SECURITIES SETTLEMENT REVOLUTION: THE SECOND CHAPTER

 (Source: Wikipedia, Tokyo Stock Exchange)

The second chapter in the securities settlement revolution is the shortening of the equities settlement cycle planned for 2019. Japan has worked to raise the bar for its securities settlement system, with examples including implementing delivery versus payment (DVP) for securities settlement in 2007, and taking equities paperless in 2009, however, the settlement cycle remains at T+3 (four business days from trade). As such, the next step and chapter in this ongoing story in the settlement revolution is to fully migrate this to T+2.

Shortening the settlement cycle has the direct benefit of reducing settlement risk. In addition, the resulting increase in liquidity can also be expected to indirectly contribute to maintaining and strengthening the market’s competitiveness internationally. Japan Securities Dealers Association (JSDA) and the Working Group on Shortening of the Stock Settlement Cycle have sought to forge a consensus among market participants on how to address the following three points.

  • Reducing settlement risk.
  • Enhancing efficiency, stability, and liquidity of the equities market and the financial market.
  • Maintaining and strengthening international competitiveness (bring operations in line with international standards and orchestrating globalization of the equities market).

The European market migrated to T+2 securities settlement in October 2014, ahead of Japan. In coming to grips with the market reform witnessed in Europe, Asia-Pacific market participants have struggled with process changes and compliance measures accompanying settlement cycle shortening. Addressing challenges from the investment that would be required to risk points proved to be issues that could not be tackled lightly. Meanwhile, in the post-reform European market with the shortened settlement cycle the “settlement revolution” continues to play out.

The simultaneous implementation of integrating the securities settlement infrastructure (central securities depository (CSD) integration in Europe due to T2S (TARGET2-Securities) clearing settlement system) in tandem with market system reform (implementation of common European CSD regulations) ushered in a major turning point in infrastructure and great advances in the post-trade processing ecosystem for the first time in 20 years in the European market.

European market participants significantly expanded investment in the sectors of technology, operations, and systems, however, this has been taking place at the same time, that the entire securities industry is facing intense pressure to cut costs. This growth in IT spending coupled with cost-cutting pressures has spurred an evolution in post-trade operation models that has seen them move from being in-house, closed, and integrated to more innovative, open, and linked.

Changes in Europe Following the T+2 Revolution

What actual changes transpired in the European market following the shift to T+2 conducted in parallel with market infrastructure system integration? Here we will draw on the changes seen in the wake of the European securities to explore responses in Japan’s market as it moves to follow suit.

Post-trade Market Changes  

The simultaneous pursuit of securities settlement infrastructure integration (integration of CSDs across Europe via the T2S platform) and securities settlement system reform (implementation of CSD regulations common across Europe) marked a major turning point as they brought about the first major rethinking of the post-trade ecosystem and infrastructure in the European market in 20 years.

Although market participants have greatly expanded spending on technology, operations, and systems, they still face intense pressure to reduce costs. This growth on IT spending coupled with cost-cutting pressures has spurred an evolution in post-trading operation models that has seen them move from being in-house, closed, and integrated to more innovative, open, and collaborative.

Participants in the post-trade market not only face the need to improve the efficiency of routine operations, but also to reduce costs through shared and mutual use of operations and systems, devise new business models through business alliances and partnerships, and convert post-trade operations from a cost center to a profit center. Pursuit of heightened efficiency in operations as a means of cutting costs is spurring new initiatives—such as through streamlining operations, pooling collateral, and reducing intermediaries—that are in the processes of redefining the structure of the industry.

Structural Change in the Securities Settlement Industry

For individual financial institutions seeking to trim costs by simplifying and standardizing operations, business process outsourcing (BPO) was a good first step. However, the introduction and proliferation of utility services has generated secondary added value and cost reductions on a scale greatly transcending that possible through individual, company-based BPO initiatives.

For instance, new asset management services created via partnerships between small and medium-sized local custodians and large CSDs and efforts to parlay post-trading operation centers into new profit centers are typical examples. The viewpoint of improving the efficiency of securities settlement infrastructure can serve as a chance to reevaluate efficiency, optimization, and added value through comparing cost savings possible through mutual or shared use of operations and systems versus the merits of simple BPO with outsourcing use.

