BNP Paribas Asset Management (“BNPP AM”) announces that BNP Paribas European Junior Infrastructure Debt Fund II (“Junior Infra Debt II”) has held a first close, with 280 million euros of commitments subscribed by 8 European and Asian institutional investors. This fund follows the advanced deployment of the first vintage of this junior infrastructure debt, which has invested more than €300 million in several dozen innovative European infrastructure projects. After the deployment of Junior I, this vehicle will apply the same financing policy and will support the energy transition, green mobility and digital infrastructure projects. The fund invests in sub investment grade infrastructure debt, in a diversified manner, with a preference for operational assets, offering regular coupons and attractive returns. It embeds an exhaustive ESG analysis and impact assessment in the investment process, in line with BNPP AM's investment strategy and sustainability approach. The fund invests in the main countries of continental Europe, where many projects supporting energy and digital transition exist. Junior Infra Debt II successfully achieved its first investment in August to support Enfinity Global Inc in the financing, development and construction of 1.5 GW of solar energy assets in Italy. This project is well-aligned with the fund's strategy to support companies engaged in helping the energy transition, and the renewable energy sector. The fund seeks to generate regular and stable long-term returns with a target size between €500 million and €750 million and a hard cap set at €1 billion. The weighted average maturity amount target is between 6 and 8 years. BNP Paribas European Junior Infrastructure Debt Fund II is classified according to the Article 8 to SFDR regulations and will integrate the environmental and social considerations during all the investment process with the support of BNPP AM’s Sustainability Centre. Karen Azoulay, Head of Infrastructure Debt at BNP Paribas Asset Management, comments: "Infrastructure debt is an asset class that has proven its resilience and ability to contribute to the ecological transition and digitalisation of the European economy. Debt Fund II is a vehicle that allows investors access to diverse portfolio opportunities and direct access to sub-investment grade infrastructure debt projects. Following the success of the first vintage, we are proud to continue this momentum with the development of our range with this second fund, which strengthens our positioning in the market." Stéphanie Passet and Vincent Guillaume, co-heads of infrastructure debt at BNPP AM comment: “Following the success of the fund Junior I, we are happy to announce the first closing of fund Infra Debt Junior II with a significant amount. This first step shows the increased interest of investors for the infrastructure debt and particularly in the strategy proposed by BNPP AM. The launch of this second vintage strengthens our presence in the junior infrastructure debt market and highlights our ability to support the energy and digital transition of the European economy through financing various infrastructure projects on a European scale.” The fund is managed by the Private Assets business unit at BNPP AM who, under the management of David Bouchoucha, has more than 100 professionals and more than 40 billion euros of assets under management and advice as of March 2024. It will rely on the strong origination capabilities of BNP Paribas Group as well as its diversified and integrated model.

The Financial Stability Board (FSB) Regional Consultative Group (RCG) for the Americas met on 7 and 8 October in Santiago. The meeting was hosted by the Central Bank of Chile and the Financial Market Commission. FSB Chair, Klaas Knot, joined RCG members for the meeting. On the first day, members took part in a workshop on macroprudential frameworks and discussed the interaction between micro and macroprudential policies and the institutional arrangements needed for their consistent and effective implementation. Members stressed the importance of coordination and collaboration between financial authorities to respond to financial risks in a holistic manner. On the second day, members discussed recent developments and shared their thoughts on vulnerabilities they were monitoring in their jurisdictions, including heightened volatility and asset repricing risks. Members exchanged views on potential implications of recent monetary easing on capital flows and exchange rates in the region. Severe weather events have increased in frequency and intensity in the Americas. The group discussed the availability and affordability of climate and natural catastrophe insurance in the region, and implications for financial stability. Members discussed their work to strengthen the reliability and comparability of climate-related financial disclosures and to incorporate climate-related risks into their supervisory frameworks. Digital innovation in payments has the potential to boost the provision of – and access to – finance in the region. Such innovation could help meet the goals of the G20’s Roadmap for cheaper, faster, more accessible and transparent cross-border payments, while maintaining their safety and security. Members notably discussed issues and developments related to open finance, fast payment systems, central bank digital currencies and crypto-assets, and challenges in fostering digital innovation in payments. Members noted the importance of the FSB’s work to promote greater alignment and interoperability in these frameworks within and across jurisdictions. Recent operational incidents, such as the CrowdStrike failure, illustrate the risks from financial institutions’ reliance on third-party providers. Members discussed their progress in implementing the FSB toolkit to help financial institutions to monitor, identify and manage risks arising from third-party services and work to strengthen their cyber resilience. Members acknowledged the FSB’s efforts in promoting greater convergence in cyber incident reporting and looked forward to participating in the upcoming consultation on a format for incident reporting exchange. Background The FSB RCG for the Americas is co-chaired by Kenneth Baker, Managing Director and CEO, British Virgin Islands Financial Services Commission, and Tiff Macklem, Governor of the Bank of Canada. Membership includes financial authorities from Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Bermuda, Bolivia, Brazil, British Virgin Islands, Canada, Cayman Islands, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, the United States of America and Uruguay. The International Monetary Fund also attended this meeting. The FSB has six Regional Consultative Groups, established under the FSB Charter, to bring together financial authorities from FSB member and non-member countries to exchange views on vulnerabilities affecting financial systems and on initiatives to promote financial stability.1 Typically, each Regional Consultative Group meets twice each year. The FSB coordinates at the international level the work of national financial authorities and international standard-setting bodies and develops and promotes the implementation of effective regulatory, supervisory, and other financial sector policies in the interest of financial stability. It brings together national authorities responsible for financial stability in 24 countries and jurisdictions, international financial institutions, sector-specific international groupings of regulators and supervisors, and committees of central bank experts. The FSB also conducts outreach with approximately 70 other jurisdictions through its six Regional Consultative Groups. The FSB is chaired by Klaas Knot, President of De Nederlandsche Bank. The FSB Secretariat is located in Basel, Switzerland and hosted by the Bank for International Settlements. The FSB Regional Consultative Groups cover the following regions: Americas, Asia, Commonwealth of Independent States, Europe, Middle East and North Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa. ↩︎ Related Information 18 June 2024 FSB Americas Group discusses risks associated with the sovereign-bank nexus and crypto-asset arrangements FSB holds meeting of its Regional Consultative Group for the Americas in the British Virgin Islands. Members of the FSB Regional Consultative Group for the Americas

