Outreach Blog

Tuesday, February 19, 2019

Systems Experts Set the Bar for Blockchain in Securities Finance

“Hype and Reality for Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Technologies” at Institutional Securities Lenders’ Meeting


Author: Ed Blount

Hype and Reality for Blockchain
February 6, 2019 —Systems entrepreneurs - Armeet Sandhu, Sal Giglio, and Ed Blount - engaged in a lively brainstorming session with Chris Ferris, IBM’s Distinguished Engineer for Open Source Technologies, at IMN's 25th Annual International Securities Finance and Collateral Management Conference.
 
Key take-aways from the panel discussion were:
 
  • Private blockchains are no more complex than web servers, but creating the design and consortium is challenging; 
  • Shared ledgers can help lending agents comply with lifecycle processes;
  • Blockchains can help track loans for principals and service providers. 
 
DISCUSSION --
 
To set the bar, the CSFME’s Ed Blount pointed out that the February 5th regulatory panel, which Blount had moderated, identified several compliance challenges for the industry. Therefore, he said, the question naturally arises: “If Blockchain is such a transformative solution, can it help to solve these problems in securities finance?” After presenting a listing of notable use cases, Blount said it was quite clear that, “Something important is happening here, because these are significant names in finance.” 
 
 
 

 

1. NOTABLE BLOCKCHAIN USE CASES IN SECURITIES SERVICES

If Blockchain is the Solution, What's the Problem?

Reviewing the sponsors of the selected use cases, Blount added that several had released white papers on their experiences and expectations. For instance, a recent paper by JPMorgan included a section on "Myth and Fact," in which the bank downplayed the perceived complexity of the technology and projected that blockchain will move through four stages of development, from information sharing to a (potential) reconstruction of the entire capital markets system.

 

 
 
 
If this transformation is inevitable, asked Blount for arguments’ sake, then "How will shared ledgers first gain traction in securities finance?” To guide the discussion, he then presented a simplified network diagram of typical contracting parties in the current securities finance process, followed by conceptual diagrams of a hypothetical shared ledger and smart contracts.
 
As an opening premise, Armeet Sandhu, Stonewain Systems CEO, acknowledged the value of blockchain, as shown, for post-trade services by Street providers, but asked where the value for beneficial owners might be. Sandhu agreed that monitoring the lending program's activity in real time — being better informed about the operations of their agents and borrowers — might be one possible benefit, since all of them would be co-operating with the same version of truth, i.e., the shared ledger. But he expressed concerns about confidentiality. 
 
 
 
 

2. TOOLS FOR PRESERVING CONFIDENTIALITY 

Christopher Ferris of IBM began his presentation by explaining the differences between public blockchains, like Bitcoin, and private, permissioned blockchains. In the latter, particular consideration must be given to designing controls which allow access on a selective basis to stakeholders and regulators. In effect, the challenge to the developer is, "How do we achieve the transparency benefits [of the shared ledger] while preserving the confidentiality of the participants?" 
 
“Part of that involves teasing apart the on-chain and off-chain information,” explained Ferris. "For example, you can have a pair-wise exchange of information between the transacting parties and then just record the fact of the transaction on the blockchain.” In other instances, "zero-knowledge proofs" can be used to validate the transaction without revealing the confidential details to others in the blockchain. 
 
Not every project is a good candidate for distributed ledger technologies such as blockchain. As use cases have developed, said Ferris, some sponsors have decided that the potential cost of an optimization, especially after integrating with the existing systems, exceeds its expected benefits. More successful use cases have been those which dealt with problems for which there was no previous solution. 
 
 

3. LESSONS FROM SUCCESSFUL USE CASES: TRACING AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Ferris told the story of the removal and destruction of lettuce that resulted from recent poisoning incidents with tainted romaine lettuce. It took days for supermarkets to identify the farm which produced the bad lettuce. To prevent similar crises, Walmart and other retailers created a consortium, saying we have to fix this. Now, by using IBM’s Food Trust blockchain, participating retailers can track shipments and identify the possible sources of contamination in minutes instead of days. 
 
"How do they do that?”, asked Blount. 
 
“Using the internet of things - IOT" said Ferris. "There’s an ID tag on the shipping box." 
 