In particular, firms do not need to worry unnecessarily about excessive dependence on other firms, but rather medium- and small-sized market participants will find business alliances and introducing utility services as indispensable to bolstering their bottom lines. This move toward alliances and use of utility services is driving a shift toward the vertical integration of operation flows and partnerships and integration among smaller CSDs.

 

Register today!

(JP) Broadridge & Celent Webinar | The Securities Settlement Revolution in Japan

Related release:

(JP) Shortening the Equities Settlement Cycle: Second Chapter of the Securities Settlement Revolution in Japan

English version will be forthcoming shortly.

 

革命前夜

日本の証券市場は、決済革命の前夜にある。市場参加者は、革命を契機としたレガシー&エコシステムマイグレーションの実践、イノベーションとエマージングテクノロジーの可能性を追求すべきだ。

「証券決済革命」の第1幕は、2018年5月に予定される国債決済期間の短縮である。日本市場は2012 年4月アウトライト取引 及びSCレポ取引 のT+2、GCレポ取引のT+1(以下総称して「T+2」)を実現した。革命の第1幕はその「T+1」 への完全移行を目指す。

「証券決済革命」の第2幕は、2019年に予定される株式等の決済期間の短縮である。日本市場は2007年の証券決済DVP化、2009年の株券電子化などを通じて、証券決済システムの高度化に取り組んできたが、株式の受渡日は「T+3(約定日から起算して4営業日目の受渡)」である。革命の第2幕は、その「T+2」 への完全移行を目指す。

決済期間短縮は直接的には決済リスクの削減をもたらす効果がある。また、流動性の向上、国際的な市場間競争力の維持・強化など間接的な効果も期待される。

日本市場の対応状況―セレントサーベイの結果から

期間短縮の流れに対し、日本市場はどう対応してきたか?セレントの「決済期間短縮(国債T+1 / 株式等T+2)対応サーベイ2016」の結果に基づくと、以下のとおりである。[1]

  • 市場参加者の大半は株式等決済の影響度を見極めつつ、国債決済のT+1及び新現先市場への対応に注力している。
  • 現状は不可避な制度改正対応に終始しており、着実ではあるが漸進的な歩みであり、決してダイナミックで前倒しの取り組みとは言えない。
  • 日本国債や株式のグローバル化への期待が9割を超え、非居住者取引の進展、ユーティリティサービス(ITOやBPOなど)の新たなITソーシングモデルの進展への期待も大きい。

証券決済革命の行方と提言

これまでの日本の「証券制度改正」は15年以上の時間を要す穏やかな進展であった。今後の「金融インフラ革命」のスピードが同様であるはずがない。この変化に迅速に追随出来る金融機関が勝者となる。

また、ブロックチェーンやDLT(分散型帳簿テクノロジー)といったテクノロジーの普及は、「金融インフラ革命」の誘因となろう。金融機関は金融インフラの管理を再考すべきタイミングにある。

制度改正とデジタル技術の普及は金融サービスの需要サイド(投資家)に地殻変動を起こし、金融サービスの供給サイド(金融機関)に津波をもたらした。また、そうした地殻変動に俊敏に対応するため、取引所や清算機関といった金融市場インフラとの関係の簡素化を制度改正は要請する。そのインパクトを正しく認識し、新たなビジネスモデルと、それを司るITソーシングの模索が必要である。

「証券決済革命」に際して、セレントは「モジュラー・フィナンシャルサービス」への移行を提唱する。そのアーキテクチャは、I) 顧客経験の管理、II) 商品サービスの管理、プロセスの管理、リスクの管理、III) インフラの管理、の3つの階層的なモジュール群から構成される。今回の制度改正対応は、III) 「インフラの管理」が焦点である。

金融インフラの管理、つまり金融インフラ(取引所、清算機関、決済インフラ)との接続関係を固定化し縛り付けてしまうことは、戦略自由度を下げるばかりでなく、ビジネスとITソーシングモデルの選択肢を狭める。

標準化、モジュール化と外部化、そして規模と範囲の経済の獲得が、こうしたディスラプティブ・モデルの勝因となる。[2]

