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

A-Team Insight Blogs

Geithner Testifies on Lehman Failures in Front of US House Financial Services Committee, Again

For those of you that may have been asleep at the back of the room for the last two years, US regulators are doing their level best to hammer home the lessons learned as a result of the failure of Lehman, not least of which is the need to better track entity data across groups. This week it was the turn of US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to testify before the House Financial Services Committee on the subject and, again, dwell on the catalogue of difficulties faced by regulators during the unwinding process.

Geithner referred to the critical shortcoming of the system in that the government was unable to “wind-down and liquidate a complex, interconnected financial firm in an orderly way”. He discussed the “profoundly disruptive” process of trying to pick apart a tangled mess of financial data against a background of widespread financial panic. “It magnified the dimensions of the financial crisis, requiring a greater commitment of government resources than might otherwise have been required. Without better tools to wind down firms in an orderly manner, we are left with no good options,” he told government officials.

This is a message that has been endlessly repeated over the last 18 months and has intensified as a result of the release of the examiner’s report on the subject last month. This in turn has led to the inclusion of key data related considerations in the US Financial Reform Legislation Bill, which features something that resembles a data utility to be used for regulatory purposes. Accordingly, it proposes the establishment of an Office of Financial Research to monitor and collect key reference data items from across the industry, including both entity and instrument information.

The Office of Financial Research would include a data centre that would be charged with doing the data collection legwork, namely collecting, validating and maintaining all the required industry data for the monitoring of systemic risk. It is seemingly based on the idea behind the National Institute of Finance (NIF), which has been championed by a number of academics in the US markets and the EDM Council. Much like the NIF, it proposes to establish a data research and analysis centre to monitor systemic risk on behalf of the wider regulatory community.

However, the provisions within the Bill relate to maintaining a data repository for systemic risk measurement at a regulatory level, rather than establishing a global reference data utility. Although regulatory provisions around data standardisation for reporting purposes would drive forward some level of harmonisation across the US market in a general sense, it would fall short of ensuring that all of the firms use these standardised identifiers internally and amongst themselves.

There is also some degree of concern about the fact the US is forging ahead with data standardisation before the rest of the world in this respect. The endeavour could lead to another set of standards being set in place to add to the complexity of the picture overall.

Certainly the issues surrounding data standardisation are important in the current climate of heightened awareness around risk management, but how much should be left up to the market to decide? Does the industry really need or want a central utility to hold essential reference data or are there viable alternatives? Moreover, is data standardisation really a place the regulator needs to tread or should the market leave progress to Darwinian evolution? Should standards be mandatory?

I shall be discussing these topics and many more at tomorrow’s panel discussion on competition and reference data utilities at CorpActions 2010. Check back next week for the lowdown.

Related content

WEBINAR

Recorded Webinar: Managing the transaction reporting landscape post Brexit: MiFID II, SFTR, EMIR

The transaction reporting landscape has, for many financial institutions, expanded considerably in size since the end of the UK’s Brexit transition period on 31 December 2020 and the resulting need for double reporting of some transactions to both EU and UK authorities. It has also changed dramatically following the UK government’s failure to reach equivalence...

BLOG

How to Manage Dual Sanctions Compliance Post Brexit Addition of UK Regime to EU Regulation

Brexit created a number of regulatory compliance challenges for financial institutions in the UK, not least a change to sanctions regulation that is set out in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, and is fundamentally different to EU sanctions regulation. If your organisation falls within scope of the new UK sanctions regime or both...

EVENT

RegTech Summit London

Now in its 5th year, the RegTech Summit in London explores how the European financial services industry can leverage technology to drive innovation, cut costs and support regulatory change.

GUIDE

Entity Data Management Handbook – Seventh Edition

Sourcing entity data and ensuring efficient and effective entity data management is a challenge for many financial institutions as volumes of data rise, more regulations require entity data in reporting, and the fight again financial crime is escalated by bad actors using increasingly sophisticated techniques to attack processes and systems. That said, based on best...