The problem solved by shipping company Maersk, sponsor of IBM's TradeLens blockchain, is to accelerate a match of the paperwork, which must be sent independently and in advance, to the shipment upon arrival of the container. Too often, shipments have had to be stored until a match could be completed. Now, using TradeLens, Ferris said, logistics providers can share information more efficiently with the customs houses and other regulators. That efficiency, for which there was no previous solution, is saving the shipping industry a great deal of money. Wastage is reduced because the goods can be moved off the docks faster.  
 
Several important lessons have been learned since 2016, said Ferris, when “Everyone had their hair on fire over blockchain, thinking they’d win by disrupting their industry.” One of the main lessons is that “Blockchain is a team sport.” In order for the blockchain to be successful, everone has to participate. "You also have to get together even with your systems vendors. Building a consortium in any industry is not always easy," said Ferris, "because the members are always very competitive.” Mr.Ferris, one of a handful of IBM Distinguished Engineers, backed up his examples, before and during the panel, referring to his experiences in retail, insurance and banking technology.
 

 

4. DATA ORIGINATION FOR THE SHARED LEDGER

 

Sandhu added that any consortium in securities finance would have to be trusted not just by all members, but also by the regulators. “One challenge is that not every [loan] contract comes from an execution platform. We still have a lot of loans that come from email or from phone calls. How do we get those loans onto the blockchain, and how do we insure that each copy is correct?” 
 
“Information in the blockchain is only as good as the information that’s put into it,” said Ferris. "You know, the GIGO problem [Garbage In; Garbage Out]. With the Food Trust, we had to instrument the farmers with smartphones so they could record the labels on the shipping crates.” 
 
Sandhu, whose company provides record keeping and reporting solutions to lenders and their agents, said that not every loan is later remembered the same way by the parties, and that other differences can appear over the full lifecycle of a trade
 
Ferris said that it’s likely that the blockchain would have to be engaged from the point of proposal to the executed loan order. Therefore, smart contracts would function as the origination of the information for the shared ledger as well as its validation.
 
 

 

5. ADAPTING TO EXISTING CONSORTIA IN SECURITIES FINANCE

 

Sal Giglio, whose company GLMX provides an execution facility for repo traders, asked for questions from the audience and got an immediate hit with, “Why is blockchain better than the databases that are already out there? There are other ledgers, shared ledgers that we all use. There’s Loanet, Equilend … we all use those and we agree with those ledgers. Why is blockchain better?” 
 
Ferris responded by saying that not all applications may be suitable for blockchain, but that even central authorities such as DTCC and CME are also investigating how their own roles might change under a blockchain platform. They have an existing advantage in that, "The hardest part is not the technology. It’s creating a consortium.”
 
“But what is the advantage that this technology provides to us?” asked Sandhu. "Does it increase our revenue or lower our risks?”
 
 
 

6. POTENTIAL SecFin USE CASE: SECURITIES FINANCE TRANSACTION REPORTING (SFTR)

 

Blount recalled that attorneys on the regulatory panel advised that, starting in 2020, European Union regulations will mandate that all securities financing transactions involving EU-regulated entities will have to be reported to an approved transaction repository. Among other providers, post-trade settlement utilities such as DTCC are offering a utility service to facilitate SFTR reporting for their members. While the DTCC is certainly a broad consortium, Blount noted, it is also a Street-level utility that typically doesn’t include end-lenders or end-borrowers, nor does it initiate lifecycle events for outstanding loan positions. As a result, noted earlier by Sandhu, a significant number of loans (and lifecycle events) are processed outside the central systems infrastructure.
Securities Finance Shared Ledger
Today, no central ledger tracks a complete securities financing transaction from edge to edge. Therefore, Blount said, one possible blockchain opportunity might be an agent- or dealer-sponsored SFTR facility to track all loans and lifecycle events, and then to interoperate with DTCC or other central clearing utilities for compliance with the policy-mandated SFTR. 
 
Sponsored SFTR linkages to the DTCC utility might also help to solve jurisdictional scope issues, such as resistance by state treasurers or trustees of public pension funds, who may not want the U.S. federal government shadowing their lending policies. Similarly, hedge funds on the borrowing end of the trade don’t want anyone in their business. So, from an agent’s standpoint, asked Blount, how do you provide a holistic ledger while still protecting the confidentiality of the participants? "Does everyone get a different private key?” he asked.
 
