17 April 2014

FSB: Public responses to feasibility study on approaches to aggregate OTC derivatives trade repository data

ISDA

ISDA believes that the legal issues presented in the Consultation Paper can be mitigated by employing a hybrid approach whereby trade data is provided by local TRs to an aggregation mechanism which would provide only aggregate-level data in an anonymised form to the relevant authorities and, if the relevant authorities sought specific, non-anonymised data, they would need to obtain that data from a local TR or the local regulator. Such a combined approach will also reduce the timeframe and costs for implementation of an aggregation mechanism while still providing the relevant authorities with useful data to analyze for systemic risk, market depth and other purposes. The ISDA does note that identifying information can be broader than just name or LEI of the counterparty, in particular in less liquid markets, and this needs to be considered appropriately. The combined approach still requires access to the identifying information by the aggregator to allow proper data aggregation, but once the data is aggregated this information should not be kept nor shared with any of the regulatory authorities.

Full ISDA response

CME Group

Whilst CME Group supports the adoption of Option 3, this response document makes a number of observations about the process for implementation of this approach. CME Group believes that widely accepted standards for regulatory access must be globally agreed and implemented before Option 3, or any other model for aggregating TR data, can be implemented. This step will require authorities to work together to agree on the precise categories of data to be accessed from TRs. CME Group notes, however, that it will be important to preserve flexible standards for the format in which data is submitted to the TRs. In view of the significant global coordination and negotiation which will be required to complete the above two steps, CME Group is further of the view that the timing for the implementation of a program for aggregating TR data must allow sufficient, and considerable, time for the satisfaction of this pre-conditional stage.

Full CME Group response

GFMA

The GFXD members have legal concerns with trade reporting requirements that could result in contravening data privacy laws. For instance, if a transaction occurs with a counterparty that resides in a country that has data privacy laws, the other participant to the trade could be at legal risk should they expose who that counterparty is. As another legal consideration the GFXD would also like to understand how the governance of the data in the aggregator would work. For instance, who has the responsibility for ensuring that any aggregated data matches the individual firm’s submission to the trade repository?

Full Global Financial Markets Association (GFMA) response

London Stock Exchange Group

The London Stock Exchange Group urges the FSB to clarify whether the aggregation of data should be limited to OTC derivatives only or whether capturing aggregate OTC positions and any additional or offsetting ETD positions would also be beneficial to regulators, where this is possible. While we do not preclude the use of TR data for market surveillance and detection of market abuse where this is necessary, or the only option, we suggest that any framework should avoid the need for authorities to request/aggregate data from TRs that would lead to the duplication of transaction level data received by those authorities via different reporting regimes. There are a number of essential pre-requisites required, according to LSEG, regardless of aggregation model adopted:

• Common instrument and product identification standards;
• Consistent treatment of client clearing transactions, including the definition of trading capacities and clarity regarding trading scenarios and the identity of counterparties to a contract;
• Global coordination by regulators (with the industry where appropriate) regarding a global system for unique transaction identifiers (UTI);
• Recognition that aggregate positions can be calculated from position reports submitted by participants, as well as from trade report data.

Full London Stock Exchange Group response

All responses to consultation

© Financial Stability Board