it is also essential to look at other factors such as time zones and turn around times on queries. But what is essential in crafting an SLA, is to focus on the key points of service that you would like to achieve, rather than trying to cover everything.

While vendors will not provide any guarantees on the accuracy of the data itself for a number of reasons, what they do provide is guarantees on the level of service they provide, in areas such as reacting to exceptions. So there is a certain level of responsiveness that is required – such as a response within an hour for up to 20 requests in the hour – to satisfy the SLA agreement.

The vendor/client SLA is usually a subset of SLAs that the client has with its own clients, said a buy side data manager in the discussion. When he is evaluating data products, the criteria are cost, coverage and service, with service receiving the largest weighting. But this is then pushed back by his company’s executives who put more emphasis on cost and coverage. So it’s necessary to find a balance between them among suppliers.

Interestingly, the major vendor said that analysing metrics over a long period of time, like 24 months to see which vendor is right or wrong on a piece of data, the average is between 48.5% to 51.5%. In other words, all vendors have a similar level of errors averaged out across market segments, sources or processes.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Related content

WEBINAR

Recorded Webinar: Best practices for creating an effective data quality control framework

Data quality is critical to capital markets processes from identifying counterparties to building customer relationships, regulatory reporting, and ultimately improving the bottom line. It can also be extremely difficult to achieve. One solution is a data quality control framework that includes an automated and systematic process that monitors the state of data quality and ensures...

BLOG

GLEIF and Swift Reduce Cost of Reconciling Counterparty Data with Certified Mapping of MIC to LEI

The Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation (GLEIF) has expanded its collaboration with Swift by providing certification for the mapping of Swift’s Market Identifier Code (MIC) to the Legal Entity Identifier (LEI). The resulting open source file will enable market participants that use GLEIF and/or Swift data to link and cross-reference key entity identifiers free of...

EVENT

Regulatory Reporting Briefing, London

RegTech Insight (from A-Team Group) is proud to announce the launch of its Regulatory Reporting Briefing taking place in London and focusing on: Preparing for the EMIR Re-Fit

GUIDE

Regulatory Data Handbook – Fourth Edition

Need to know all the essentials about the regulations impacting data management? Welcome to the Fourth edition of our A-Team Regulatory Data Handbook which provides all the essentials about regulations impacting data management. A-Team’s series of Regulatory Data Handbooks are a great way to see at-a-glance: All the regulations that are impacting data management today A...