Thank you, President Hicks and Tara Boehmler, for the kind introduction.1 Let me start by saying that I am saddened by the tragic loss of life, destruction, and damage resulting from Hurricane Helene in North Carolina, and throughout this region. My thoughts are with the people and communities affected, including those in the Davidson College family. For our part, the Federal Reserve and other federal and state financial regulatory agencies are working with banks and credit unions in the affected area to help make sure they can continue to meet the financial services needs of their communities. I am happy to be back at Davidson College. This is a special community. I am bound to it by a shared experience defined not by its length, but by its intensity. As I visited with you today, and as I look around this hall, I see the faces of colleagues who became dear friends during the COVID-19 pandemic. Back then, we spoke often about the unprecedented uncertainty we faced. Amidst that uncertainty, however, we supported each other on this campus. Now, looking back, we can attest that this mutual support was vital. I am grateful to have been amongst you during that unprecedented time. Today, I am proud to see that Davidson is stronger than ever. I am excited to be here with you this evening and to talk to you about the history of the Federal Reserve's discount window.2 The discount window is one of the tools the Fed uses to support the liquidity and stability of the banking system, and to implement monetary policy effectively. It was created in 1913 when the Fed was established. Today, more than 110 years later, this tool continues to play an important role. At the Fed, we always look for ways to improve our tools, including our discount window operations. Recently, the Fed published a request for information document to receive feedback from the public regarding operational aspects of the discount window and intraday credit.3 Today, I will do three things. First, I will discuss briefly my outlook for the U.S. economy. Second, I will offer my historical perspective on the discount window, starting in 1913 and ending in 2000. Finally, I will provide a few details about the request for information the Fed recently published. Tomorrow, I will say more about the discount window when I speak at the Charlotte Economics Club. Economic Outlook and Considerations for Monetary PolicyEconomic activity continues to grow at a solid pace. Inflation has eased substantially. The labor market has cooled from its formerly overheated state. As you can see in slide 3, personal consumption expenditures (PCE) prices rose 2.2 percent over the 12 months ending in August, well down from 6.5 percent two years earlier. Excluding the volatile food and energy categories, core PCE prices rose 2.7 percent, compared with 5.2 percent two years earlier. Our restrictive monetary policy stance played a role in restraining demand and in keeping longer-term inflation expectations well anchored, as reflected in a broad range of inflation surveys of households, businesses, and forecasters as well as measures from financial markets. Inflation is now much closer to the Federal Open Market Committee's (FOMC) 2 percent objective. I expect that we will continue to make progress toward that goal. While, overall, the economy continues to grow at a solid pace, the labor market has modestly cooled. Employers added an average of 186,000 jobs per month during July through September, a slower pace than seen early this year. A shown in slide 4, the unemployment rate now stands at 4.1 percent, up from 3.8 percent in September 2023. Meanwhile, job openings declined by about 4 million since their peak in March 2022. The good news is that the rise in unemployment has been limited and gradual, and the level of unemployment remains historically low. Even so, the cooling in the labor market is noticeable. Congress mandated the Fed to pursue maximum employment and price stability. The balance of risks to our two mandates has changed—as risks to inflation have diminished and risks to employment have risen, these risks have been brought roughly into balance. The FOMC has gained greater confidence that inflation is moving sustainably toward our 2 percent goal. To maintain the strength of the labor market, my FOMC colleagues and I recalibrated our policy stance last month, lowering our policy interest rate by 1/2 percentage point, as shown in slide 5. Looking ahead, I will carefully watch incoming data, the evolving outlook, and the balance of risks when considering additional adjustments to the federal funds target range, our primary tool for adjusting the stance of monetary policy. My approach to monetary policymaking is to make decisions meeting by meeting. As the economy evolves, I will continue to update my thinking about policy to best promote maximum employment and price stability. Discount Window History1913: The Fed was establishedNow, I will turn to my perspective on the history of the discount window. Understanding this history is important as we consider ways to ensure the discount window continues to serve effectively in its critical role of providing liquidity to the banking system as the economy and financial system evolve. Before the Federal Reserve was founded, the U.S. experienced frequent financial panics. One example is illustrated in slide 6 with a newspaper clipping from the Rocky Mountain Times printed on July 19, 1893. It depicts panic swirling against banks at a time when bank runs swept through midwestern and western cities such as Chicago, Denver, and Los Angeles. The illustration shows how waves of panic hit public confidence, the rocks in the picture, and how banks have a fortress mentality. They stand strong against the panic, but they are not lending, and they are isolated. Back then, the supply of money to the economy was inelastic in the short term, in part because the monetary system in the U.S. was based on the gold standard. Demand for cash, however, varied over the course of the year and was particularly strong during harvest season, when crops were brought to the market. The surge in demand for cash, combined with the inelastic supply of money in the short term, caused financial conditions to tighten seasonally. The banking system was fairly good at moving money to where it needed to go, but it had little scope to expand the total amount of money available in response to the U.S. economy's needs. So if a shock hit the economy when financial conditions were already tight, then the banking system struggled to provide the extra liquidity needed. Banks would seek to preserve liquidity by reducing their investments and denying loan requests, for example. Depositors, fearful that they might not be able to access their funds when they needed them, would rush to withdraw their money. Of course, that caused the banks to conserve further on liquidity. In some cases, they simply closed their doors until the storm passed. When banks closed their doors, economic activity would contract.4 Activity would recover when the banks reopened, but the economic suffering in the meantime was meaningful. In addition to the supply of money in the economy being inelastic in the short term, two prominent frictions, asymmetric information and externalities, made banks and private markets vulnerable to systemic crises. Here, asymmetric information refers to the fact that customers do not have access to all the information they need to evaluate whether a bank is insolvent, illiquid, or both.5 Therefore, customers rely on imperfect signals, such as news reports about another bank failing, to decide whether to withdraw their money from their own bank. Then there are externalities, in the sense that an individual bank may not consider how an innocent bystander may be negatively impacted by its actions. When a financial institution fails, that may lead depositors to withdraw money from other unrelated banks, which may in turn cause those banks to fail. Contagion can transform a single bank failure into a systemic crisis, where many banks fail, credit evaporates, the stock market collapses, the economy enters a recession, and the unemployment rate increases dramatically. The severe financial panic of 1907 stands out as an example of market failure due to these two prominent frictions. The panic was triggered by a series of bad banking decisions that led to a frenzy of withdrawals caused by asymmetric information and public distrust in the liquidity of the banking system.6 Banks in many large cities, including financial centers such as New York and Chicago, simply stopped sending payments outside of their communities. The resulting disruption in the payment system and to the flow of liquidity through the banking system led to a severe, though short-lived, economic contraction. This experience led Congress to pass the Federal Reserve Act in 1913.7 This act created the Federal Reserve System, composed of the Federal Reserve Board in Washington, D.C., and 12 Federal Reserve Banks across the country.8 In 1913, the main monetary policy tool at the Fed's disposal was the discount window. At that time, the Fed did not use open market operations—the buying and selling of government securities in the open market—to conduct monetary policy. Instead, the Fed adjusted the money supply by lending directly to banks that needed funds through the discount window. The Fed's ability to provide funds to banks as needed made the money supply of the U.S. more elastic and considerably reduced the seasonal volatility in interest rates.9 This ability also enabled the Fed to provide stability in times of stress, helping banks that experienced rapid withdrawals to satisfy their customers' demand for liquidity and thereby potentially preventing banking panics. 1920s: The Fed began to discourage strongly use of the discount windowIn fact, many researchers have argued that the existence of the Fed's discount window prevented a financial crisis in the early 1920s, when the banking sector came under pressure as the U.S. economy transitioned to a peacetime economy following the end of World War I.10 There had been an agricultural boom during the war and a significant accumulation of debt within that sector. Farmers came under pressure as the prices of agricultural goods dropped from wartime highs. The banks sought to support their customers, and the Fed sought to support the banks. There were serious concerns about the condition of several banks in parts of the country. The Fed's discount window lending provided critical support that saved many banks but also resulted in habitual use of the discount window by some banks during the 1920s.11 Slide 7 shows that as of August 1925, 593 member banks, 6 percent of the total, had been borrowing for a year or more from Federal Reserve Banks. Moreover, there were real solvency problems, and several banks failed with discount window loans outstanding. These challenges resulted in the Fed strongly discouraging banks from continuous borrowing from the discount window and the adoption of a policy of encouraging a "reluctance to borrow."12 By 1926, the Fed was explicit that borrowing at the discount window was meant to be short term. As I emphasize in slide 8, the Federal Reserve's annual report for 1926 stated that while continuous borrowing by a member bank may be necessary, depending on local economic conditions, "the funds of the Federal reserve banks are primarily intended to be used in meeting the seasonal and temporary requirements of members, and continuous borrowing by a member bank as a general practice would not be consistent with the intent of the Federal reserve act."13 The late 1920s also highlighted Fed concerns about the purpose of the borrowing. The Fed sought to distinguish between "speculative security loans" and loans for "legitimate business."14 A staff reappraisal of the discount mechanism stated that "[t]he controversy over direct pressure intensified in the latter part of the 1920s as an increasing flow of bank credit went into the stock market."15 In short, the Fed observed that some banks were becoming habitual borrowers from the discount window. It was concerned that an overreliance on discount window borrowings would weaken banks and make them more prone to failure. In the late 1920s, the Fed switched to open market operations as its primary tool for conducting monetary policy.16 That allowed the Fed to determine the aggregate amount of liquidity in the system and to rely on private financial markets to distribute it efficiently. The discount window would thus serve as a safety valve if there was a shock that caused conditions to tighten unexpectedly or if individual banks experienced idiosyncratic shocks or somehow lost access to interbank markets. The intention of this set-up was for banks to use the discount window to borrow from the Fed only occasionally. Ordinarily and predominantly, financial institutions were supposed to rely on private markets for their funding. This set-up was designed to limit moral hazard—the possibility that institutions take unnecessary risks when there is no market discipline. This is the key balancing act. The Fed needs to be a reliable backstop to prevent financial crises, but it also needs to minimize moral hazard that comes from always standing ready to provide support. 1930s–1940s: The Great Depression and WWIIDuring the Great Depression in the 1930s, the banking system experienced severe stress, including many bank runs. There are many reasons why the discount window was insufficient to address the problems in the banking system in the 1930s. I will highlight only two. First, many banks were insolvent rather than illiquid. Central bank lending is not a fundamental solution in those circumstances. When banks are insolvent, it is important to manage the closure in as orderly a manner as possible. The establishment of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in 1933 gave bank regulators increased ability to do that. Relatedly, the challenging experiences of lending to troubled banks in the 1920s likely made the Fed more reluctant to lend in circumstances in which solvency concerns were material. Second, the types of collateral that the Fed was initially able to accept when lending to banks were quite limited. In response, in the early 1930s Congress expanded the range of banking assets that could serve as collateral for discount window loans and added a variety of new Fed emergency lending authorities.17 These new lending authorities were used in the 1930s to help alleviate distress. Some were also used in the early 1940s as the Fed helped support the World War II mobilization effort. The period following the war was relatively calm. The role of the discount window shifted from addressing distress in the banking system to acting as a safety valve to manage tightness in money markets and support monetary policy operations. 1950–2000: Measures to discourage discount window borrowingIn March 1951, the U.S. Treasury and the Fed reached an agreement to separate government debt management from the conduct of monetary policy, thereby laying the foundation for the modern Fed.18 In the 1950s, the Fed set the interest rate on discount window loans above market rates. Thus, it served as an effective ceiling on the federal funds rate. The Fed continued to discourage extensive use of the discount window, but the relatively high interest rate also made its sustained use less attractive. In the 1960s, the Fed placed greater emphasis on open market operations to set its monetary policy stance. Concurrently, the Fed shifted to a policy of setting the interest rate on discount window loans below the market rates. Because the interest rate no longer deterred use of the window, the Fed turned increasingly to other measures, such as administrative pressures and moral suasion, to limit the frequency with which banks requested loans from the discount window. Indeed, between the late 1920s and the 1980s, the Fed adopted and amended numerous restrictions on discount window borrowing. Whenever discount window usage increased too much, the Fed tightened the restrictions to suppress borrowing. For example, in the 1950s, the Fed defined appropriate and inappropriate discount window borrowing. In particular, the Board's regulations in 1955 stated that "[u]nder ordinary conditions, the continuous use of Federal Reserve credit by a member bank over a considerable period of time is not regarded as appropriate" and provided more details on how Reserve Banks should evaluate the "purpose" of a credit request.19 By 1973, the Board had made additional changes to its regulations on discount window use and defined three distinct discount window programs: adjustment credit, intended to help depository institutions meet short-term liquidity needs; seasonal credit, intended to help small depository institutions manage liquidity needs that arise from seasonal swings in loans and deposits; and extended credit, intended to help depository institutions that have somewhat longer-term liquidity needs resulting from exceptional circumstances.20 Over time, the Board added provisions in its regulations requiring banks to exhaust other sources of funding before using discount window credit.21 In addition, in the early 1980s, the Fed levied a surcharge on frequent borrowings by large banks to augment the administrative restrictions.22 Despite these policies to discourage use of the discount window, slide 9 shows that discount window borrowing, adjusted for the size of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet, was notable in the 1970s and 1980s, suggesting that the discount window was an important marginal source of funding for banks during that period. That changed in the 1980s and early 1990s, when there were notable solvency problems in the banking industry. During this period, the discount window provided support to troubled institutions, while the FDIC sought to find merger partners or otherwise manage the failure of these institutions in an orderly manner. The discount window activity that took place while FDIC resolutions proceeded increased the association between use of the discount window and being a troubled institution.23 As a result, banks became more reluctant to borrow from the discount window. The greater reluctance to borrow from the discount window made it less effective, both as a monetary policy tool and as a crisis-fighting tool. That resulted in a series of efforts by the Fed in the early 2000s to change how the discount window operates. Tomorrow, I will discuss those efforts when I speak at the Charlotte Economics Club. A request for informationBefore closing, I'd like to return to where I began. Understanding the history of the discount window is important as we consider ways to ensure it continues to serve effectively in its critical role in providing liquidity to the banking system as the economy and financial system evolve. One way to ensure it continues to serve effectively is to collect feedback from the public. Slide 10 provides some touch points on the Board's request for information document. The request for information seeks feedback from the public on a range of operational practices for the discount window and intraday credit, including the collection of legal documents; the process for pledging and withdrawing collateral; the process for requesting, receiving and repaying discount window advances; the extension of intraday credit; and Reserve Bank communications practices. My colleagues and I are looking forward to this feedback to inform potential future enhancements to discount window operations. The period for responding to our request for information ends on December 9, 2024. Thank you to the event organizers and to the Davidson College community for the opportunity to discuss this important topic with you. It has been such a pleasure to be back on campus. ReferencesAnderson, Clay (1971). "Evolution of the Role and the Functioning of the Discount Mechanism," in Reappraisal of the Federal Reserve Discount Mechanism, vol. 1. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, pp. 133–65. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (1922). 8th Annual Report, 1921. Washington: Government Printing Office. ——— (1926). Federal Reserve Bulletin, vol. 12 (July). ——— (1927). 13th Annual Report, 1926. Washington: Government Printing Office. Carlson, Mark (forthcoming). The Young Fed: The Banking Crises of the 1920s and the Making of a Lender of Last Resort. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Clouse, James (1994). "Recent Developments in Discount Window Policy (PDF)," Federal Reserve Bulletin, vol. 80 (November), pp. 965–77. Goodhart, Charles A.E. (1988). The Evolution of Central Banks. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Gorton, Gary (1988). "Banking Panics and Business Cycles," Oxford Economic Papers, vol. 40 (December), pp. 751–81. Gorton, Gary, and Andrew Metrick (2013). "The Federal Reserve and Financial Regulation: The First Hundred Years," NBER Working Paper Series 19292. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research, August. Meltzer, Allan (2003). A History of the Federal Reserve, Volume 1: 1913–1951. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Miron, Jeffrey A. (1986). "Financial Panics, the Seasonality of the Nominal Interest Rate, and the Founding of the Fed," American Economic Review, vol. 76 (March), pp. 125–40. Meulendyke, Ann-Marie (1992). "Reserve Requirements and the Discount Window in Recent Decades (PDF)," Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Quarterly Review, vol. 17 (Autumn), pp. 25–43. Shull, Bernard (1971). "Report on Research Undertaken in Connection with a System Study," in Reappraisal of the Federal Reserve Discount Mechanism, vol. 1. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, pp. 27–77. Terrell, Ellen (2021). "United Copper, Wall Street, and the Panic of 1907," Library of Congress, Inside Adams: Science, Technology & Business (blog), March 9. Willis, Henry Parker (1923). The Federal Reserve System: Legislation, Organization and Operation. New York: The Ronald Press Company. 1. The views expressed here are my own and are not necessarily those of my colleagues on the Federal Reserve Board or the Federal Open Market Committee.  2. The discount window is a monetary policy facility where depository institutions can request to borrow money against collateral from the Fed. The term "window" originates with the now obsolete practice of sending a bank representative to a Reserve Bank physical teller window when a bank needed to borrow money. The term "discount" refers to how depository institutions borrow money on a discount basis—interest amount for the entire loan period (plus other charges, if any) is deducted from the principal at the time a loan is disbursed.  3. The Federal Reserve provides intraday credit to depository institutions to foster a safe and efficient payment system. For more information on intraday credit and the Board's Payment System Risk policy, see "Payment System Risk" on the Board's website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/psr_about.htm.  4. See, for example, Goodhart (1988). 5. Illiquidity is a short-term cash flow problem. An illiquid bank cannot pay its current obligations, such as deposit withdrawals, even though the value of the bank's assets exceeds the value of its liabilities. In other words, illiquidity means the bank does not currently have the resources to meet its current obligations. With a short-term loan, an illiquid bank would be able to pay its obligations. Insolvency is a long-term balance sheet problem. Total obligations of an insolvent bank are larger than its total assets. A short-term loan would not help an insolvent bank. Of course, evaluating the quality of a bank's loan book in real time to determine whether a bank is solvent can be extremely challenging during a crisis. In addition, in some cases, illiquidity caused by large deposit withdrawals can lead banks to sell assets at fire-sale prices that then impairs their solvency. Conversely, concerns about insolvency, even if unfounded, can lead to liquidity problems. In the bank run literature, the connections between liquidity and solvency are a key factor that gives rise to runs.  6. The panic of 1907 started in October 1907 when three brothers—F. Augustus Heinze, Otto Heinze, and Arthur P. Heinze—as well as Charles W. Morse attempted to manipulate the price of United Copper stock by purchasing a large number of shares of the company. Their plan failed, and the stock price of United Copper collapsed. The collapse led to depositor runs on banks and trust companies associated with the Heinzes and Morse. This included a run on the Knickerbocker Trust Company, whose president was connected to Morse. The Knickerbocker Trust Company failed, and the New York Stock Exchange fell nearly 50 percent from its peak of the previous year in the wake of the failure. See Terrell (2021).  7. To aid its thinking on reforming the monetary system, Congress established the National Monetary Commission. The landmark 24 volume report from the commission provides a rich review of the operations of central banks in other countries, a history of financial crises in the U.S., and an appraisal of the state of the contemporary banking system in the U.S. at the time.  8. See "History and Purpose of the Federal Reserve" on the St. Louis Fed's website at https://www.stlouisfed.org/in-plain-english/history-and-purpose-of-the-fed.  9. See Miron (1986).  10. See, for example, Gorton (1988). Willis (1923) and Board of Governors (1922) also suggest that the Fed prevented a crisis from happening in 1920.  11. See Carlson (forthcoming).  12. See Shull (1971, pp. 33–34).  13. See Board of Governors (1927, p. 4). In 1926, approximately one-third of all banks in the U.S. were member banks, holding about 60 percent of the total loans and investments for all banks; see Board of Governors (1926). Banks receiving charters from the federal government were required to become members of the Federal Reserve System while banks receiving charters from state governments had the option to become members. Discount window borrowing was originally limited to Federal Reserve System member banks. The Monetary Control Act of 1980 opened the window to all depository institutions.  14. See Gorton and Metrick (2013).  15. See Anderson (1971, p. 137). In the statement, "direct pressure" refers to the Fed policy of pressuring banks not to borrow from the window. Congress may have shared some of those concerns, as the Federal Reserve Act was amended in 1933 to include a passage in section 4 requiring Reserve Banks to be careful about speculative uses of the Federal Reserve credit.  16. Open market operations are the purchase or sale of securities (for example, U.S. Treasury bonds) in the open market by the Fed. In modern times, the short-term objective for open market operations is specified by the FOMC. For more information, please refer to "Open Market Operations" on the Board's website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/openmarket.htm.  17. There are several banking acts that do this, but especially the Banking Act of 1932, the Emergency Relief and Construction Act of 1932, and the Banking Act of 1935. Yet one more reason why the discount window was insufficient to address the problems of the banking system in the 1930s is that, during this period, nonmember banks did not have access to the discount window. These banks suffered the most during the Great Depression. The ability of nonmember banks to access the window only changed in 1980 with the Monetary Control Act.  18. After the U.S. entered World War II, the Federal Reserve supported efforts by the Treasury to hold down the cost of financing the war by establishing caps on interest rates on Treasury securities (see, for instance, Meltzer, 2003, Chapter 7). The cap pertaining to longer-term interest rates continued to be in place until the 1951 agreement.  19. See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Advances and Discounts by Federal Reserve Banks, 20 Fed. Reg. 261, 263 (PDF) (Jan. 12, 1955).  20. See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Extensions of Credit by Federal Reserve Banks, 38 Fed. Reg. 9065, 9076-9077 (PDF) (April 10, 1973).  21. By 1980, the Board's regulations stated that adjustment credit "generally is available only after reasonable alternative sources of funds, including credit from special industry lenders, such as Federal Home Loan Banks, the National Credit Union Administration's Central Liquidity Facility, and corporate central credit unions have been fully used"; seasonal credit was "available only if similar assistance is not available from other special industry lenders"; and other extended credit was available only "where similar assistance is not reasonably available from other sources, including special industry lenders"; see Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Extensions of Credit by Federal Reserve Banks, 45 Fed. Reg. 54009, 54009-54011 (PDF) (Aug. 14, 1980). See also Clouse (1994).  22. See Meulendyke (1992).  23. A congressional inquiry found that this lending likely increased losses to the deposit insurance funds at the time and led to limitations on the ability of the Federal Reserve to provide loans to troubled depository institutions as part of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991. 