Ferris described how the transactions can be revealed to authorities on a selective basis. “You query the blockchain and it works its way backward, but you don’t allow everyone to see the results.” 
 
Returning to the question of existing databases, Ferris conceded that, “There are existing systems that are perfectly fine. 'If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.' We could have put the food trust out there as a service, but there is value in providing the participants with a copy of the ledger that they can trust.” There’s no reason to replace systems that work, unless there’s a value in having a single trusted record of the ledger that can be useful to each of the participants, so they can do with it as they wish. 
 
 

 

7. POTENTIAL SecFin USE CASE: PEER TO PEER LENDING

 

Blount pointed out that a lot of discussion at the conference concerned institutions lending directly to principal borrowers, at least for government-collateral repo trades, but an equal set of concerns had been raised about the need to maintain the infrastructure that’s already been created. Practitioners ask, Do you link to their on-site data centers?
Securities Finance Smart
Sandhu pointed out that linking to the existing systems may not be that helpful. For instance, there are quality issues in the existing transaction flow. As the various blockchain participants react to the creation of a new loan entry, there must be a high level of trust in the quality of the data.  “That’s been a challenge for our industry,” said Sandhu. Errors and omissions are an ongoing problem. Blount added that beneficial owners in earlier panels said they don’t have staff to work with quality issues. Nevertheless, Sandhu said, "There’s a responsibility that comes along with having real-time information about the trading process. And there’s a potential liability, so is there more revenue or better safety that comes with the blockchain?”
 
 

 

8. FINAL QUESTIONS: STORAGE AND MAINTENANCE

 

According to Chris Ferris, "The technology is still maturing. Look for the small things that can be done. In our company, IBM provides financing to channel partners. At the end of every month, there’s $100 million in dispute. It takes 44 days on average to resolve those disputes. We created a shadow ledger to provide a reference point. So if there’s a dispute, we can say, 'Maybe your system dropped something on the floor, but we recorded it here in the shared ledger.’ As a result of blockchain, we reduced the resolution from 44 days to 10 days. It’s put $60 million back in IBM’s coffers." 
 
Another questioner asked, "How much data storage is required?” 
 
Ferris said that it depends on the industry and application. "We’re working on ways to prune the history, using a genesis block in the chaincode where we can prove the history but we don’t have to maintain it."
 
A final question from the audience: "How difficult is it to establish and maintain that shadow ledger?”
 
"Permissioned blockchains don’t require mining,” said Ferris, "so they’re not resource intensive. For instance, Hyperledger and R3’s Corda use Byzantine fault tolerance algorithms for validation. It’s no different from running a web server.” 
Print

The CSFME’s Regulatory Outreach Programs

Regulatory reform has become a collaborative process. Where once market supervisors promulgated rules without regard for input from practitioners, today’s reform process has evolved into a dialogue of mutual respect for the opinions of all stakeholders in the capital markets. The process of regulatory outreach has become embodied in virtually every developed markets in the world.

The CSFME has adopted a role of facilitating this collaborative dialogue at all stages of the professional contribution process. Starting with students’ contributions to published commentary letters, through panel presentation and webinars, right up to trade association initiatives, the CSFME provides assistance through education, data compilation, analysis and commentary for some of the most pressing issues in contemporary markets.

DLT and Preferred Securities Financing

We believe the widespread use of encrypted third-party ledgers, blockchains, and smart contracts (i.e., DLT) is inevitable in securities finance, and that those technologies will permit lending agents to offer new revenue opportunities to their clients. Among these, we believe that certain agents will use DLT to help their lenders expand their loan books by opening their lendable portfolios on a preferential basis to the hedge funds in which they've already invested, as well as to other trusted counterparties, a concept we have dubbed, “Preferred Securities Financing.”  

