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.
There is currently a movement within the financial industry regarding sourcing. Some companies choose to outsource, while others decide to pull back similar tasks previously outsourced. But, why do we experience these different moves? Which factors determine whether something should be outsourced or taken back into the organization? The right match of whether to in- or outsource can be very different from one organization to another. But the reasoning behind, why to in- or outsource, should always depend on company specific objectives.
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.
Det er med stor glæde at CMP fra 1. oktober 2017, kan byde Henning Skov Jensen velkommen, som ny manager. Henning bliver en del af Investment Management teamet, og skal med sin omfattende erfaring inden for kapitalforvaltning, styrke udvidelsen af de allerede eksisterende ydelser CMP tilbyder kunderne, indenfor 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.
A whole lot of people are currently very busy across the European financial sector getting ready for MiFID II/MiFIR for January 2018. It’s a broad regulatory complex, touching many aspects of the banks’ activities. I imagine that project owners and steering groups – not to mention the project managers and the many project participants – are focused on getting the many deliverables in place, getting the details right and fretting about the lack of legal clarity on important aspects.