Connect with us
MARE BALTICUM Gaming & TECH Summit 2024

Fintech

At Joint Open Meeting, SEC and CFTC Approve Final Rule on Security Futures Margin and Request for Comment on Portfolio Margining

Published

on

Washington D.C.–(Newsfile Corp. – October 22, 2020) – The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, at their first joint open meeting to vote on rulemaking initiatives, today approved: (1) a joint final rule to harmonize the minimum margin level for security futures held in a futures account with the minimum margin level for security futures held in a securities portfolio margin account, and (2) the issuance of a joint request for comment on the portfolio margining of uncleared swaps and non-cleared security-based swaps. 

The joint final rule and request for comment are two components of the Commissions’ ongoing efforts to further harmonize their regulatory regimes to better serve the markets and investors. 

“Collaboration and coordination between the two Commissions are critical to achieving our shared regulatory objectives,” said SEC Chairman Jay Clayton. “I want to express my thanks to my colleagues at both the SEC and CFTC for their hard work, and I look forward to continuing to work together to improve our markets, including exploring potential opportunities for efficiencies in portfolio margining.”

“The markets the CFTC and SEC regulate are highly interconnected, so coordination is vital to regulatory effectiveness. The historic joint open meeting of our two agencies reflects our strong commitment to cooperation and harmonizing our efforts where appropriate,” said CFTC Chairman Heath P. Tarbert. “Today’s final rule represents an important example of our long history of cooperation regarding the joint regulation of security futures. I am pleased that the Commissions will continue this collaboration to examine potential ways to implement the portfolio margining of uncleared swaps and non-cleared security-based swaps.”

***

FACT SHEET
Joint Final Rule: Customer Margin Rules Relating to Security Futures
October 22, 2020

Action

The joint final rule will harmonize the minimum margin level for security futures, whether they are held in a futures account, a securities portfolio margin account, or a securities account that is not approved for portfolio margining.

Highlights of the Action

The Commissions have joint rulemaking authority regarding margin requirements for security futures.  In 2002, the Commissions adopted rules establishing margin levels for unhedged security futures at 20 percent.  In light of the asymmetry in margin requirements resulting from the 15 percent margin level that has been established for security futures and comparable financial products held in a securities portfolio margin account, the Commissions are adopting the proposed margin requirement to set the required margin level for each long or short unhedged position in a security future at 15 percent of its current market value.

At this time, there are no security futures contracts listed for trading on U.S. exchanges.  The final rule amendments, however, would set a 15 percent level for security futures if an existing exchange were to resume operations or another exchange were to launch security futures contracts.

What’s Next?

This final rule is effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

***

FACT SHEET
Joint Request for Comment: Portfolio Margining of Uncleared Swaps and Non-Cleared Security-based Swaps
October 22, 2020

Action

The joint request for comment seeks public input on potential ways to implement portfolio margining of uncleared swaps and non-cleared security-based swaps, including whether there are opportunities to enhance efficiencies, reduce complexity, increase consistency and add resiliency to our financial system through adjustments to our current margin rules. 

Highlights of the Action

Portfolio Margining

Portfolio margining generally refers to the cross margining of related positions in a single account.  Portfolio margining of uncleared swaps, non-cleared security-based swaps, and related positions can offer benefits to customers and the markets, including promoting greater efficiencies in margin calculations with respect to offsetting positions.  At the same time, facilitating portfolio margining for uncleared swaps, non-cleared security-based swaps, and related positions requires careful consideration to ensure that any customer protection and applicable regulatory issues and potential impacts are appropriately considered and addressed.

Regulation of Non-Cleared Security-based Swaps and Uncleared Swaps

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFTC has jurisdiction over uncleared swaps and the SEC has jurisdiction over non-cleared security-based swaps.  The CFTC has adopted margin rules (including minimum standards for the safekeeping of collateral) for uncleared swaps applicable to nonbank swap dealers and the SEC has adopted margin and segregation rules applicable to nonbank security-based swap dealers.  As discussed in the request for comment, the requirements of these rules differ in some ways that would be relevant to portfolio margining. 