Validus Risk Management (‘Validus’), a leading independent financial risk advisory and technology firm, has introduced ISDA Ops, a groundbreaking solution aimed at automating the calculation and monitoring of complex ISDA Additional Termination Events (ATEs) and Credit Support Annexes (CSA) Thresholds. The solution provides an intelligent and scalable approach to constructing ATE and CSA Threshold conditions. The new platform significantly enhances efficiency by simplifying the management of ISDA and CSA terms, offering a streamlined approach for handling counterparty and liquidity risks. The complexity of monitoring ATEs and CSA Thresholds has historically presented significant challenges for financial institutions. Using Validus’ proprietary technology, ISDA Ops was developed taking into consideration over 2,000 trading lines across more than 40 major counterparties, providing a monitoring platform, which allows users to analyse and test conditions using live and forecasted data. The tailor-made design of the Expression Builder provides complete flexibility, allowing full customisation and accommodating all possible terms. ISDA Ops empowers real-time proactive decision-making, enabling firms to manage collateral requirements and counterparty risk more effectively. Key benefits of ISDA Ops include: Automated Tracking and Calculation: ISDA Ops provides automatic calculation and tracking of ISDA ATEs and CSA Thresholds across all counterparties, ensuring seamless risk management. Real-Time Risk Management: Users can proactively make decisions in real time, significantly improving the management of counterparty and liquidity risks by identifying potential collateral calls early. Enhanced Reporting: The platform provides intelligent reporting tools that simplify the process of tracking and updating ISDA terms, boosting transparency. Scenario Analytics: With the ability to test conditions using both live and forecasted data, ISDA Ops enable users to simulate potential future scenarios and proactively address potential risks. Additionally, ISDA Ops integrates with Validus’ Horizon platform, including RiskView, a configurable hedging monitoring and reporting framework, TradeView, a front-office hedging platform, and PortfolioView, a portfolio-level risk management platform. The new features enable CSA Thresholds to be updated and monitored within RiskView, proactively identifying potential collateral calls, while PortfolioView data is integrated for condition testing. Alain Smith, Head of Client Engagement at Validus Risk Management, said: “Monitoring and managing ISDA ATEs and CSA Thresholds are crucial risk management functions but has historically proven a major challenge due to the scale and complexity of the task. ISDA Ops therefore represents a significant breakthrough for risk management teams – presenting a clear, consolidated view of the data and allowing users to identify breaches and model for future risks. Cutting-edge technology has made processing huge volumes of data possible, looking to the future our aim is to keep ISDA Ops at the forefront – deploying generative AI to deepen the capabilities of our game-changing solution.” Validus is scheduled to deliver further enhancements to ISDA Ops before the end of the year, using generative AI to efficiently parse complex language, scale the offering and drive faster data retrieval. The launch follows the announcement in June that Validus delivered several upgrades to TradeView, enabling automation pre-trade checks.