CSFME is openly soliciting participation in a research initiative to assess the potential benefits to securities lenders from the use of DLT and data sourced from new regulatory disclosures. Specifically, our research will focus on how DLT, blockchain, and smart contracts can facilitate Preferred Securities Financing.  Learn More about our DLT Securities Finance Initiative

Research and Analysis of the Effects of Financial Regulatory Reforms

Given the sweeping changes in financial market regulation following the financial crisis, CSFME has turned its focus to questions relating to to how these changes are affecting the risks and economics of bank activities. The purpose of the Center’s research in this area is to foster sound policymaking and effective regulation with minimal adverse and unintended consequences. CSFME studies supervision and regulation of global financial institutions, the effects of reregulation on the global financial industry, optimal roles and methods of regulation in securities markets, corporate governance at financial institutions, and the most effective metrics and methods of data collection for understanding and measuring the effects of regulations on the global financial landscape. 

Lately, in response to a call from the FDIC for research on financial sector policy and regulation, the Center submitted a paper modeling the indirect costs to markets of bank regulatory reform.  The paper critiques regulators’ models for assessing these costs, and provides empirically-based suggestions for a more complete dynamic model of the long-term effect of bank capital reform.  Mindful of the Basel Committee's ongoing reviews of modeling tools, i.e., May 2012 and March 2016, the Center's critique is intended as a constructive addition to the holistic conceptual base of the regulatory reforms.

The Center also continues to provide input on regulatory proposals.

In March of 2016, CSFME submitted a comment letter to the Bank for International Settlement's (BIS) December 2015 consultative document regarding step in risk.  While supporting generally the goals of the Basel Committee to minimize the potential systemic implications resulting from situations where banks may choose to provide financial support during periods of financial stress to entities beyond or in the absence of any contractual obligations, the Center expressed some concerns and offered some suggestions regarding the approach taken by the Consultation. Drawing on practical experience, the Center offered an example from the trade finance sector supporting its belief that the nature of step-in risk may be one example of an acceptable, non-diversifiable exposure, given the potential positives for the economy at large.

In February 2015, CSFME submitted a comment letter in response to the Financial Stability Board’s November 2014 consultative document, Standards and Processes for Global Securities Financing Data Collection and Aggregation. In its letter, the Center identified additional metrics that may be necessary to assess properly the risk of collateral fire sales associated with securities lending transactions.  In particular, CSFME asserted that FSB and sovereign regulators must expand the data initiative beyond position aggregates, to include risk mitigation resources as well as termination activity.

Students Learn to Evaluate and Contribute to the Reform Process

As the level of intensity surrounding the reform process continued to build in 2013, the CSFME began to bring a fresh perspective to the reform process. By working with finance students and the US regulatory agencies, CSFME hoped to challenge the settled views of stakeholder by introducing the views of those whose careers would be shaped by the outcome of the reforms.

In the spring of 2013, a select group of Fordham University economics students met in Washington with officials at the U.S. Treasury, Office of Management and Budget, Federal Reserve Board, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. The CSFME helped arrange the meetings and funded the logistics. By all accounts, the experience was very positive for students and regulators alike.

Buidling upon the success of the 2013 pilot program, in 2014, both Fordham and the CSFME decided to expand the outreach program and formalized the Regulatory Outreach for Student Education program as the ROSE program. Honor students in finance and economics were selected by the deans of four schools within the university: the Graduate School of Business Administration, Fordham College at Lincoln Center, the Gabelli School of Business, and Fordham College at Rose Hill. The students were organized into four teams representing their schools. The CSFME selected a contemporary issue of career significance, the Financial Stability Board’s Consultative Document on G-SIFI designation of non-bank, non-insurer financial institutions. Each team was charged with studying the issues in debate, then presenting their opinions in the manner of a formal comment letter to the FSB. Over four months, the students reviewed earlier opinion pieces, met with practitioners and regulators, and then submitted their opinions. Without influencing their opinions, the CSFME arranged access to research materials and opinion leaders, then reviewed their letters and, as appropriate, recommended submission on university letterhead. In April, 2014, the four teams’ letters were published by the FSB on its website. In recent memory, no university had ever had one letter, much less four, published on a regulatory website. To finalize the 2014 ROSE program, the CSFME arranged for all four teams to present their opinions to the key regulators at the Federal Reserve Board and the SEC in Washington, D.C. The day of meetings ended with regulators’ praise at the degree to which the students had understood the issues and presented their opinions clearly.

