Firms heed Kerviel lesson by linking front and back offices
Companies move to link front and back office to mitigate rogue trading risks
BOSTON AND NEW YORK – Firms are increasingly seeking to mitigate risk by linking their front and back offices, with operations managers attempting to apply the lessons of January’s Société Générale (SG) rogue trading incident, in which Jérôme Kerviel was able to use his combination of front- and back-office expertise to dupe the bank’s internal risk control systems.
The study by post-trade operations firm Omgeo’s Americas advisory board, comprised of investment managers, broker dealers and custodians using the firm’s services, found that 88% of respondents had moved to close the gap between front and back office in response to the Kerviel example. Respondents also thought danger was imminent, with over 50% saying another SG-type incident was likely at another firm over the next 24 months.
Lee Cutrone, managing director for industry relations at Omgeo, says: “The findings of our first advisory board survey clearly indicate the importance of risk mitigation in the operational frameworks of sell-side, buyside, and custodian firms alike. Particularly in such volatile times, we need to ensure the market’s operational infrastructure is as shored-up as possible. Indeed, it takes the entire industry’s co-operation, and the survey shows that this is understood across all parties.”
Another finding, concerning trading of over-the-counter derivatives, found that over 50% of respondents expect regulation to come, and that best practice standards will not be enough to prevent regulators from tightening rules for same-day affirmation of trades.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Esma supervision proposals ensnare Bloomberg and Tradeweb
Derivatives and bonds venues would become subject to centralised supervision
Industry frowns on FCA’s single-sided trade reporting efforts
Buy side warns UK attempt to ease Mifir burden may miss target; dealers aren’t happy either
One vision, two paths: UK reporting revamp diverges from EU
FCA and Esma could learn from each other on how to cut industry compliance costs
Market doesn’t share FSB concerns over basis trade
Industry warns tougher haircut regulation could restrict market capacity as debt issuance rises
FCMs warn of regulatory gaps in crypto clearing
CFTC request for comment uncovers concerns over customer protection and unchecked advertising
UK clearing houses face tougher capital regime than EU peers
Ice resists BoE plan to move second skin in the game higher up capital stack, but members approve
ECB seeks capital clarity on Spire repacks
Dealers split between counterparty credit risk and market risk frameworks for repack RWAs
FSB chief defends global non-bank regulation drive
Schindler slams ‘misconception’ that regulators intend to impose standardised bank-like rules