Worldline [Euronext: WLN], a global leader in payment services, and OPP (Online Payment Platform), a leading specialised payment provider for platforms and marketplaces, today announced the launch of their innovative Embedded Payments solution in Europe. This collaboration provides businesses with a suite of payment capabilities that are uniquely designed to address the complex needs of platforms and marketplaces. The new Embedded Payments solution combines OPP's specialized payment technology, built for platforms since its inception, with Worldline's extensive acquiring, acceptance expertise and POS capabilities. This integrated solution empowers platforms and marketplaces with essential features such as split payments, advanced escrow, and unique mediation handling, unlocking new revenue opportunities and user engagement. Embedded Payments is designed to meet the diverse needs of these platforms, providing a complete, turnkey solution that not only helps their users sign-up, sell, and get paid fast, but also manage this across multiple currencies. It supports all relevant payment methods and offers unparalleled local support capabilities, helping businesses navigate the complexities of serving their users across markets. Embedded Payments provides platforms and marketplaces with: A turnkey, one-stop-shop: Streamlining operations with integration support, and user-friendly interfaces. Strong business and consumer onboarding: Increasing trust for users and reducing fraud. Fully compliant EU and UK solutions: Ensuring adherence to regulatory standards. High quality level of support: Providing comprehensive assistance through first and second line support, automated mediation tools, and more. Fast and easy deployment: Getting platforms up and running quickly with an integrated Embedded Payments solution. As the market continues to evolve, Worldline and OPP are committed to driving the sector forward through a comprehensive payments offer, underpinned by exceptional local support. The Embedded Payments solution is now ready for rollout, with a focus on EU markets and ambitious plans for expansion into the UK and Switzerland, bolstered by the recent acquisition of the EMI license for the UK. Future developments on the roadmap include advancements such as Tap on Mobile and Point of Sale integrations, further enhancing the payment experience for users. Marc-Henri Desportes, Chief Executive Officer at Worldline, stated, “Our partnership with OPP reflects our commitment to innovation in payments. By combining OPP’s robust platform capabilities with our extensive acquiring expertise, we are delivering an Embedded Payments  solution that provides platforms and marketplaces a unique pathway to integrate and leverage new payment opportunities.” Richard Straver, Founder of OPP, remarked, “With this joint offering, we are setting a new benchmark in the payments landscape. Our approachability, combined with Worldline’s unrivalled footprint, allows us to provide a seamless and efficient experience for platforms and their sub-merchants. This solution not only facilitates transactions but also supports our clients with features like escrow and mediation, enhancing trust and security in every transaction.” Both companies are thrilled to unveil their cutting-edge Embedded Payments solution at the exclusive event " The New Embedded Payments. Designed for visionaries.", hosted at Worldline’s Innovation Experience Centre at the company's headquarters in Paris-La Défense and broadcasted online. This highly anticipated event will take place on the afternoon of 22 October 2024, offering a unique opportunity to explore the future of embedded payments for platforms and marketplaces.

Pirum, the trusted technology partner for securities finance automation and collateral management that has been at the heart of capital markets for over two decades, announced today that it has connected its exposure and collateral management solutions to BNP Paribas’ Securities Services business, a leading global custodian with USD 13.9 trillion in assets under custody, for the benefit of mutual clients.   As a result of the collaboration, mutual clients of BNP Paribas’ Securities Services business Triparty Collateral Services and Pirum now gain automated exposure and collateral management processing visibility, efficiency and transparency across their securities lending, repo and OTC derivative transactions.   Pirum, a best-in-breed securities finance and collateral management/optimisation platform, automates the management of the entire collateral lifecycle – from calculation and matching to submission and validation of collateral requirements and allocations. Pirum’s Exposure Management service enables clients to significantly reduce settlement fails and CSDR penalties, as well as collateralisation timeframes, whilst increasing operational efficiencies for all participants.  Frédéric Pascal, Head of Market and Financing Services, Securities Services, BNP Paribas, said: “The connection between Pirum and our Triparty Collateral Management platform is a major milestone in the development of our franchise. Our goal has always been to help clients deliver on their Securities Finance strategy while making the move to Triparty as easy as possible. With Pirum as a new partner, we are excited to be able to keep on delivering on that promise to our mutual clients.”  Rob Frost, Chief Product Officer at Pirum, said: “We are thrilled to go live with our valued and trusted partners at BNP Paribas’ Securities Services business. Connecting their Triparty platform to our collateral management and optimisation services represents a new and exciting chapter in our collaborative story, which was founded on a mutually held core principle of continuously seeking to improve the client experience. The move also helps to increase connectivity and liquidity across the French SBL, repo and OTC derivatives sectors, making this a win for the entire securities finance industry.” 

The Derivatives Service Bureau (DSB), the global golden source of reference data for OTC derivatives, today announced that the DSB’s Technology Advisory Committee (TAC) Charter is welcoming new applicants ahead of a new two (2) year term, with an application deadline of 23rd October. Established in 2018, the TAC provides advisory support to the DSB in recognition of required enhancements and adaptations to its technology base and services. Working alongside the DSB Product and Governance Advisory Committees, the TAC is responsible for the technical stewardship ensuring the DSB technology strategy is aligned with the needs of the markets it serves, including making recommendations to the DSB Board on technology-related DSB industry consultation topics.The TAC is composed of representatives from DSB user organisations, independent experts and regulatory observers within the wider OTC derivatives community and its remit includes matters relating to both the OTC International Securities Identification Number (ISIN) and the Unique Product Identifier (UPI) Services. The DSB invites applications from OTC-derivatives technology practitioners from across all jurisdictions and institutional types to contribute to DSB technical governance and development. During previous charter terms, the TAC has focused on the DSB’s resiliency, including the DSB’s disaster recovery arrangements. A key development is the addition of a second “as-production” UAT environment, introduced to assist users with regression testing of their own IT changes against the DSB. The TAC has also launched specialist subcommittees with the Global Agile Architecture subcommittee having recently overseen the migration of the DSB’s infrastructure to a globally distributed data repository covering multiple locations in Europe and North America. Andy Hughes, a member of the DSB Management Team and DDO of the TAC, said, “The collaboration with the TAC over the last charter term which helped shape UPI implementation and its integration into the OTC ISIN Service. This continued collaboration with the TAC members will be essential during this next charter term as the DSB expands into further global jurisdictional regions and adapts to changes in digital operations." Emma Kalliomaki, Managing Director of ANNA and the DSB added, “The TAC is instrumental in shaping the DSB technology roadmap. The technical expertise of the TAC continues to play a key part in the evolution of our services. The work of the DSB industry representation groups is highly valued and designed to ensure that all developments continue to best serve industry requirements.”

The Taiwan Futures Exchange (TAIFEX) saw strong growth in Q3 2024, with average daily volume (ADV) increasing 15.66% year-over-year (YoY) to 1,766,919 contracts, compared to the same period of last year. The primary drivers of the growth were futures contracts based on the TAIEX. The ADVs of Mini-TAIEX Futures (MTX) and TAIEX Futures (TX) notably jumped 50.4% and 25.8% YoY to 402,060 contracts and 185,911 contracts, respectively. The newly launched Micro TAIEX Futures (TMF) continued attracting market attention since its inception on July 29 this year, with an ADV rising to 140,723 contracts. Click here for full details.

Singapore Exchange (SGX Group) today released its market statistics for September 2024. Securities trading activity grew significantly as easing monetary policies and China’s stimulus package fuelled optimism and portfolio repositioning. With China’s economic outlook still driving regional volatility, SGX Group remained the venue of choice for market participants managing Asia exposures with unrivalled efficiency. Derivatives traded volume achieved single-day records over two consecutive days during the month, reaching as high as 3.46 million contracts across equities, foreign exchange (FX) and commodities on 25 September. Key highlights:                                     Significant growth in securities trading activity: Total market turnover value on SGX Securities jumped 75% year-on-year (y-o-y) in September to S$30.4 billion, while securities daily average value (SDAV) surged 67% y-o-y to S$1.45 billion – each measure at its highest since May 2022. For the July-to-September quarter, securities market turnover climbed 37% to S$86 billion from the same period last year, while SDAV increased 33% y-o-y to S$1.32 billion. During the month, Singapore’s stock market was the second most-actively traded in the region. The average securities net clearing fee for July-to-September was 2.54 basis points*.   STI outperforms most ASEAN peers: The benchmark Straits Times Index (STI) advanced 4.1% month-on-month (m-o-m) in September to 3,585.29, outperforming most ASEAN peers and bringing year-to-date gains to 10.6%. On 23 September, the STI recorded a 17-year peak, while the STI Total Return Index achieved an all-time high.    Record AUM for landmark climate action ETF: Assets under management (AUM) of the iShares MSCI Asia ex-Japan Climate Action ETF rose to US$556 million in September, the highest since the fund’s launch a year ago to catalyse sustainable investing in Asia. AUM of real-estate investment trust (REIT) ETFs surpassed S$1 billion for the first time on the back of strong third-quarter inflows alongside a rally in the Singapore REIT sector. Overall ETF turnover doubled y-o-y in September to S$445 million and was up 65% at S$1.18 billion for the July-to-September quarter, compared with the same period last year.   Derivatives activity accelerates across multiple asset classes: Derivatives traded volume climbed 34% y-o-y in September to 28.9 million contracts, while derivatives daily average volume (DAV) increased 35% y-o-y to 1.45 million contracts – each measure hitting the highest in four-and-a-half years. Growth was across asset classes, with equity index futures volume up 37% y-o-y, FX futures volume up 35% y-o-y and commodity derivatives volume up 29% y-o-y. For the July-to-September quarter, derivatives volume gained 17% to 77 million contracts from the same period last year, while DAV rose 16% y-o-y to 1.2 million contracts. The average net fee per contract for equity, currency and commodity derivatives for July-to-September was S$1.33*.   Preferred venue for managing China exposures: Open interest (OI) in SGX FTSE A50 Index Futures, the flagship SGX Equity Derivatives contract, rose to new high of 1.24 million contracts on 26 September. Momentum continued post-expiration, reaching a month-end notional record of US$17 billion. DAV for the contract – the world’s most liquid international futures for Chinese equities – climbed to a four-year high of 552,651 lots or US$6.8 billion notional, marked by a 128% m-o-m increase in overnight T+1 volume. For the July-to-September quarter, A50 futures volume gained 14% to 24.4 million contracts compared with the preceding three-month period.   Record FX Futures and OTC FX volume growth: DAV of SGX USD/CNH FX Futures – the world’s most widely traded international renminbi futures – rose to a notional high of US$17.4 billion or 174,372 lots in September. This was up 12% from the previous record in August, underscoring SGX FX’s position as the preferred venue for price discovery and risk hedging during periods of market turbulence. Total FX futures volume climbed 35% y-o-y in September to 5.5 million contracts, led by a 55% y-o-y increase in SGX INR/USD FX Futures volume. For the July-to-September quarter, total futures volume gained 37% to 15.9 million contracts compared with the same period last year. OTC FX average daily volume (ADV) rose 46% y-o-y in September to a record US$148 billion. For the July-to-September quarter, ADV climbed 51% y-o-y to US$142 billion.   Broad-based commodity gains lift volume to records: On SGX Commodities, total derivatives volume rose 29% y-o-y in September to a record 6.94 million contracts, with increases across SGX SICOM rubber and petrochemicals contracts, as well as iron ore – an instrument of choice for macro exposure – following China’s stimulus announcements. SGX SICOM rubber derivatives set a high of 421,113 lots, including a new single-day option volume high on 30 September, as TSR20 physical rubber prices advanced. Petrochemicals derivatives reached a record monthly average OI of 2.56 million metric tonnes, the highest in three years, driven by a growing base of participants. Iron ore derivatives also notched a single-day record volume of 597,467 lots on 30 September and a new monthly average OI high of 3,178,291 lots. For the July-to-September quarter, total commodity derivatives volume increased 23% y-o-y to 18.1 million contracts. The full market statistics report can be found here. *From FY2025, transaction-based expenses, i.e. processing and royalties, will be moved from expenses to be netted-off against revenue. Including the respective transaction-based expenses for a like-for-like comparison, the average securities net clearing fee was 2.46 basis points, and average net fee per contract for equity, currency and commodity derivatives was S$1.30, for the period July-to-September 2023 (1Q FY2024).

The latest reports for August 2024 are now available. Additional information on Financial Data for FCMs market reports: Historical FCMs Reports

Derivatives have an important role to play in the development of economies and financial markets in emerging jurisdictions. Financial regulation, in turn, is a critical element in shaping the safe, efficient use and growth of risk management activity in these countries. One of the most important elements of the financial regulatory framework for derivatives is margining: the exchange of collateral, or margin, for derivatives transactions. This paper explains what margining is, how it works and the key issues for policymakers in emerging market and developing economies (EMDEs) to consider when transposing margin-related regulation to their jurisdictions, with a particular focus on non-cleared derivatives. Click on the PDF below to read the full report. Documents (1)for Derivatives, Margining and Risk in Emerging Market and Developing Economies  Derivatives, Margining and Risk in Emerging Market and Developing Economies(pdf)

Speaker: Ashley Alder, FCA ChairEvent: International Capital Markets ConferenceDelivered: 8 October 2024 Highlights: Opportunities unique to market-based finance explain why we delivered the most significant reforms of the UK’s public equity markets in a generation. Our review of the financial advice and guidance boundary aims to unlock innovation so people can get the support that suits their financial needs. We will continue to collaborate as we seek a common goal: capital markets that deliver the returns people need, and the investment that growth requires. Introduction Whether in London, in Brussels, Hong Kong or New York, the same discussion is underway: how do we maximise the ability of sustainable, vibrant capital markets to drive greater volumes of investment into the real economy? That question – asked by policymakers and industry alike – is why we brought you all here today and I want to thank all the speakers who have made this conference such a success. I know that many of you, like me, have had whole careers dedicated to capital markets during an era where globalisation drove a remarkable surge of cross-border investment flows.   UK equity markets reforms I started my career as one of a vast number of very junior lawyers who worked on the UK’s gas, water, electricity and telecoms privatisations of the '80s, amid the huge changes brought about by the financial services 'big bang'. For the last 30 years, I’ve been involved in the astounding development of China’s international equity and bond markets. And not long ago I led the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), which is the global regulatory standard setter for securities markets. I have seen first-hand how capital markets can work well. How they can drive business – with factories built, shops opened, goods delivered, people employed; how they can support long-term risk taking to deliver more secure retirements for millions of people; and how they can spur wider economic growth. I’ve also seen how market fragmentation and de-globalisation can stall cross-border capital formation. But it's the opportunities that are unique to market-based finance which explain why the FCA has just delivered the most significant reforms of the UK’s public equity markets in a generation. These reforms are already having an impact, ensuring that more businesses can get into the shop window. But the harder task is to more effectively mobilise the domestic savings necessary to grow these businesses. When we talk about listings regimes, stamp duty, accounting rules, or even initial public offerings (IPO’s), those outside this room could be forgiven for thinking we’re speaking in a foreign language, switching off as a result, unsure how any of it matters to them. So, we need to make a case for it to matter to a far wider section of the population.   Wider inclusion In the US, stock market performance routinely features in political debate and retail participation is the norm. Total equity market capitalisation is around 55 trillion dollars, or 200% of GDP. On the other hand, three quarters of corporate financing in the EU is bank lending and, as we have heard, efforts to promote a capital markets union recognise the implications of this for the real economy. UK market capitalisation stands at around 3.2 trillion dollars, or 100% of GDP. But since the heady days of the 1980s, structural and other factors have fostered a low-to-no risk culture, which if left unaddressed, has clear implications for our ability to finance future economic growth. Back in Hong Kong, I saw a very different investment culture. One in which retail participation was far greater than here in the UK, and where people were much more aware of how the market works and the risks involved. In the UK, the proportion of householdsLink is external  directly owning stocks and shares has halved in 2 decades. According to New Financial, just 4.4% of UK pension funds assets are held in domestic equities. That has a huge opportunity cost for capital hungry businesses, and for the wider economy. It creates a gap for individuals, too. Barclays reportsLink is external that 13 million UK adults are missing out by holding £430 billion in cash savings which could be put to more productive use. So, we are looking to address this. Advice Guidance Boundary Review Our Review with the Government of the boundary between regulated financial advice and guidance is incredibly technical. Unpicking the interplay between our own rules, domestic legislation and consolidated EU law is hard.   But its aim is simple: unlocking innovation so people can get the support that suits their financial needs, in easy-to-access ways, at prices they can afford, so they have the confidence to make the most of their money.   And, in doing this, we boost growth: for personal finances, for those seeking investment, and for the UK as a whole. Value for Money Framework This goal also underpins our Framework, developed jointly with Government and The Pensions Regulator, on value for money for workplace pension savers. This seeks to ensure the £130 billion a year saved into these schemes works harder for people. A focus on value rather than costs should help providers invest in assets that deliver greater long-term returns. Through these and a raft of other initiatives, we are looking to shift our national view of risk. Today has shown that many others around the world are grappling with similar issues. We’re looking forward to continued collaboration with colleagues, both domestic and global, as we seek a common goal: capital markets that deliver the returns people need, and the investment that growth requires.   Thank you.

CanDeal DNA, the premier source for Canadian OTC fixed income and derivatives pricing, is partnering with LSEG Data & Analytics to distribute CanDeal DNA Consensus OIS and Swap Rates. CanDeal DNA Consensus OIS and Swap Rates are expected to become key reference rates for the market due to quality and consistency of coverage with inputs provided by, and consensus derived from, CanDeal’s partner banks and dealers. CanDeal DNA works closely with industry stakeholders to provide data and solutions to support the Canadian market and global market participants. This product innovation is an extension of CanDeal’s collaborative efforts with the Bank of Canada and the Canadian Alternative Reference Rate Working Group (CARR) as the market transitions away from CDOR to the new Term CORRA benchmark. CanDeal DNA publishes statistics and analysis resulting from the transition to Term CORRA in our CanDeal Observations bulletin available at candeal.com. The CanDeal Consensus CAD OIS (CORRA) Rates product is designed to provide market transparency in the OIS swap curve for out to two years, while the CanDeal Consensus CAD Swap (CORRA) Rates product provides rates from two to 30 years. Each rate represents the market rate for the fixed leg of a swap where the floating leg references the Canadian Overnight Repo Rate Average (CORRA). CanDeal DNA Consensus OIS and Swap Rates will be available via LSEG Data & Analytics under a global free-trial period until January 1, 2025. Thereafter, the products will become fee liable. “CanDeal is the premier service for Canadian fixed income and interest rate derivatives data. This extension of our partnership will enable our clients to derive additional value through access to the Consensus OIS and Swap Rates,” said Debbie Lawrence, Group Head of Data Strategy and Management at LSEG. “The cessation of the CDOR benchmark has been a turning point for the financial industry,” said Andre Craig, President of CanDeal DNA, a division of CanDeal Group, a leading provider of an electronic marketplace and data services for Canadian dollar debt securities and derivatives. “In addition to collaborating with CanDeal Benchmark Solutions and market stakeholders to launch the forward-looking Term CORRA benchmark this past year, we are honored to continue to partner with the industry and with LSEG Data & Analytics to introduce the Consensus OIS and Swap Curves and provide deeper transparency.” Alongside their award-winning Reference Pricing Service, CanDeal DNA provides intraday and real-time pricing for Canadian fixed income securities, advanced and regulatory analytics, security master, and curves solutions.

Nigerian Exchange Group Plc (NGX Group) has lauded the German Government and its development finance institution, Deutsche Investitions- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft (DEG), a subsidiary of KfW Bank, for their unwavering commitment to advancing impact investing in Nigeria. This comes as NGX Group looks to strengthen partnerships aimed at fostering sustainable development, with a focus on climate action.The Group Managing Director/CEO of NGX Group, Mr. Temi Popoola, made these remarks during the DEG Impact Investing Dialogue held on Tuesday, 8 October 2024, in Lagos. He acknowledged the vital role that DEG has played in deepening sustainable finance in Nigeria and bolstering confidence in the country’s economy. "DEG, along with its counterparts in the German private sector, has demonstrated steadfast dedication to Nigeria, not only by maintaining their investments but also by expanding them through local financial institutions”.Mr. Popoola also elaborated on the initiative between NGX Group and DEG to establish a framework for data sharing and aggregation related to carbon emissions and Nigeria's broader green transition. He added that the initiative seeks to bring together corporate organisations across the country, enhancing transparency while guiding them on sustainable transition pathways aligned with globally recognised standards. "Our joint efforts will not only increase corporate transparency but also ensure compliance with global sustainability standards, positioning Nigeria as a leader in sustainable finance across Africa," Popoola noted.    

WHAT: Commissioner Christy Goldsmith Romero will receive the Pioneer Award from the Asian Pacific American Bar Association (APABA) of Washington, D.C. at the Annual Gala. WHEN: Tuesday, October 15, 20246:00pm (EDT) WHERE: Intercontinental D.C. at the Wharf801 Wharf Street, SWWashington, D.C. 20024Additional information: APABA-DC - 2024 Gala

FIA today announced the 10 startups chosen to exhibit in the 2024 Innovators Pavilion, FIA's annual showcase for fintech startups relevant to derivatives trading and clearing. The Pavilion happens during FIA’s Futures and Options Expo, which brings together traders, brokers and other market professionals from a wide range of firms in the derivatives industry. The conference takes place 18-20 November in Chicago. "Innovation is key to the continued success of cleared derivatives markets. And it’s incumbent upon us – in the industry – to identify the challenges we face and encourage entrepreneurs to help us tackle them," said Walt Lukken, FIA president and chief executive officer. "This year, we have 10 outstanding startups in our Innovators Pavilion. I look forward to their pitches and helping them connect with potential partners and customers at the FIA Expo."The 10 startups were selected by an independent committee of industry experts drawn from FIA member firms. The startups were chosen based on the innovativeness of their products and services and their relevance to firms active in the global futures, options and swaps markets. This year's class of Innovators are:  Abaxx - Commodity futures exchange AnthologyAI - Consumer data analytics ClearToken - Independent clearinghouse for digital assets Grão Direto - Trading platform and market data for grains IMX Health - Futures based on healthcare claims data Membrane Labs - Software for crypto lending, derivatives, collateral Percent - Access to the private credit market Theia Analytics - Quantitative governance and regulatory risk analytics Tradewell Technologies - Trading technology to simplify and automate electronic trading of corporate bonds Vorticity - Value at Risk calculation engine “These 10 startups offer a variety of new approaches to technology, trading, data and analytics. Their solutions can help firms in our industry access new markets, manage risk more efficiently, and further automate their trading processes," said Will Acworth, FIA’s senior vice president of data, publications and research. “On behalf of FIA, I want to thank the selection committee for taking the time to sift through the applications and choose the 10 companies that offer the most exciting potential for Expo attendees."This year's selection committee included experts from Barclays, Chicago Trading Company, CME Ventures, DRW Venture Capital, GH Financials, IMC Financial Markets, Optiver, and Two Sigma.As the leading trade association for the listed and cleared derivatives markets, FIA has worked for decades to promote innovation in the trading and clearing of derivatives. The annual Innovators Pavilion has become a core element of FIA's commitment to accelerate the adoption of fintech solutions in these markets.Each year FIA invites a select group of fintech startups to showcase their solutions for the derivatives industry at the FIA Expo, the industry's largest trade show. Since the first Innovators Pavilion in 2015, more than 150 startups from around the world have participated in the event.The companies in this year's Innovators Pavilion will receive a free booth on the trade show floor and the opportunity to demonstrate their innovations to conference attendees. Each company also will pitch its solutions directly to attendees at Expo, including senior executives from exchanges, clearinghouses, banks, brokers and trading firms.At the conclusion of the Expo conference, FIA will announce the winner of the Innovator of the Year award. A group of judges drawn from representative segments of the derivatives industry will determine the winner. FIA also will announce the winner of the People's Choice award, determined by votes cast by Expo attendees.Last year the winners were ClearDox as the FIA Innovator of the Year, CodeComplete AI as runner-up, and Cumulus9 as the People's Choice award winner. 

Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (NYSE:ICE), a leading global provider of technology and data, today announced the launch of a multi-asset class climate transition risk solution, which provides emissions estimates and portfolio analytics across various fixed income asset classes, covering Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions for municipal bonds, mortgage-backed securities (MBS), and real estate. This new solution, combined with ICE’s existing coverage of sovereign, corporate equity, and private companies, can enable clients to assess and benchmark their financed emissions across a comprehensive range of fixed income asset classes in one integrated offering. ICE’s new multi-asset class transition risk solution addresses gaps in emissions data by covering underserved sub-asset classes, such as RMBS, CMBS, and private corporates. By integrating this data, ICE can provide a unified portfolio metric that tracks financed emissions across multiple asset classes, supporting climate risk reporting, ensuring a holistic portfolio coverage from a physical and transition risk standpoint. “Our clients increasingly need quality transition risk data for underserved segments, particularly mortgage-backed securities, where we have applied physics-based simulations with building energy models and ICE’s data to provide emissions insights for RMBS and CMBS,” said Larry Lawrence, Head of ICE Climate. “Mortgages and mortgage securities can represent more than 20 percent of bank balance sheets, leading to a growing need for data to help meet regulatory disclosure and support stress testing to inform decision-making.” ICE’s multi-asset class transition risk solution provides PCAF-aligned (Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials) financed emissions data, encompassing over 110 million US properties and more than 4.2 million fixed income securities globally. With this solution, clients can leverage advanced portfolio analytics to evaluate total emissions across multi-asset class portfolios, assisting clients in transition risk strategies. ICE’s methodologies, customized for each asset class, provide comprehensive emissions tracking, including Scope 1, 2, and 3 estimates, as well as carbon intensity metrics, essential to meet climate regulatory reporting requirements. This new solution is part of the company’s climate data offering, which provides data and analytics that help quantify investment impacts posed by transition risks as well as physical climate risks, such as extreme weather events. For more information, visit https://www.ice.com/fixed-income-data-services/ice-climate-data-analytics.

Fiserv, Inc. (NYSE: FI), a leading global provider of payments and financial services technology solutions, will announce its third quarter financial results before the market opens on Tuesday, October 22, 2024. The company will discuss the results in a live webcast at 7 a.m. CT on October 22. The webcast, along with supplemental financial information, can be accessed on the investor relations section of the Fiserv website at investors.fiserv.com. A replay will be available approximately one hour after the conclusion of the live webcast.

The Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation (GLEIF) today announces that E-Arbitrator (Website) has been approved as the latest Validation Agent within the Global Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) System. E-Arbitrator becomes the first Validation Agent of Bloomberg Finance LP (Website), a GLEIFaccredited LEI Issuer and a wholly owned subsidiary of Bloomberg LP.  E-Arbitrator is an enterprise legal risk management platform for businesses and organizations involved in complex legal transactions and cross-border trade. As a Validation Agent, E-Arbitrator will facilitate LEI issuance for contract management as well as dispute resolution case management across key African markets, including Rwanda, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Ghana, Nigeria, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Egypt, and South Africa. This service is integral to E-Arbitrator’s onboarding and KYC management processes, ensuring that LEIs are provided at the onset of disputes and seamlessly integrated into due diligence and contract life cycle management. This initiative is central to E-Arbitrator’s strategy for enhancing KYC processes and mitigating legal risk. As a global, open identity standard, the LEI plays a critical role in enhancing transparency, ensuring accurate party identification, and supporting effective risk mitigation and due diligence both before and after dispute resolution. E-Arbitrator also manages LEI renewals, ensuring the arbitration process incorporates up-to-date and validated global identities—a cornerstone of trust in digital transactions.  Angelo Kweli, CEO at E-Arbitrator, comments: “The LEI links to a global repository of validated business data, enhancing transparency in contract and dispute resolution processes. By facilitating LEI issuance, we simplify due diligence for all parties involved. Additionally, the globally recognized LEI can be applied by our clients to a wide range of high-risk commercial contracts and transactions—such as insurance policies, supplier agreements, construction contracts, and other agreements—where the potential for disputes is significant.” E-Arbitrator has offices in Kigali, Rwanda, and Los Angeles, USA, providing legal risk management solutions, including contract management, KYC processes, and online Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) tools. The platform is used by arbitrators, arbitral institutions, and in-house legal counsel in over 45 countries Worldwide. Alexandre Kech, CEO at GLEIF, comments: "The LEI is a uniquely powerful proposition for bringing transparency to online platforms. By becoming a Validation Agent, E-Arbitrator  is leading in offering clients a trusted identity credential that streamlines digital verification processes."  Broader use of the LEI in cross-border dispute settlements can save parties valuable time and money. While Alternative Dispute Resolution services can efficiently enable parties to settle disputes, cross-border commercial disputes are complicated by different legal frameworks and identification schemes for legal entities.  The LEI addresses this challenge by offering businesses a single, universally recognized form of identification, which also confirms their legal standing and contractually binding authority. Utilizing the LEI and verifiable LEI (vLEI) significantly enhances counterparty verification processes, promoting safer cross-border transactions and addressing many of the underlying risks that lead to disputes. If dispute resolution is required, the use of the LEI to verify the identities of all involved parties ensures the accuracy of settlement agreements and final resolutions.  Steve Meizanis, global head of symbology, FIGI and LEI services at Bloomberg, comments: "Validation Agents play an integral role in facilitating LEI issuance, supporting international efforts to bolster trust and transparency in cross-border exchanges of goods and data." E-Arbitrator joins a growing international network of Validation Agents that supports legal entities and LEI issuers across Africa, Australasia, China, Europe, India, the Middle East, and North America. For more information on the Validation Agent Framework, visit the GLEIF website.  

Invest Hong Kong (InvestHK) today (October 8) unveiled details of Hong Kong FinTech Week 2024 (HKFW). The ninth edition of HKFW, themed "Illuminating New Pathways in Fintech" will take place from October 28 to November 1. This flagship event stands at the forefront of the global fintech evolvement. Aligned with Hong Kong's vision, the aim is to steer the future of financial services and beyond. The largest and most influential gathering of international leaders in finance and technology As the city's premier fintech gathering, HKFW is organised by the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau and InvestHK, in collaboration with the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA), the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC), and the Insurance Authority (IA). The event is expected to draw over 30 000 attendees from more than 100 economies. With hundreds of distinguished speakers and numerous sponsors and exhibitors, the main conference taking place between October 28 and 29 at Hong Kong AsiaWorld-Expo promises to be a convergence of global expertise and cutting-edge fintech innovations. HKFW draws votes of confidence from both the Mainland and international companies and markets. The event this year will feature an unprecedented number of Mainland Chinese big tech companies showcasing their latest innovations, as well as notable speakers and delegates from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Middle East, which solidifies Hong Kong's multifaceted business connections and landscape. The Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury, Mr Christopher Hui, said, "With its strategic location and robust financial infrastructure, Hong Kong emerges as a 'super connector' and 'super value-adder' for fintech. Hong Kong is primed to lead the transformative journey to uncover the pathways to opportunities. Our city is ranked third in the latest Global Financial Centres Index and first in the Asia Pacific Region. In terms of fintech, Hong Kong rose five places to ninth, putting it among the top 10 fintech hubs globally. This reflects the concerted efforts of the Government, financial regulators, and industry players to promote fintech development in Hong Kong." Mr Hui added that through various initiatives aimed at attracting and retaining strategic companies and talent, Hong Kong is ready for positive results from the FinTech Week, and the event this year will pave the way for connected, efficient, and sustainable global economic growth from fintech offerings. Exploring tomorrow's solution today With Hong Kong now ranking among the top three global financial centres and top 10 fintech centres globally, HKFW 2024 is poised to be a vibrant hub of ideas, innovations, and global collaborations, reinforcing Hong Kong's institutional advantages and abilities for breakthroughs in innovative financial services and leading market innovation. This year, HKFW places a significant emphasis on cutting-edge technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI). Recent surveys reveal that 38 per cent of finance executives in Hong Kong have initiated the incorporation of generative AI, marking the highest rate among all surveyed markets and notably surpassing the global average of 26 per cent. The main conference will feature eight themed forums on the latest technologies and cross-industry connections. These forums include the Global Forum, AI & Advanced Tech Forum, Blockchain & Digital Assets Forum, Payments & Other FinTech Forum, InsurTech Forum, Green FinTech & Impact Forum, WealthTech & InvestTech Forum, and Hong Kong Connect Forum, offering participants a comprehensive view of the ever-evolving fintech landscape. The stages and zones will also be designed in the Chinese wisdom of "wuxing" and "yinyang". A series of engaging community events will take place throughout the week, running from October 28 to November 1 in Hong Kong and Shenzhen. These events will include a tour of the Greater Bay Area, satellite and networking events, lifestyle activities and workshops and the inaugural Web3x3 basketball game. The Director-General of Investment Promotion of InvestHK, Ms Alpha Lau, said, "As a leading international financial centre, fintech has always been an important pillar of the Hong Kong economy. Last year, Hong Kong climbed to the top 10 in the United Nations’ Global Frontier Technologies Readiness Index. This readiness to embrace technologies like blockchain and AI is essential to ensuring the long-term competitiveness of our financial services industry. We will continue to promote Hong Kong's strengths in financial services, innovation and technology, and family offices. And our strategic focus will be on enhancing our promotion drive in key markets, including ASEAN and the Middle East. Hong Kong FinTech Week will be an important platform to turn these foci areas into action. It is an engine to drive businesses to Hong Kong, as well as create bridges for our city's fintech ecosystem to capture global opportunities." This year, semi-finalists of the Global Fast Track will be invited to Hong Kong to pitch in person on stage during HKFW, with the grand finale taking place on the second day. This is an unparalleled opportunity for qualified fintech innovators to showcase their profile in front of thousands of audience members, key corporates and investors looking for fintech solutions and investment opportunities. This year, the programme received an overwhelming response, with over 500 applications from 56 economies worldwide. List of esteemed speakers at the main conference from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government and regulators: The Financial Secretary, Mr Paul Chan; The Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury, Mr Christopher Hui; The Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, Mr Algernon Yau; The Chief Executive of the HKMA, Mr Eddie Yue; The Chief Executive Officer of the IA, Mr Clement Cheung; The Executive Director (Intermediaries) of the SFC, Dr Eric Yip; The Under Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury, Mr Joseph Chan; The Under Secretary for Innovation, Technology and Industry, Ms Lillian Cheong; The Director-General of Investment Promotion of InvestHK, Ms Alpha Lau; and The Deputy Director-General of Office for Attracting Strategic Enterprises, Dr Jimmy Chiang. Mainland Government and regulators: The Director of the Local Financial Management Bureau of Shenzhen Municipality, Mr Shi Weigan; and The Director-General of the Guangzhou Municipal Local Finance Administration Bureau, Mr Fu Xiaochu. Industry leaders: Highlighted speakers in the tech space: The Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Xiaomi Corporation, Mr Alain Lam; The Founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Linklogis, Mr Charles Song; The Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Ant Group, Mr Eric Jing; The Corporate Vice President, Head of Tencent Financial Technology of Tencent, Mr Forest Lin; and The Managing Director and General Manager, Sales and Operations of Google Hong Kong, Mr Michael Yue. Highlighted speakers in the AI and advanced technologies space: The Founder and Chief Executive Officer of 4Paradigm, Mr Dai Wenyuan; The Founder of 3Cap Investment, Ms Esther Wong; The Chief Executive Officer of Fosun Capital, Mr Mike Xu; The Co-founder of SenseTime, Mr Xu Bing; and The Chief Executive Officer of Du Xiaoman Technology, Mr Zhu Guang. Highlighted speakers in the blockchain space: The Co-founder and Chief Executive Officer of R3, Mr David E. Rutter; The Co-Founder, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of Circle, Mr Jeremy Allaire; The President of Solana Foundation, Ms Lily Liu; The Chief Executive Officer of Bullish, Mr Tom Farley; and The Co-founder of Chainlink; Mr Sergey Nazarov. Highlighted speakers in the insurtech space: The Chief Executive Officer of AIA Hong Kong and Macau, Mr Alger Fung; The Chief Executive Officer of Sun Life Hong Kong , Mr Clement Lam; The Chief Executive Officer of Zurich Insurance (Hong Kong), Mr Eric Hui; The Chief Executive Officer of AXA, Greater China, Ms Sally Wan; and The Founder, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of Waterdrop Inc, Mr Shen Peng. Highlighted speakers in the payment space: The Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Aspire, Mr Andrea Baronchelli; The Chief Executive Officer of PayMe, HSBC, Mr Brad Jones; The President and Chief Executive Officer of GCash/Mynt, Ms Martha Sazon; The Global Head of Coin Systems and Liink by JP Morgan, JP Morgan Chase Bank, Mr Naveen Mallela; and The Chief Executive Officer of GX Bank, Ms Pei Si Lai. Highlighted speakers in the financial space: The General Manager, Personal Digital Banking Product Department of Bank of China (Hong Kong), Mr Arnold Chow; The International President of Standard Chartered, Mr Benjamin Hung; The Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer of WeBank, Mr Henry Ma; The Chief Executive Officer, Hong Kong, of HSBC, Ms Luanne Lim; and The Head of Services of Citi, Mr Shahmir Khaliq. Highlighted speakers in the Venture Capital & