To see the digital version of this report, please click here
To purchase printed copies or a PDF of this report, please email leonie.welss@lseg.com
There are new features available.
View now.
Search
There are new features available.
View now.
Search
To see the digital version of this report, please click here
To purchase printed copies or a PDF of this report, please email leonie.welss@lseg.com
Barriers to automating or digitising workflow in primary bond markets are well known to anyone in the business, where the standing joke is that the biggest change over the past 30 years has been the introduction of email. Yet things are changing. Slowly. “There is progress. The challenge is that the process of launching a new bond consists of many different parts, and we’re seeing different players looking to address and automate some of the issues that arise during the different stages of that process,” said Gabriel Callsen, secretary to the International Capital Market Association’s FinTech Advisory Committee and the person leading ICMA's work on fintech in international debt capital markets. “It's fair to say that there isn't a single one-stop shop that automates the entire process.” It's also fair to say there are good reasons for that. “There are risks involved in raising capital by issuing debt – underwriting risks and legal risks, for instance,” said Maud Le Moine, head of SSA DCM at Goldman Sachs. “So even with automation, we still need to double-check manually. Right now, it's impossible to have a truly automated workflow.” Some aspects of the bond syndication process lend themselves better to automation than others: in particular, ensuring a transaction is processed as efficiently as possible and that data flow between different parties without the need for human intervention when entering or copying details into systems. They are the natural targets for a technology solution. “The primary markets work well already but there are radical improvements that can now be made all along the new issue process that will seamlessly flow into the post-trade/secondary phase and persist for the full life of the security,” said Charlie Berman, co-founder and CEO of agora digital capital markets, which is applying distributed ledger technology and smart contracts to create what he says is the world's first end-to-end digital platform for the full life cycle of bonds. “There are many areas where things could just be done so much better with the technologies that we and the key market stakeholders are developing. It's an incredibly exciting and pivotal period." Pain points The potential for technology to address the pain points in primary debt markets is attracting new providers with new ideas. The marketplace for solutions is getting busier. In January 2022, ICMA released the latest update of its primary markets technology directory. This shows that the number of services available to automate all or part of the process of issuing debt securities had increased by 10 to 45 between the fourth quarter of 2020 the fourth quarter of 2021, and had more than doubled since the directory was first launched in 2018. Some solutions have already gained a degree of traction, others are still at the development stage and there are those that could be in operation later this year. And while each product addresses an area of the new issue market worthy of resolution, the vision of a straight-through process comprising a series of applications bolted and patched together in Heath Robinson fashion raises issues of interoperability – and fatigue. “There are lots of good ideas out there,” said Sotiris Manderis, founder and CEO at finsmart, a provider of digital applications for primary capital markets. “But ideally, you’d want someone to own the process end to end. I’m sure that will happen at some point in the future, but we’re not there yet.” Adoption rate Multiple obstacles need to be overcome before the primary debt markets accept, wholesale, the benefits offered by automation – not least a general reticence at the best of times to adopt new technology. “The market is handicapped by a reliance on legacy systems,” said Mark Leahy, chief operating officer at Trumid XT, an electronic bond trading platfor
A year on from the UK officially leaving the EU, banks are preparing for greater upheaval as the European Central Bank begins to take an increasingly tough line towards banks moving more staff and infrastructure to the European Union. But nearly six years after the 2016 Brexit referendum – and after a huge amount of effort to position the banking industry for a brave new world – it is far from clear what is to come. “Brexit has just started. All banks were reasonably well prepared for the end of 2020 Brexit deadline but a lot of the work is still ongoing. The European project will continue to evolve over the next five to 10 years, with continued progress on banking union and capital markets union,” said Kristine Braden, Citigroup’s Europe cluster head. Perhaps what hasn’t happened is most obvious. The UK has not embarked on a buccaneering wave of deregulation; the EU has not grabbed a swathe of jobs and activity from the City. It’s all been much more subtle. But there have been changes. Because the EU refused to grant to the UK the equivalence it provides to most other financial centres, capital, people and products have shifted to other locations. London has lost its mantle as a global hub for derivatives trading, with trillions of dollars worth of derivatives trading leaving the City to head for EU venues but also to US swap execution facilities. US SEFs accounted for 42% of on-venue euro interest-rate swap volumes at the end of June, according to post-trade firm Osttra, up from 34% at the end of March and now rivalling EU venues as the top trading hub for such activity. The pain has not all been one way, however. The ending of equivalence has also damaged some EU banks by preventing them from taking a share of the significant amount of activity that remains in the UK. That’s because both UK and EU regulators require foreign banks to establish fully capitalised subsidiaries in their jurisdictions if they want to connect to local trading venues. Banks like BNP Paribas, Deutsche Bank and Societe Generale, which operate branches instead of subsidiaries, are now cut off from UK derivatives venues. One area where something like the status quo has survived is clearing. In November 2020, the European Commission extended the ability of European banks to use London’s clearing houses or central counterparties