Xenomorph
  • Solutions
  • Technology
  • Customers
  • Resources
  • News
  • About Us
  • Request a Demo
  • Search
  • Menu Menu
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

News

Benchmarks Regulation: Data Integrity, Validation and Auditable Processes

The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) earlier this month published a consultation paper outlining technical standards relating to its Benchmarks Regulation, which governs the way indices and other benchmarks are calculated. The consultation is open until the 9th of May, at which point ESMA will consider feedback and expects to publish a final report by the 1st of October 2020.

The technical standards cover five key areas of the regulation – Governance Arrangements, Methodology, Reporting of Infringements, Mandatory Administration and Non-Significant Benchmarks. From a data management perspective, the most significant provisions are contained in the Reporting of Infringements sections.

This section specifically relates to monitoring input data to detect potential market manipulation. However, such surveillance also ought to be consistent with validation checks required to ensure data accuracy. The Level 1 text of the Benchmarks Regulation states that administrators need controls that include “a process for validating input data, including against other indicators or data, to ensure its integrity and accuracy.” Such controls would lend themselves equally well to detect potential instances of manipulation.

Is Automation Necessary?

One of the questions being asked as part of the consultation is whether automated controls are necessary to monitor for data integrity. The current draft proposals state:

“Provided that the level of monitoring is appropriate for and proportionate to the nature, scale and complexity of the benchmark, administrators should not necessarily be required to have an automated system to detect potential manipulation. For complex and sophisticated activities an automated system for monitoring may seem necessary. Administrators should also be able to explain upon request why the level of automation chosen is appropriate in respect to their benchmark production.”

We would argue that some level of automation is always preferable. Fortunately, validation checks designed to detect market manipulation will be similar to processes designed to ensure data accuracy, so the same automated framework should be able to satisfy both requirements. An automated approach not only ensures that benchmark administrators can codify the way that they validate data, but also safeguards against manual errors in carrying out that process.

Combining Automation and Human Judgment

When it comes to monitoring the integrity of data inputs, it is interesting to note that ESMA has recommended “the most effective form of surveillance will likely be a combination of automated and human controls.”

We would agree entirely. Automation is ideal to systematically run multiple validation tests on a range of data inputs. Equally, those same tests can be applied to validate calculations from those inputs – the benchmark value itself. However, when tests flag potential anomalies, human judgment is required for further investigation.

For example, let’s assume I calculate a speculative grade corporate credit index. I run automated checks to validate data inputs (which could be either CDS or bond prices) to ensure the accuracy of my price sources. Some of those checks flag if an asset price has moved disproportionately relative to others of similar credit rating.

In the recent market environment, many such red flags are likely to have been raised. Systems can only alert when something is unusual. Human judgment is needed to determine whether there is a logical explanation for that anomaly. The price of bonds issued by airlines and hotel groups will have experienced unprecedented falls in recent weeks. But that is because their underlying business has been devastated.

We architect our systems and processes with this in mind. Typically, a set of rules are established to validate input data. Exceptions to those rules are generated for further investigation. Human operators can then investigate those exceptions and choose how to proceed.

Auditable Processes

Having auditable processes in place is another key requirement that we agree with. Within the Methodology section of the consultation paper, the technical guidance states:

“An audit trail of each calculation of the benchmark is required including the input data used and also the data that were not selected for a particular calculation. Further the reasoning behind such exclusion should be clearly stated. Indeed, this audit trail ensures that the benchmark is calculated in a consistent way.”

Again, this is how we would architect our systems – every process is captured and forms part of an audit trail that can be further analysed. This includes the data validation rules applied, the outcome of applying those rules (including any exceptions generated) and how exceptions were handled. Given that benchmarks can have a significant impact on the financial outcomes of contracts it is understandable why scrutiny exists over their calculation and data inputs. From a systems and controls perspective we would agree with the proposed standards, which help to codify best practice when it comes to validating data inputs and analytical processes.

Share this entry
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share by Mail
https://www.xenomorph.com/wp-content/uploads/benchmarks.jpg 628 1200 Jean-Paul Carbonnier https://www.xenomorph.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/logo-xeno.png Jean-Paul Carbonnier2020-04-06 10:12:002020-04-03 16:33:55Benchmarks Regulation: Data Integrity, Validation and Auditable Processes

Categories

  • Blog Post
  • Events
  • Press Release

Archives

About Xenomorph

Xenomorph provides trusted data management solutions to many of the world’s leading financial institutions.

With more than two decades’ experience managing large volumes of complex data and analytics we can quickly configure a solution for your requirements.

Xenomorph London

4th Floor
10 Lloyd’s Avenue
London EC3N 3AJ
UK

+44 (0)20 7614 8600

info@xenomorph.com

map

Xenomorph New York

45 Rockefeller Plaza, FL 20
New York
NY 10111
USA

+1-212-401-7894

info@xenomorph.com

map


Xenomorph Boston

53 State Street
Suite 500
Boston, MA 02109
USA

+1-617-465-2050

info@xenomorph.com

map

© Xenomorph Software Ltd 2022 - Privacy policy | Anti-Bribery Policy
Scroll to top
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. If you continue to use the site we will assume your consent. ACCEPTRead More
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are as essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
SAVE & ACCEPT