Connect with us
MARE BALTICUM Gaming & TECH Summit 2024

Fintech

SEC Issues Substituted Compliance Determination for France

Published

on

Washington, D.C.–(Newsfile Corp. – July 26, 2021) – The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced the approval of a substituted compliance determination order with respect to security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants (SBS Entities) subject to regulation in the French Republic (the French Order). This is the first determination that addresses substituted compliance in connection with the Commission’s capital and margin requirements.

“Friday’s action reflects the latest of the Commission’s continued efforts to stand up Congressional mandates under Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act and prepare for the registration of security-based swap dealers this fall,” said SEC Chair Gary Gensler. “In issuing the determination order, the Commission was guided by our commitment to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation.”

The French Order, which was approved Friday, provides that certain French firms that are registered with the Commission as SBS Entities conditionally may satisfy certain requirements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) by complying with comparable French and European Union (EU) requirements. The Commission and the French Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF) and the Autorité de Contrôle Prudentiel et de Résolution (ACPR) have entered into a memorandum of understanding to address supervisory and enforcement cooperation and other matters arising under substituted compliance. The Commission retains the authority to inspect, examine and supervise non-U.S. firms and take enforcement action as appropriate.

This action reflects the Commission’s consideration of the comparability of applicable non-U.S. requirements, and incorporate conditions intended to help promote comparability in practice.

Additional information about substituted compliance application is available at https://www.sec.gov/page/exchange-act-substituted-compliance-and-listed-jurisdiction-applications-security-based-swap.

Fact Sheet

Commission Substituted Compliance Order for France

Action

The Commission is issuing the substituted compliance determination order addressing the availability of substituted compliance for certain non-U.S. security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants, in anticipation of those firms’ registration with the Commission this fall.

In response to an application by AMF and ACPR, the Commission is publishing an Order to conditionally permit certain French firms registered with the Commission as SBS Entities to satisfy certain requirements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by complying with comparable French and EU requirements. The Commission and the AMF and ACPR have entered into a memorandum of understanding to address supervisory and enforcement cooperation and other matters arising under substituted compliance.

Substituted Compliance Framework

Exchange Act rule 3a71-6 conditionally provides that non-U.S. security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants may satisfy certain requirements under Section 15F of the Exchange Act by complying with foreign requirements that the Commission has found to be comparable. The Commission’s comparability assessment must consider the scope and objectives of the foreign requirements and also the effectiveness of the foreign financial supervisory and enforcement frameworks.

Rule 3a71-6 further conditions substituted compliance on the Commission and the foreign financial regulatory authority entering into a supervisory and enforcement memorandum of understanding and/or other arrangement addressing supervisory and enforcement cooperation and other matters related to substituted compliance.

Substituted compliance does not constitute exemptive relief, but instead provides an alternative method by which non-U.S. dealers and major participants may comply with applicable U.S. requirements. The Commission retains the authority to inspect, examine and supervise those firms and take enforcement action as appropriate.

The registration compliance date for security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants is Oct. 6, 2021, and market participants will begin counting security-based swap transactions and positions toward the registration thresholds on Aug. 6, 2021. See “Key Dates for Registration of Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants,” available at https://www.sec.gov/page/key-dates-registration-security-based-swap-dealers-and-major-security-based-swap-participants.

The Substituted Compliance Order

The French Order provides for conditional substituted compliance in connection with requirements under the Exchange Act regarding:

  • Risk control – requirements related to capital, margin, risk management systems, trade acknowledgment and verification, portfolio reconciliation, portfolio compression and trading relationship documentation.
  • Recordkeeping and reporting – requirements related to record creation, record maintenance, reporting, notices, and securities count.
  • Internal supervision and compliance – requirements related to supervision, conflicts of interest and chief compliance officers, and certain related matters.
  • Counterparty protection – requirements related to fair and balanced communications; disclosure of material risks and characteristics; disclosure of material incentives or conflicts of interest; daily mark disclosure; “know your counterparty;” and suitability.

Consistent with rule 3a71-6, the availability of substituted compliance reflects the comparability of applicable French and EU requirements, taking into account the effectiveness of their financial supervisory and enforcement framework. The Order incorporates certain conditions and other limits to promote the comparability of regulatory outcomes, including:

  • Trading Relationship Documentation – Firms would not receive substituted compliance in connection with certain disclosure-related provisions for transactions with U.S. counterparties, but would receive it for transactions with non-U.S. counterparties.
  • Portfolio Reconciliation and Dispute Reporting – Firms would have to report counterparty valuation disputes directly to the Commission, based on French and EU timing requirements.
  • Capital – Firms would be required to: (1) maintain liquid assets (as defined in the condition) that have an aggregate market value that exceeds the amount of the firm’s total liabilities by at least $100 million before applying the deduction (haircut) specified in the capital condition (i.e., risk-weighted assets divided by 12.5), and by at least $20 million after applying the deduction (haircut); (2) make and preserve for three years a quarterly record demonstrating compliance with the capital condition; (3) notify the Commission in writing within 24 hours if the Covered Entity fails to meet the requirements of the capital condition; and (4) include its most recent statement of financial condition (i.e., balance sheet) filed with its local supervisor, whether audited or unaudited, with its initial written notice to the Commission of its intent to rely on substituted compliance. Firms also would be required to apply substituted compliance with respect to certain record making, record preservation, and notification requirements related to capital.
  • Margin – Firms would be required to collect variation and/or initial margin from a counterparty with respect to transactions in non-cleared security-based swaps, unless the counterparty would qualify for an exception from the collateral collection requirements under the Commission’s margin rule for non-cleared security-based swaps. They also would be required to apply substituted compliance for the certain record making requirements related to margin.
  • Internal Supervision – Firms’ internal supervision frameworks must also promote compliance with certain residual U.S. requirements and the conditions to the orders.
  • Compliance Reports –Firms must provide, in English, the compliance reports they provide to their management bodies pursuant to French and EU law no later than no later than 15 days following the earlier of the submission of the report to their management body; or the time the report is required to be submitted to the management and the report must cover applicable Exchange Act requirements and conditions of the orders. Together the reports cover the entire period that the Covered Entity’s annual compliance report would be required to cover.
  • Suitability – The firm’s counterparty must be treated as a “per se professional client” under French and EU requirements and must not be a “special entity” as defined in Exchange Act section 15F(h)(2)(C) and Exchange Act rule 15Fh-2(d).
  • Daily Mark Disclosure – The firm must be required to reconcile, and in fact reconcile, the portfolio containing the relevant security-based swap on each business day.
  • Recordmaking – Firms would need to: (a) apply substituted compliance to a linked substantive Exchange Act requirement, when a recordmaking requirement is linked to that substantive Exchange Act requirement for which a positive substituted compliance determination is being made (and conversely, apply substituted compliance to a substantive Exchange Act requirement linked to a recordmaking requirement); (b) apply substituted compliance to Exchange Act rule 18a-1 with respect to certain records that are important for the Commission to examine for compliance with Exchange Act rule 18a-1; and (c) preserve the data elements to create certain records required by the Commission’s rule and furnish the record in the format (e.g., blotter or ledger) required by that rule.
  • Record Preservation – Firms would need to: (a) apply substituted compliance to a linked substantive Exchange Act requirement, when a record preservation requirement is linked to that substantive Exchange Act requirement for which a positive substituted compliance determination is being made (and conversely, apply substituted compliance to a substantive Exchange Act requirement linked to a record preservation requirement); and (b) apply substituted compliance to Exchange Act rule 18a-1 with respect to certain records that are important for the Commission to examine for compliance with Exchange Act rule 18a-1.
  • Unaudited Financial and Operational Reporting – Firms would need to: (a) report periodic unaudited financial and operational information in the manner and format specified by Commission order or rule; (b) present the financial information in the filing in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles that the firm uses to prepare general purpose publicly available or available to be issued financial statements in France; and (c) apply substituted compliance to Exchange Act rule 18a-1 if subject to that rule.
  • Annual Audited Reports – Firms would need to: (a) simultaneously transmit to the Commission a copy of audited financial reports filed with French authorities; (b) include with the filing contact information of a person who can provide further information about the reports; (c) file accountant’s reports covering the financial reports if the firm is not required by French law to have its financial reports audited; (d) file compliance or exemption reports addressing statements related to Exchange Act rule 18a-4 for which substituted compliance is not available; (e) file supporting schedules related to Exchange Act rule 18a-4; and (f) apply substituted compliance to Exchange Act rule 18a-1.
  • Notification – Firms would need to: (a) simultaneously transmit to the Commission a copy of any notice required to be sent by comparable French laws; (b) include contact information of a person who can provide further details about the notice; (c) apply substituted compliance to Exchange Act rule 18a-1 (if subject to that rule) with respect to any required notifications related to that rule; and (d) apply substituted compliance with respect to a category of records required to made and kept current under Exchange Act rule 18a-5 with respect to the requirement to provide notification of a failure to make and keep current that category of records, and (e) apply substituted compliance to Exchange Act rule 18a-8(c) for Covered Entities with a prudential regulator.
  • Access to Books and Records – Firms would remain subject to Exchange Act requirements to keep books and records open to inspection by the Commission and to furnish promptly to the Commission legible, true, complete, and current copies of those records of the firm that are required to be preserved.
  • English Translations – Firms would need to promptly provide an English translation of any record, report, or notification upon request.

Next Steps

Security-based swap market participants are urged to be mindful of the October 2021 registration compliance date for security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants, and relevant firms should take action to prepare for registration. For further information, firms may contact the Office of Derivatives Policy in the Commission’s Division of Trading and Markets, at 202-551-5870.

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