***

[1] 調査結果の詳細は、下記のブロードリッジ・ホワイトペーパーをご参照ください。

「証券決済革命: 市場参加者の動向とパラダイムシフトの提言」

[2] ブロードリッジ・セレントオンラインセミナーへご参加下さい。

参加登録はこちらから

 

SECURITIES SETTLEMENT REVOLUTION: JGB T+1 & the Dawn of a New Repo Market

  (Source: Wikipedia, Bank of Japan Head Office)

This series of reports on the so-called “securities settlement revolution” will focus on key trends and changes in Japan‘s securities settlement market while exploring legacy systems and ecosystem migration, as well as the related possibilities of innovation and emerging technologies in this context.

The first effort in the securities settlement revolution involves shortening the settlement cycle for JGBs, planned for the spring of 2018. In April 2012, the market successfully introduced a settlement cycle that was shortened to two business days (T+2) for outright JGB transactions and special collateral (SC) repurchase transactions (repos) and one business day (T+1) for general collateral (GC) repos (together collectively regarded as T+2). The upcoming “revolution” hopes to shorten this settlement cycle to T+1, one business day after a trade.

Market participants should take this event as an opportunity to modernize their business processes and systems:

  1. Initiatives to shorten the settlement cycle for JGBs and securities.
  2. Efforts to enhance the functions, and expand the use, linkages, and integration of the CCP.
  3. Enhanced functions of the central securities depository (CSD).
  4. Accelerated adoption and use of straight-through processing by market participants.
  5. Facilitating smoother cross-border securities settlement. The revolution in the works will go beyond mere cosmetic reforms to the market system.

This new market, envisioned to reach a scale of 20 trillion to 30 trillion yen, could cause structural change.

  1. The coming watershed in repo trading is an opportunity to create a new repo market.
    This is because of the shift from Japan’s unique “gentan” repo (securities-lending
    approach) to the “gensaki” approach, which is the international norm.
  2. With the advent of this new system, a same-day settlement market will emerge in
    Japan’s money market. 

Technology continues to evolve. It advances without waiting for the financial industry or its players to come to grips with it or to develop pertinent applications. The securities settlement revolution in Japan has unfolded slowly, requiring more than 15 years all told. The coming financial infrastructure revolution should not take place at such a glacial pace.

Financial institutions find themselves at a point where they should reconsider their approaches to financial infrastructure management. System reform will need to be tackled. Loosely coupling (or unbundling) connections with the financial infrastructure (exchanges, clearing houses, and settlement infrastructure) can increase the available options in business and IT sourcing models, contributing to strategic flexibility.

To be continued – Click here

 

Related release:

Securities Settlement Revolution: JGB T+1 & the Dawn of a New Repo Market

 

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO MODERNIZE? (Part 2)

Enhanced Risk Management: Realizing a Dynamic Risk-adjusted Investment Cycle

One element that is consistent across capital markets in any age is a fervent desire to pursue alpha couched in efforts to optimize risk, all of which finds a point of equilibrium as determined by the market. Today all market players pursuing modernization are doing so in an environment that is subject to the below common factors.

  • Diversification of trading product (asset class) and trading method (execution method)
  • Deployment of new frameworks for securities settlement and margin trading
  • Volatility in cash, leverage, and particularly liquidity
  • Continuous strengthening of capital requirements 

As regulatory scrutiny intensifies and investor expectations for investment alpha rise, buy side financial institutions are being pushed to modernize their management functions in ways that accommodate their investment strategies with advanced levels of diversification, defensiveness, and risk transparency.

Looked at from the perspective of investors, it is clear that in addition to the deployment of advanced operational methods and superior investment strategies, that to execute these new ideas it is imperative that firms develop the capabilities needed for robust operation and risk management. Indeed, these investor expectations are likely a more daunting prospect than the stress tests and other regulatory requirements.

To perform well in today’s capital markets, Celent has advocated the need for excellence in business operations—in other words, the establishment of effective risk management and control[1]. Toward this end, it is imperative that companies destroy institutional barriers and silo-riddled organizational structures, understand regulations and risks in the context of the market, products, and trading, and seek to strengthen their organizations with an eye to securing greater transparency.