for derivatives until 2022. This was seen in some quarters as a reprieve for London but in reality it was also a move that was as much in the interests of the EU as the City. One senior banker said: “The EU is extending CCP equivalence in its own interests, but they’ve made it clear they want this to be temporary and they want a clear business transition. The question is whether the market will find a solution and get comfortable with clearing in EU venues.” Mairead McGuinness, European commissioner for financial stability, financial services and capital markets union, has warned that extension of equivalence “does not address our medium-term financial stability concerns. I also intend to come forward next year [2022] with measures to make EU-based CCPs more attractive to market participants.” Regulatory crackdown This approach is indicative of a more hardline stance from policymakers. After adopting a less robust approach during the coronavirus pandemic, in 2022 EU regulators are expected to clamp down and roll back many of the flexible cross-border arrangements that have persisted beyond Brexit. New rules in the form of the proposed Banking Package 2021 (Capital Requirements Directive VI) will accelerate divergence and require cross-border activities to be licensed, with one banker referring to it as “Brexit mark two”. CRD VI will lead to an unravelling of many of the cross-border permissions that have survived Brexit and allowed banks to maintain more of their operations in London, traditionally the international headquarters for mo
2021 looks set to go down in history as the year that the US and its financial industry finally got serious about environmental, social and governance finance. During president Joe Biden’s first week in office, the world’s biggest economy and second-biggest polluter rejoined the Paris Agreement and created and filled new posts for national climate adviser and US special presidential envoy for climate. The year carried on with the Federal Reserve, Treasury Department and Securities and Exchange Commission appointing senior officials with pro-ESG records and the president launching his cornerstone Build Back Better spending plans, including funds for things like electric vehicles. “The main argument for why ESG took off in 2021 is a combo of a change in Washington DC and Wall Street,” said Aniket Shah, global head of ESG and sustainable finance research at Jefferies. “There was a whole set of policy and regulation that started shifting the conversation on climate policy in the White House, on Capitol Hill and in places like the SEC.” The connection between ESG concerns and those of finance had never been made so clear at the federal level. This essential endorsement encouraged a US private sector whose desire to develop more robust disclosure regimes, better data collection practices and wider ESG awareness was often ignored by the previous White House. “The current administration is backing climate change,” said Marisa Drew, chief sustainability officer at Credit Suisse. “As soon as policymakers say things like, ‘We are going to invest in green infrastructure,’ or ‘We are going to put policies in place around electric vehicles', you’ve now just created enormous value in those sectors. And capital markets go where there’s going to be value creation.” One trillion dollars Signs of this shift showed throughout. EV trendsetter Tesla’s value reached US$1trn last year, more than twice the combined value of Ford Motor, General Motors and Stellantis (the 2021 merger of Fiat Chrysler and PSA). Novel ESG-flavoured IPOs from footwear maker Allbirds, oat drink maker Oatly and others tempted the equity markets for the first time. And previously unthinkable climate activist investor campaigns against corporate America’s biggest emitters notched important wins, aligning climate consciousness with return on capital. “You saw American companies like Tesla just really take off, companies that are making products in the climate space in particular,” said Shah. “Tesla hit a trillion-dollar market cap, larger than all the other US car companies put together. So investors really made money on climate and all of this was validated.” A vibrant bond market – though less flashy than its equity counterpart – underscored these changing tastes. Volume of ESG-labelled bonds in the US rose 64% year on year to US$236.7bn, Refinitiv data show, as bankers and executives responded to the signals from Washington and elsewhere. Dealmaking records were broken, and the bond market fanned out into relatively new structures. Unheard of just a few of years ago, sustainability-linked bonds became popular, with volume in the US totalling US$27.8bn in 2021 – compared with just US$2.2bn the previous year. Most notably, the emergence of the SLB helped usher in a new kind of ESG client. For the first time, companies from high-emitting sectors like transport, energy and mining were touting ESG credentials in front of investors. Spreading the word Whether any of these deals, with their emissions targets and step-up penalties, will help make a dent in the world’s environmental problems is anyone’s guess. Yet, if nothing else, they have helped spread the word about ESG in capital markets. “For me, the most important feat of sustainable finance was bringing awareness of ESG concerns to the private sector and beyond,&rdqu
The International Finance Corporation opened the Masala bond market in 2013 following severe stress in India’s capital markets as a result of concerns about the country’s budget deficit and the “taper tantrum” prompted by the US Federal Reserve’s announcement that it was reducing its quantitative easing programme. The ensuing capital flight spurred a nosedive of the rupee and, against a backdrop of panic, the IFC and the Indian government discussed measures to deepen rupee capital markets. The Masala market was one result. The received opinion at the time was that India had finally decided to internationalise the rupee, and that the Masala market would follow the example of China’s hugely successful Dim Sum bond market – which grew around 100-fold over a few years from its inception in 2007 as China internationalised the renminbi. Coupons and redemption on Masala bonds are received in the settlement currency and tied to the rupee exchange rate. A US$1bn offshore bond programme was duly established in October 2013 under which the IFC would issue rupees to offshore investors – with settlement in US dollars and pegged to the rupee/dollar exchange rate – and