Today, we often see large companies in the financial sector moving into new business areas like clearing of new financial products or managing pension products for customers. There can be several reasons for this move, but in many cases the company needs to get at quick and relative thorough picture of their options on how to support this new area from a business, compliance, operational and IT point of view.
This blog is not a pro and con of active versus passive investing. That topic is so well covered by academia and financial professionals. Rather, this blog aims at disclosing a not so often discussed feature in the ETF product: Securities lending programs and the dividend tax optimization as a mean for the low costs in the ETFs.
At CMP, we have been involved in a number of MiFID II projects over the last couple of years. This has been most interesting, but has certainly also had its frustrating moments. Now that the initial deadline has passed, we have taken a bit of time to reflect on the processes between the supervisors and the supervised when implementing such large scale regulatory projects.
As some of you may know, our little company is broadly involved across the Danish financial sector in preparing for the upcoming MiFID regulation. At this point, it seems we are in the middle of the storm, the eye of the hurricane, where everything is eerily quiet.
I forrige post om anvendelse af Portman til afkastberegninger, tog vi udgangspunkt i to danske finansielle virksomheders omlægning til API’et for, at se på hvornår API’et repræsenterer et fordelagtigt alternativ – og hvornår det ikke gør. I denne post går vi i detaljerne med, hvordan API’et kan bruges og implementeres.
Portman er et porteføljestyringssystem. Fremadrettet ønsker Portman, at deres kunder skal anvende deres såkaldte Web API, hvor kunderne kan læse/skrive data direkte på Portmans database. Med afsæt i to danske finansielle virksomheder, tager denne business case udgangspunkt i omlægningen til API’et med eksempler på hvornår API’et repræsenterer et fordelagtigt alternativ, som organisationen kan drage fordel af – og hvornår det ikke gør, baseret på det eksisterende system set-up.
Though there can be many reasons for system upgrades, one thing seems certain, most financial institutions would like to avoid them. In the pursuit of making upgrade testing as pain free as possible, many seem to forget that testing can provide organizational value. Value creation should be the achievement of upgrade testing.
It is with great pleasure CMP can welcome Henning Skov Jensen as Manager. As of October 1st, Henning is part of the Investment Management team at CMP. With his extensive experience within the field, he is going to strengthen the expansion of the already established deliveries, that CMP offer their clients within Investment Management.
Over the last couple of days, I have posted on what I see as the likely effect of MiFIR on respectively the equity and bond markets. In this post, we will turn to the derivatives markets. These are the “true” OTC markets, and my prediction is, that this is where the impact of MiFIR will be felt the hardest. I see several factors combining to bring this about.
MiFID II/MiFIR is a broad regulatory complex, that influences a lot of activities within the banks. Currently, people within the financial sector across Europe are busy getting it right and delivered in time. In three editions, I can hopefully broaden the perspective of the consequences of MiFID within the next couple of years. In this series of posts, I will take my point of departure in three important markets: equity, bonds and derivatives.