Until now, finance (funds management or capital management) has been carried out in silos, spawning competing control and management initiatives. This is proving increasingly untenable and driving the need to better integrate finance with governance, risk management, and compliance—what Celent refers to as GRC. In the meantime, the costs only continue to surge both in terms of time and money stemming from confusion related to information transmission and the value chain.

What is the best path forward?

To accurately gauge the magnitude of this issue requires a firm awareness and comprehension of the facts, but today the management of risk and finance, processes, data, and technology are fragmented. This spaghetti-like situation and disparate nature of data routes and management systems slows business processes and obscures the reality of the issue itself. Action is urgently needed to establish data flows that cut across risk and finance as well as to create agile front office control and strive for enhanced portfolio optimization.

In addition to bringing together the three elements of data—establishing a set degree of data freshness, data quality, and data routes—it is similarly imperative to integrate seamlessly front office trading systems (OMS), portfolio management (PMS), risk management, and capital management mechanisms.

The approaches taken demonstrate the limits of long-implemented stop-gag measures implemented to meet regulatory requirements. Put another way, to heighten effectiveness, there is a need to overhaul both business and technology architecture.

Management of Risk and Finance: Disparate Processes, Data, and Technology

Celent helps buy side organizations in the market today modernize their risk management—which is to say, implement initiatives to improve the effectiveness of their risk management. Celent does this in part by using the below six items as a conceptual framework to get a handle on the situation, research available solutions, and then offer advice on implementation.

  1. Understanding regulation and risk that accommodate the market, products, and trading: What is the backdrop or context and what changes are on the horizon?
  2. Integrating regulation and risk management with control functions: What targets should be integrated?
  3. Unifying risk data and risk value chain objectives: Which data and processes should be redefined?
  4. Selecting architecture and components aligned with objectives: Which solutions should be chosen?
  5. Securing mobility and flexibility in data management and platform strategies: How should the solution build be implemented?
  6. Rethinking business processes to achieve consistency with risk management: Where are the ancien régime legacy elements that hamstring business modernization?

 

Back to the top of this topic – Click here

 

Related releases:

Legacy Modernization in the Japanese Securities Industry, Part 1

Legacy Modernization in the Japanese Securities Industry, Part 2


WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO MODERNIZE? (Part 1)

In Order to Modernize

Before proceeding any further, let’s pause to consider what core system modernization signifies to a brokerage firm. Celent surveys have found that to brokers modernization means agility in operations and reductions in IT costs.

This prompts the question of how to make modernization a reality. Celent focuses on two jumping off points or angles from which to approach this: One is trading lifecycle optimization (TLO), the second is improving risk management, that is to say, realizing of a dynamic risk-adjusted investment cycle.

Trading Lifecycle Optimization (TLO)

The digital advances in trading environments have spurred the proliferation of algorithmic trading and high-frequency trading (HFT), developments that have reduced the number of traders needed. At the same time, Asia has witnessed increasing fragmentation that is particular to the regional market, spurring the spread of smart order routing (SOR).

Social media and big data are increasingly being used as market data and exerting greater influence on the market at the same time that high touch sales by sell-side firms remains. In addition, increasing diversification is evident with significant variation in the degree of digitization across asset classes and markets, and in terms of liquidity and trade type (bulk, block order, small orders, etc.).

Against this backdrop, a new electronic “hybrid” trading that fuses traditional high-touch trading with HFT and algorithmic trading has emerged in modern capital markets and trading environments. This has extended technology application beyond traditional areas of focus such as trade execution management and portfolio management. Indeed, the role and importance of technology is only growing, particularly in these areas: linking pre-trade compliance in order management, post-trade compliance in the middle office, and the various financial intermediaries (account keepers, transfer agents, administrators, prime brokers) that work across the front, middle, and back offices.

Celent has advocated the concept of trading life cycle optimization (TLO)[1].

TLO has come under scrutiny due to market environment changes that traders face in addition to factors including disparate or unevenly distributed trading technologies as well as trading risks (time, location, asset class, trader).