repatriate the funds to India for investment onshore, principally in infrastructure projects. The IFC subsequently issued Masala bonds at tenors of three, five, seven, 10 and 15 years, and the programme was increased to US$3bn in 2016. For Masala optimists the potential of the market was demonstrated that year through two events. First, the IFC brought the first green Masala bond to support a green bond issued by Yes Bank. Then it opened the Uridashi Masala market by tapping Japan’s retail investor base with all payments settled in yen, albeit in a diminutive US$4.3m-equivalent. That attraction also underpins complaints about the Masala market and indeed the other offshore domestic currency bond markets such as Dim Sum, and international Philippine peso bonds: that issuance represents essentially a call on the currency by the investor rather than a relative yield play. For investors who fully hedge the rupee exposure on Masala bonds, the return is lower than could be achieved through buying the same credit in the offshore US dollar bond markets, where liquidity is higher, with the cost of forward hedging estimated to be as much as 6%. Crimping development “The basic fact is that non-domestic investors who are looking at getting credit exposure to India prefer to obtain that in the dollar bond market or by investing in Indian government paper for reasons of liquidity. Masala bonds have demonstrated poor liquidity and that has crimped the development of the market,” said Sameer Gupta, head of Indian DCM at Deutsche Bank in Mumbai. As well as the IFC, the Asian Development Bank, Asia’s oldest multilateral development bank, has also been a pioneer, bringing its first Masala bond in 2014 – a Rs3bn two-year, or US$49.6m at the time – and has issued every year since with the exception of 2015 and 2018, extending its Masala curve steadily to four, five and 10 years. “None of ADB’s Masala bonds have been swapped out. We retain all the proceeds in rupees for our local currency loans and investments,” said Jonathan Grosvenor, assistant treasurer at the ADB in Manila. “This borrowing programme – Rs81.2bn to date – has been an enormous success story for ADB since it has catalysed important growth in our local currency lending, which results in more development assistance being delivered without currency risk.” Such assistance will be crucial to meeting India’s vast infrastructure needs in the coming years and as India’s economy emerges from the Covid-19 onslaught. Domestic capital alone will be insufficient to fund the 500GW of non-fossil fuel capacity targeted by 2030 – from the current 100GW – touted by prime minister Narendra Modi at
It’s all change at the Tokyo Stock Exchange, or at least it will be on April 4. But opinion is divided about whether the planned upheaval will do enough to inject new life into one of the duller corners of the world’s equity markets. Japan Exchange Group, which was formed in 2013 through the merger of Tokyo Stock Exchange and Osaka Securities Exchange, is to simplify the TSE, cutting the five market sectors to three. The current First, Second, and Mothers sections, and the two sub-sections of Jasdaq will be split into Prime, Standard and Growth. As part of the transition, JPX has tightened its listing requirements, established minimum levels of capitalisation, increased the number of tradeable shares, addressed cross-shareholding issues, tidied up the composition of the indices and enhanced the quality of corporate governance. Although the move has been almost universally welcomed, opinion is divided as to whether the changes go far enough to fundamentally change international investor perception of corporate Japan. Some think JPX has missed an opportunity to make a real difference, while others are more sanguine about the pace of change. “It's quite subjective. Some think it's not going to change anything, but I think it should be seen as another incremental step towards a better standard of corporate governance in Japan,” said Alex Lee, a global equities portfolio manager at Columbia Threadneedle Investments. What is widely accepted is that the structure of Japan’s cash equity market is ambiguous and needed rationalising. “As with anything in Japan, things tend to be quite slow in terms of reorganisation,” said Michael Wu, a senior equity analyst at Morningstar. “It has been a long wait for the boards to be restructured, something that should have happened a while ago. It will, at least, bring some clarity for companies and for investors.” Legacy boards The ambiguity stems from the merger of the two exchanges when TSE became the venue for cash equities and OSE the place for derivatives trading. “At the time of the merger, the respective stock exchange classifications were kept unchanged under the cash equity TSE umbrella, so that investors and listed companies would not be confused as to where they belonged,” said Ayla Wagatsuma, manager of the TSE. But the resulting five segments “became too much for investors as there was little difference between Jasdaq Growth and Mothers,” she said. There were also concerns that the market concept of the Second section, Mothers, and Jasdaq overlapped. It was important for JPX to clarify the areas of confusion not just for the sake of investors and companies, but also for the long-term revenue generation prospects of the exchange itself. “The primary objective of an exchange is to provide liquidity,” said Koichi Niwa, an analyst at Citigroup. “For that, it needs to attract enterprising, growing companies and it needs to provide a good trading platform. Liquidity is key to TSE as over 60% of its revenue comes from trading commissions and clearing fees.” Hold me back A review of the market’s classifications started in 2018 with a public consultation to discover concerns from investors and companies. The review determined there were insufficient incentives for listed companies to increase corporate value, and that Topix was not functioning as an efficient investment tool – the benchmark referenced all the companies listed on the First section, which at more than 2,000 was too many for effective engagement. A lack of liquidity in the underlying shares was also an obstacle to its value as a benchmark. “The implications of the review were so huge that the venue of discussion passed up to the Japan’s Financial Service Agency,” said Wagatsuma. “It came up with a final report in December 2019. And once we had the proposal, we started building the rules.” A
All websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.