One student team even offered suggestions that regulators had not previously considered and praised for their creativity. “We always know what the trade groups will say, but you brought a fresh perspective.” That team, Fordham College at Lincoln Center, was awarded the 2014 ROSE Award for Analytic Excellence. In retrospect. each student completed the program with a credit that will not only endure on their resumes but also contribute to the evolution of the financial markets through the Twenty First Century.

In 2015 and 2016, Fordham formalized the ROSE Program as a for-credit course in their curriculum. The focus of the 2016 ROSE Program was the Bank for International Settlement's December 2015 consultative document proposing a preliminary framework for identifying, assessing and addressing step-in risk potentially embedded in banks' relationships with shadow banking entities.  Five teams of graduate and undergraduate students in economics, finance, accounting, management, and law researched and drafted comment letters on the consultation and submitted their letters to a panel of distinguished industry judges.  After reviewing each excellent submission, the judges then one winning letter to be presented at a visit to the Federal Reserve Bank on April 27, 2016. The winning team's letter was submitted in full to the BIS, along with a summary of the key ideas from the letters from each of the other four teams, and the submission was published on the organization's website with those of the consultation's other commenters.   All five teams of Fordham Scholars visited Washington, DC on April 27, 2016 and met with officials at the Fed, Treasury Department, and FINRA.  

Institutional Securities Lenders respond to Academic Criticisms

In 2006 the Center was created, initially for the purpose of testing academic criticisms of the securities lending markets. With funding and data support from the Risk Management Association, CSFME found “no strong evidence to conclude that securities lending programs have been used to any great extent to manipulate proxy votes or exercise undue influence on Corporate Governance issues.” Our study also found that “broker borrowbacks” had contributed to spikes in lending activity around record date – the same phenomenon that the academics had misinterpreted as evidence of hedge fund manipulation – due to the efforts of brokers to meet recall notices from securities lenders. In effect, the brokers were scrambling to acquire votes for their customers, not building positions to swing corporate elections. The academics had fatally misinterpreted their findings!

Ed Blount of CSFME testified at the SEC’s Roundtable on the results of the research in September, 2009. Then, the CSFME white paper, published in 2010, was submitted to the SEC as an attachment in response to a consultative document on the “Proxy Plumbing” process. As a result of the Center’s contribution to the collaborative process, the misguided call for reform of securities lending began to subside. Once again, securities borrowers were fairly recognized to be honest brokers in the corporate governance arena.

Securities Lenders consider new means to retain their Voting Rights

In a follow-up to the Empty Voting project (“Borrowed Proxy Abuse” as it came to be known), the CSFME responded in 2011 to requests by the participating securities lenders, by turning its attention to ways in which those lenders might be able to retain their corporate governance rights, while still benefiting from the income attributable to their securities loans. After all, as many studies have found, securities lending contributes significantly to the efficiency of market operations. Why should lenders be forced to choose between their loan fees and fiduciary duties to vote their shares, especially if they are contributing to market efficiency?? With independent funding, the CSFME retained attorneys from two prestigious Washington D.C. law firms, Stradley Ronon and Sidley Austin, to investigate the legal underpinnings to market practices which force pensions, mutual funds, insurers and other institutional securities lenders to give up their voting rights when they lend portfolio securities. In practice, margin customers of brokers also lend their securities, yet they usually retain voting rights -- and most of them aren’t even long-term beneficial owners. Both groups of beneficial owners retain dividend rights, so why, institutional investors asked, shouldn’t institutions also keep their voting rights? With the benefit of exhaustive legal research, CSFME filed a petition with the Securities & Exchange Commission to initiate a pilot program to test new market procedures by which recently-introduced efficiencies in market operations might permit lender to retain votes.  Learn more about Paradoxical Erosion of Corporate Governance

In 2013, the SEC approved that pilot program, largely in response to the encouraging recommendations of the International Corporate Governance Association, as well as the California State Teachers Retirement System and the Florida State Board of Administration.

That pilot was initiated in 2014. Simultaneously, the CSFME began to apply the results to new initiatives in Canada and Switzerland, where the pressure to meet fiduciary voting obligations was intensifying.  More about Full Entitlement Voting



Home