Hybrid trading environments combining traditional high-touch trading with HFT or algorithmic electronic trading, could clearly serve to benefit from TLO. Spanning the trading process—before, during, and after trading—it is vital to integrate across administration, monitoring, and auditing metrics for governance, risk, and cost (GRC). This makes extremely important to harness market data, which can serve as criteria for TLO.

Trading Lifecycle Optimization (TLO):

Areas targeted for optimization by trading technology block (types of technology used) can be broken down into the following four: infrastructure, operation, trade execution, and allocation.

These technology blocks are very important such as when it comes to audit requirements, sponsor descriptions, trader performance reviews, and identifying automated and discrete ranges. At the same time, these are also seen as crucial functional requirements for the front, middle, and back office systems in next-generation trading.

Celent believes that trading technology modernization should mean for both the sell side and buy side a focus on amending disparity and gaps in this technology.

To be continued – Click to read more

 

Related releases:

Legacy Modernization in the Japanese Securities Industry, Part 1

Legacy Modernization in the Japanese Securities Industry, Part 2


 

WHY MODERNIZE?

Celent has consulted on many securities firm legacy modernization projects. At the outset of these projects, Celent asks the CEO and CIO a number of questions similar to those below.

CEO Questions:

  • How much time and money were required the last time your firm had to rework connections to exchanges, settlement and verification institutions, clearing and settlement institutions and respond to system reform?
  • What is your average cost per transaction? What is your average cost per customer?
  • How many systems must a call center staff member access to answer customer questions? What is the average time required? The average cost?
  • How many staff members are required to work on applications to open a new  account? How many systems must be accessed?
  • What are the foreseen costs and risks associated with outsourcing IT department operations?
  • What are your legacy systems and what are candidates for modernization?

CIO Questions:

  • What was the volume of code that need to be modified the last time your firm had to rework connections to exchanges, settlement and verification institutions, clearing and settlement institutions and respond to system reform?
  • How easy is it for you to integrate existing and new applications?
  • Are you spending more on maintenance or new projects?
  • Is your IT certainly capable of supporting new business acquisitions?
  • How many systems are there for risk management, compliance management and reporting to authorities? How much are your costs to maintain your IT?
  • Do you have any maintenance contracts that will be ending soon?

These are among the questions that executives need to ask themselves when they look to tackle IT challenges (e.g., data model rigidity, lack of application flexibility, IT duplication, and associated labor efforts). If you already know the answers to these questions, then the typical challenges securities firms face spelled out in this post likely do not exist for you. The issues broached here are not the kind of challenges that can be resolved by improving peripheral systems or patchwork core systems solutions.

For financial institutions that have designed, developed, operated, and maintained core systems themselves, formulating a replacement strategy is akin to putting together a plan to travel to an unknown world. Such a situation requires correct understanding, which mandates a bird’s-eye view or systems map of the entire firm (as-is state) coupled with recommendations for the system to be (to-be state).

Moreover, companies must select the solution that best matches their needs from existing solutions in the market. The key is the business requirements document (BRD). This means defining the operational functions and system requirements that will satisfy the next system’s needs. Often, understanding the current situation accurately is not easy, the ideal system goes unrealized, and companies end up with something approximating a reproduction of the legacy system. Thus, it is crucial to distinguish between the legacy and modern systems.

Legacy Systems and Modern Systems: A Comparison:

To be continued – Click to read more

 

Related releases:

Legacy Modernization in the Japanese Securities Industry, Part 1

Legacy Modernization in the Japanese Securities Industry, Part 2

Digital Transformation of the Securities Industry in Japan and Asia

Modularization of Industry

Industries across the board are undergoing structural change. This change extends beyond individual firms and spills across industrial sectors. Other industries that have been exposed to the tide of technology-driven structural changes have through the process harnessed technology to be reinvented as new industries befitting this evolution in industrial structure. The financial industry traditionally has been far from the vanguard of this change.

The proliferation of the Internet and digital technologies is only accelerating the evolutionary modular shift across all industries. This stands in stark contrast to the traditional non-modular, vertically integrated structure (that is to say, the antithesis of a modular structure, where all the products and services are provided through and within one exclusive value chain) that the industry has historically embraced.

However, disruptive new market players have visibly forced conservative, existing entities to begin to seek new approaches; at the same time, regulatory authorities have also started to embark on establishing a new, more robust system for regulating the financial industry.

The Securities Industry of the Future

The securities industry can be regarded as the first sector in the financial industry to have embarked down the path of modularization. A major area that has been involved in this first step toward modularization has been mutual funds.

In the closed model era of brokers and mutual fund firms, which was the norm until the 1960s, mutual fund firms would outsource sales to securities companies (full service brokers). Then, the market witnessed the emergence of no-load funds starting in the 1970s. This era was characterized solely by diversification of sales methods, and was entirely absent changes to the closed model that covered planning, manufacturing, and sales. Finally, change descended on the market in the form of the mutual fund supermarket revolution. Metaphorically speaking, this approach was akin to companies putting mutual funds on the shelves of a supermarket and charging commissions only for the products sold. The interface between mutual fund companies and securities companies opened up, with this the creation and sales components were decoupled and functionally modularized.

The Role of New Technology: Robo-advisor

Robo-advisor initiatives can be expected to accelerate the speed of advances in modular demand structure. Presumably, coming delivery channels will seek to optimize information and investment expertise provided, driven by approaches that respond to the needs of investors by sometimes providing "automated advice" and sometimes harnessing brokers as "a human support mechanism.”

In Japan, megabanks, startups, and dedicated online brokers are all jockeying to leverage their strengths in a way that accords them the most advantageous position possible. Their robo-advisor initiatives so far largely appear tailored to support the sales of mutual funds. As easy-to-use, non-face-to-face channels, they are garnering interest from investors with a level of comfort with IT and a degree of financial literacy. Moving forward, further advancements that draw on both the asset management facet and technology are expected in the 4 areas; diversity of products, diversity of services, automation, accommodating B2B.

Excluding Japan, Hong Kong, and Singapore, Asia is a fragmented market for retail investors, and therefore it’s still inaccessible. In addition, such markets as Taiwan and Korea are showing an increase in home bias. Thus, how the robo-advisor business thrives in the Asian market will depend on its distribution dynamics, along with its asset growth potential and product development.

Legacy modernization in the securities industry is much more than the application of novel technology. Rather, it portends nothing less than a wholesale structural overhaul of the securities industry that is an opportunity to envisage anew and redefine the industry’s future. There can be no doubt that this transcends the mere establishment of a digital channel; rather it will certainly impact products, services, IT units, and sourcing models, and, in so doing, provide the securities service providers of the future a chance to seriously consider exactly what kind of companies they would like to be and the corporate cultures they would like to foster.

 

Related releases:

Legacy Modernization in the Japanese Securities Industry, Part 1

Legacy Modernization in the Japanese Securities Industry, Part 2

Fintech and Robo Advisors: Booming in Japan

Legacy Modernization in Japan’s Financial Industry, Part 2: What the Auto Industry Can Teach the Financial Sector

 

2016年後半のカンファレンスを振り返る

カンファレンスは、いつも刺激に溢れています。2016年もアジアの各地で、パネルディスカッションやプレゼンテーションの機会に恵まれました。自らのプレゼンテーションを通じて、過去のリサーチ成果を発信するだけでなく、カンファレンス・チェアやパネル・モデレータの役割は、業界ソートリーダーとのインプロビゼーションであり、将来のリサーチトピックスやインサイトテーマを仕込む、貴重な瞬間です。人が出会い、意見を交換し、議論を深める。そのための準備と当日の緊張感は、アナリストの責務であり、醍醐味でもあります。 本稿では、2016年後半の5つのカンファレンスを振り返ります。銀行、保険、証券、ウェルスマネージメントの各業界の議論に共通したキーワードは、引き続き、フィンテック、デジタル、そしてモダナイゼーションでした。
***

Insurance, Digitization and Bubbles(7月1日:東京)