The following table summarizes some of the similarities and differences between the agencies’ margin rules:

Requirement

SEC Margin Rule for Non-Cleared Security-based Swaps

CFTC Margin Rule for Uncleared Swaps

Dealer Must Collect/Post Variation Margin

Required, unless exception

Required, unless exception

Dealer Must Collect Initial Margin

Must collect from all counterparties, unless a counterparty, threshold or legacy exception applies

Required collection from other swap dealers and financial end users with material swaps exposure, unless a counterparty threshold or legacy exception applies

Dealer Must Post Initial Margin

Permitted, but not required

Required posting to other swap dealers and financial end users with material swaps exposure, unless a counterparty threshold or legacy exception applies

Dealer Can Use An Approved Initial Margin Model (including an industry standard model)

Permitted; provided Broker-dealer/SBSDs must use a standardized method for equity security-based swaps

Permitted

Initial Margin Posted to/by Dealer Must Be Held by Third-Party Custodian

Permitted, but not required

Required

Waiver of Segregation Requirements for Initial Margin Collateral

Permitted; provided that, if the SBSD is a broker-dealer, non-affiliated customers cannot waive segregation

Prohibited

Re-hypothecation of Initial Margin Collateral

Permitted under limited circumstances

Prohibited


Specific Requests for Comment; Different Account Types

The request for comment solicits comment on various specific aspects of the margining of uncleared swaps, non-cleared security-based swaps, and related positions, including on the merits, benefits, and risks of portfolio margining these types of positions, and on any regulatory, legal, and operational issues associated with portfolio margining these various positions in different account types.

The following table, organized by account type and position type, summarizes the current margin and segregation requirements that apply and the types of positions subject to our requests for comment:

Account Type

Types of Positions Subject to Request for Comment

Current Margin Requirements for Account Type

Current Segregation Requirements for Account Type

Broker-Dealer/SBSD Securities Account: Portfolio Margin

– Uncleared swaps

– Non-cleared security-based swaps

– Cash market securities positions

– Listed securities options

– OTC securities options

– Futures

– Options on futures

– Security futures

– Securities self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) portfolio margin rules

– Possession or control of fully paid and excess margin securities and excess securities collateral (SEC Rule 15c3-3)

– Reserve account for excess credits (SEC Rule 15c3‑3)

– Affiliates of broker-dealer can waive segregation for non-cleared security-based swaps

-Counterparties to non-cleared security-based swap transactions can elect to have individual segregation at a third-party custodian.

Broker-Dealer/SBSD Securities Account: Non-Portfolio Margin

– Uncleared swaps

– Non-cleared security-based swaps

– Cash market securities positions

– Listed securities options

– OTC securities options

– Futures

– Options on futures

– Security futures

– Federal Reserve Board’s Regulation T

– SRO margin rules

– SEC margin rules for security futures

– Possession or control of fully paid and excess margin securities and excess securities collateral (SEC Rule 15c3-3)

– Reserve account for excess credits (SEC Rule 15c3‑3)

– Affiliates of broker-dealer can waive segregation for non-cleared security-based swaps

-Counterparties to non-cleared security-based swap transactions can elect to have individual segregation at a third-party custodian.

Broker-Dealer/SBSD Security-Based Swap Account

– Uncleared swaps

– Non-cleared security-based swaps

– OTC securities options

– Related collateral

– SEC Rule 18a-3 (Margin requirements for SBSDs)

-SRO margin rules (for OTC securities options)

– Possession or control excess securities collateral (SEC Rule 15c3-3)

– Reserve account for excess credits (SEC Rule 15c3‑3)

– Affiliates of broker-dealer can waive segregation for non-cleared security-based swaps

-Counterparties to non-cleared security-based swap transactions can elect to have individual segregation at a third-party custodian.

SBSD (including SBSD/OTC derivatives dealer) Security-Based Swap Account

– Uncleared swaps

– Non-cleared security-based swaps

– OTC securities options

– Related collateral

– SEC Rule 18a-3 (Margin requirements for SBSDs)

– Federal Reserve Board’s Regulation U (for OTC securities options)

– Possession or control excess securities collateral for security-based swaps (SEC Rule 18a-4)

– Reserve account for excess credits for security-based swaps (SEC Rule 18a‑4)

– All counterparties can waive segregation for non-cleared security-based swaps or elect individual segregation at a third party custodian.

Swap Dealer Swap Account

– Uncleared swaps

– Non-cleared security-based swaps

– Related collateral

CFTC Rules 23.150 – 23.161 (Margin requirements for swap dealers)

Initial margin must be held at an independent third-party custodian (CFTC Rule 23.157)


What’s Next

The public comment period will remain open for 30 days following publication in the Federal Register.  All comments will be posted on both the CFTC’s website and the SEC’s website.