保険業界は変革を迫られています。超低金利、新規事業参入者の増加、激化する価格競争、顧客との関り方の急激な変化が、保険会社の商品/ビジネスモデルを揺さぶっています。モノのインターネットやスマートロボットだけではなく、いまやブロックチェーンも保険業界に大きく影響しつつあります。 こうした新しいテクノロジーは、本当に業界を根底から変えてしまうのでしょうか? 仮に変化があるとするならば、いつ、どんな出来事が、どのような順序で起こるのでしょうか? セレント主催の本イベントでは、世界の保険業界におけるデジタル改革の最新トレンドを紹介し、お招きした日本の保険業界を代表するソートリーダーの皆様と、中長期的な視点での将来像を模索しました。
  • 世界の保険業界におけるデジタルトランスフォーメーションの最新トレンド
  • InsurTechが保険業界の未来、ビジネスモデル、事業運営に与える影響
  • 短期、中長期的な視点での展望、業界の未来図
  • 日本におけるInsurTechの現状と展望
Insurance, Digitization and Bubbles
***

Asia Anti-Money Laundering Summit713-14日:シンガポール)

アジアにおいても欧米同様に、規制の継続的な改正、最大手の金融機関における規制違反事例など、AMLの運営管理全般を改善する必要性が高まっています。電子取引の爆発的な普及は新たな課題をもたらしており、金融機関が様々な事象をチェックする際に、もはや規制当局や政府公認のブラックリストだけでは不十分な状況にあります。 AMLはまた、海外業務を展開する大手銀行だけのテーマではなく、全金融機関において同様な備えとその効率化が問われる時代となっています。本イベントは、アジアの保険業界を中心としたコミュニティにおいて、AMLとKYCを真正面から討議する場となりました。 セレントからは当日、以下の既刊レポートを中心に、「ユーティリティモデルの隆盛とAI適用」に関する報告を行いました。 Asia Anti-Money Laundering Summit
***

Asia Insurance Technology Awards95-6日:シンガポール)

2016年も引き続き、セレントは、AIR の主催する Asia Insurance Technology Awards (AITAs) の審査員を務めました。アジア各地の保険業界における、イノベーションと現代化に関する先進的な取り組みを表彰するこのイベントは、セレントの主催するアワード:セレントモデルインシュアラー と併せ、当社アジア保険部門の2大イベントとなります。 新たなテクノロジー、ビジネスモデルそして業界構造や組織変革への取り組みが、6つアワードカテゴリーにおいて表彰されました。中でも、Best Newcomerに輝いた Everledger(英国)、Digital Transformationを獲得した PetSure(オーストラリア)の両社は、InsureTech時代を象徴する取り組みと賞賛されました。
  • IT Leadership: Liberty Videocon General Insurance
  • Best Insurer, Technology: New China Life Insurance, Max Life Insurance
  • Digital Transformation: AXA Asia, PetSure (Australia)
  • Big Data and Analytics: AXA Hong Kong
  • Best Newcomer: Everledger
  • Innovation: IDBI Federal Life Insurance, Ping An Property & Casualty Insurance Company of China
Asia Insurance Technology Awards
***

5th Asia Insurance CIO Technology Summit95-6日:シンガポール)

AITAと同時開催のアジア保険CIOサミットにおいて、キーノートスピーチ「InsurTech & Digital: A Global Round-Up 」を提供しました。 さて、保険会社の存在価値とは何でしょうか?
  • 安心、安全、健康な人生を支援する
  • 企業活動の全てのリスクを担保する
  • 人生の、企業活動の不安とリスクを軽減する仕組みの提供
様々な表現で語られますが、全てに共通することは、「顧客中心」主義。一方で、これまでの金融機関におけるテクノロジー活用の中心命題が、長らく
  • システム化による、人手から機械への代替による合理化、コスト削減 であったことは事実です。
しかし、テクノロジーの進化とその爆発的な普及は、こうして古典的な命題を激変させました。本キーノートでは、情報とテクノロジーを手にしたデジタルな顧客に対峙する現代の金融機関は、
  • 「デジタルな顧客中心」主義であるべき と提唱しました。
また、デジタル世紀の金融機関が遭遇している、急激な業界構造の変化に対して、
  • 「戦略自由度の担保」とそれを実現する「アーキテクチャ」 も提案しました。
5th Asia Insurance CIO Technology Summit
***

TradeTech Asia 20161019-20日:シンガポール)

キャピタルマーケットとウェルスマネージメント業界の祭典 TradeTech Asiaは、今年もシンガポールで開催されました。セレントは長年、このイベントのカンファレンス・チェアやモデレータを務めてきました。ウェルスマネージメントにおけるロボアドバイザーの台頭、トレーディングデスクにおけるAlgoからAIへのシフトが鮮明だった2016年は、アジアの機関投資家の方々と、以下のパネルに参加しました。
All Star Panel: How can you use machine learning and artificial intelligence for predictive analysis and accurate analytics?
当日は、セレントのAIフレームワーク:人口知能モデルを披露し、資本市場、資産運用ビジネスにおける、AI活用の現状と展望に関して、以下の事柄に言及しました。
  • トレーディングライフサイクルの最適化におけるAIの役割
  • 投資分析の予測能力や正確性を向上させるAIの適用方法
  • リサーチ:投資分析やポートフォリオ分析におけるAI活用
  • AIとコンプライアンス:不正取引の監視におけるAIの活用
  • 購入か利用か、構築か?:AIにおけるフィンテック企業の可能性
TradeTech Asia 2016  

Pioneering Unexplored Areas

Japan has been at the forefront of innovation in the asset management—and the broader financial services—industry in Asia, with a number of new and incumbent players rolling out robo-advisory services. Robo-advisors are online platforms that offer investment advice based on sophisticated algorithms mapping portfolios that can look at investment performance across asset classes in real time.

While there is vast potential in this area in Japan, the gains made by the robo-advisory industry may be limited if it does not strive to improve investment literacy and enhance accuracy and transparency of information.

Current robo-advisor initiatives in Japan are largely tailored to support the sales of mutual funds. As easy-to-use, non-face-to-face services, they are garnering interest from investors comfortable with information technology and a degree of financial literacy.

Moving forward, further advancements that draw on both asset management options and technology are expected in the following areas:

  • Diversity of products. Expanding the range of products offered from general, publicly offered mutual funds to a variety of asset classes.
  • Diversity of services. Online onboarding, portfolio management, reports and alerts. Operation support that is a hybrid approach, harnessing both existing contact centers and face-to-face services.
  • Automation. Automated reinvestment and rebalancing. Supporting small-value and high-frequency trading.
  • Accommodating business-to-business (B2B). Pro-level sales support tools developed to offer the advanced features professionals want. Vendor-supplied cloud services and financial institution-supplied white-label service offerings for other financial institutions.

 

Click to read more…

Robo-Advisory in Japan: A Need to Push the Envelope

Robo-Advisory in Japan: A Need to Push the Envelope

Robo-advisors: Booming in Japan
http://asianbankingandfinance.net/financial-technology/commentary/robo-advisors-booming-in-japan

Fintech and Robo Advisors: Booming in Japan
http://celent.com/reports/fintech-and-robo-advisors-booming-japan

証券決済革命

日本の証券決済制度改革は2000年頃に本格化した。15年の歳月を経てDVPは実現し、STPは幅広く普及した。そして、今まさにその最終ステージに差し掛かり「証券決済革命」の時代を迎えている。

日本の証券決済制度改革の経緯において、以下の4点は重要なマイルストーンであった。

  1. RTGSと照合システムの構築、STPの普及(2001年)
  2. 証券保管振替機構の拡充と株式会社化(2002年)
  3. CCPの設立とDVP決済の進展(2002-3年、2007年)
  4. 株券の電子化(2009年)

現在の日本における「証券決済革命」の残された課題は、以下の5点に集約される。

  1. 国債、株式等の決済期間短縮化への取り組み
  2. 清算機関(CCP)の機能拡充、利用拡大、連携・統合への取り組み
  3. 証券決済機関(CSD)の機能拡充
  4. 市場参加者におけるSTPの加速
  5. クロスボーダー証券決済の円滑化

証券決済システム高度化の経緯

161130_fig1 

セレントは、こうした日本の証券決済革命の動向を基軸に、金融業界のレガシー&エコシステムマイグレーション、イノベーション、そしてエマージングテクノロジーの可能性をレポートしている。

本証券決済革命シリーズにご期待下さい。