Fintech

How to identify authenticity in crypto influencer channels

Published

on

 

Modern brands stake on influencer marketing, with 76% of users making a purchase after seeing a product on social media.The cryptocurrency industry is no exception to this trend. However, promoting crypto products through influencer marketing can be particularly challenging. Crypto influencers pose a significant risk to a brand’s reputation and ROI due to rampant scams. Approximately 80% of channels provide fake statistics, including followers counts and engagement metrics. Additionally, this niche is characterized by high CPMs, which can increase the risk of financial loss for brands.

In this article Nadia Bubennnikova, Head of agency Famesters, will explore the most important things to look for in crypto channels to find the perfect match for influencer marketing collaborations.

 

  1. Comments 

There are several levels related to this point.

 

LEVEL 1

Analyze approximately 10 of the channel’s latest videos, looking through the comments to ensure they are not purchased from dubious sources. For example, such comments as “Yes sir, great video!”; “Thanks!”; “Love you man!”; “Quality content”, and others most certainly are bot-generated and should be avoided.

Just to compare: 

LEVEL 2

Don’t rush to conclude that you’ve discovered the perfect crypto channel just because you’ve come across some logical comments that align with the video’s topic. This may seem controversial, but it’s important to dive deeper. When you encounter a channel with logical comments, ensure that they are unique and not duplicated under the description box. Some creators are smarter than just buying comments from the first link that Google shows you when you search “buy YouTube comments”. They generate topics, provide multiple examples, or upload lists of examples, all produced by AI. You can either manually review the comments or use a script to parse all the YouTube comments into an Excel file. Then, add a formula to highlight any duplicates.

LEVEL 3

It is also a must to check the names of the profiles that leave the comments: most of the bot-generated comments are easy to track: they will all have the usernames made of random symbols and numbers, random first and last name combinations, “Habibi”, etc. No profile pictures on all comments is also a red flag.

 

LEVEL 4

Another important factor to consider when assessing comment authenticity is the posting date. If all the comments were posted on the same day, it’s likely that the traffic was purchased.

 

2. Average views number per video

This is indeed one of the key metrics to consider when selecting an influencer for collaboration, regardless of the product type. What specific factors should we focus on?

First & foremost: the views dynamics on the channel. The most desirable type of YouTube channel in terms of views is one that maintains stable viewership across all of its videos. This stability serves as proof of an active and loyal audience genuinely interested in the creator’s content, unlike channels where views vary significantly from one video to another.

Many unauthentic crypto channels not only buy YouTube comments but also invest in increasing video views to create the impression of stability. So, what exactly should we look at in terms of views? Firstly, calculate the average number of views based on the ten latest videos. Then, compare this figure to the views of the most recent videos posted within the past week. If you notice that these new videos have nearly the same number of views as those posted a month or two ago, it’s a clear red flag. Typically, a YouTube channel experiences lower views on new videos, with the number increasing organically each day as the audience engages with the content. If you see a video posted just three days ago already garnering 30k views, matching the total views of older videos, it’s a sign of fraudulent traffic purchased to create the illusion of view stability.

 

3. Influencer’s channel statistics

The primary statistics of interest are region and demographic split, and sometimes the device types of the viewers.

LEVEL 1

When reviewing the shared statistics, the first step is to request a video screencast instead of a simple screenshot. This is because it takes more time to organically edit a video than a screenshot, making it harder to manipulate the statistics. If the creator refuses, step two (if only screenshots are provided) is to download them and check the file’s properties on your computer. Look for details such as whether it was created with Adobe Photoshop or the color profile, typically Adobe RGB, to determine if the screenshot has been edited.

LEVEL 2

After confirming the authenticity of the stats screenshot, it’s crucial to analyze the data. For instance, if you’re examining a channel conducted in Spanish with all videos filmed in the same language, it would raise concerns to find a significant audience from countries like India or Turkey. This discrepancy, where the audience doesn’t align with regions known for speaking the language, is a red flag.

If we’re considering an English-language crypto channel, it typically suggests an international audience, as English’s global use for quality educational content on niche topics like crypto. However, certain considerations apply. For instance, if an English-speaking channel shows a significant percentage of Polish viewers (15% to 30%) without any mention of the Polish language, it could indicate fake followers and views. However, if the channel’s creator is Polish, occasionally posts videos in Polish alongside English, and receives Polish comments, it’s important not to rush to conclusions.

Example of statistics

 

Wrapping up

These are the main factors to consider when selecting an influencer to promote your crypto product. Once you’ve launched the campaign, there are also some markers to show which creators did bring the authentic traffic and which used some tools to create the illusion of an active and engaged audience. While this may seem obvious, it’s still worth mentioning. After the video is posted, allow 5-7 days for it to accumulate a basic number of views, then check performance metrics such as views, clicks, click-through rate (CTR), signups, and conversion rate (CR) from clicks to signups.

If you overlooked some red flags when selecting crypto channels for your launch, you might find the following outcomes: channels with high views numbers and high CTRs, demonstrating the real interest of the audience, yet with remarkably low conversion rates. In the worst-case scenario, you might witness thousands of clicks resulting in zero to just a few signups. While this might suggest technical issues in other industries, in crypto campaigns it indicates that the creator engaged in the campaign not only bought fake views and comments but also link clicks. And this happens more often than you may realize.

Summing up, choosing the right crypto creator to promote your product is indeed a tricky job that requires a lot of resources to be put into the search process. 

Author Nadia Bubennikova, Head of agency  at Famesters

Author

Nadia Bubennikova, Head of agency at Famesters

Continue Reading

Fintech

Central banks and the FinTech sector unite to change global payments space

Published

on

central-banks-and-the-fintech-sector-unite-to-change-global-payments-space

 

The BIS, along with seven leading central banks and a cohort of private financial firms, has embarked on an ambitious venture known as Project Agorá.

Named after the Greek word for “marketplace,” this initiative stands at the forefront of exploring the potential of tokenisation to significantly enhance the operational efficiency of the monetary system worldwide.

Central to this pioneering project are the Bank of France (on behalf of the Eurosystem), the Bank of Japan, the Bank of Korea, the Bank of Mexico, the Swiss National Bank, the Bank of England, and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. These institutions have joined forces under the banner of Project Agorá, in partnership with an extensive assembly of private financial entities convened by the Institute of International Finance (IIF).

At the heart of Project Agorá is the pursuit of integrating tokenised commercial bank deposits with tokenised wholesale central bank money within a unified, public-private programmable financial platform. By harnessing the advanced capabilities of smart contracts and programmability, the project aspires to unlock new transactional possibilities that were previously infeasible or impractical, thereby fostering novel opportunities that could benefit businesses and consumers alike.

The collaborative effort seeks to address and surmount a variety of structural inefficiencies that currently plague cross-border payments. These challenges include disparate legal, regulatory, and technical standards; varying operating hours and time zones; and the heightened complexity associated with conducting financial integrity checks (such as anti-money laundering and customer verification procedures), which are often redundantly executed across multiple stages of a single transaction due to the involvement of several intermediaries.

As a beacon of experimental and exploratory projects, the BIS Innovation Hub is committed to delivering public goods to the global central banking community through initiatives like Project Agorá. In line with this mission, the BIS will soon issue a call for expressions of interest from private financial institutions eager to contribute to this ground-breaking project. The IIF will facilitate the involvement of private sector participants, extending an invitation to regulated financial institutions representing each of the seven aforementioned currencies to partake in this transformative endeavour.

Source: fintech.globa

The post Central banks and the FinTech sector unite to change global payments space appeared first on HIPTHER Alerts.

Continue Reading

Fintech

TD Bank inks multi-year strategic partnership with Google Cloud

Published

on

td-bank-inks-multi-year-strategic-partnership-with-google-cloud

 

TD Bank has inked a multi-year deal with Google Cloud as it looks to streamline the development and deployment of new products and services.

The deal will see the Canadian banking group integrate the vendor’s cloud services into a wider portion of its technology solutions portfolio, a move which TD expects will enable it “to respond quickly to changing customer expectations by rolling out new features, updates, or entirely new financial products at an accelerated pace”.

This marks an expansion of the already established relationship between TD Bank and Google Cloud after the group previously adopted the vendor’s Google Kubernetes Engine (GKE) for TD Securities Automated Trading (TDSAT), the Chicago-based subsidiary of its investment banking unit, TD Securities.

TDSAT uses GKE for process automation and quantitative modelling across fixed income markets, resulting in the development of a “data-driven research platform” capable of processing large research workloads in trading.

Dan Bosman, SVP and CIO of TD Securities, claims the infrastructure has so far supported TDSAT with “compute-intensive quantitative analysis” while expanding the subsidiary’s “trading volumes and portfolio size”.

TD’s new partnership with Google Cloud will see the group attempt to replicate the same level of success across its entire portfolio.

Source: fintechfutures.com

The post TD Bank inks multi-year strategic partnership with Google Cloud appeared first on HIPTHER Alerts.

Continue Reading

Trending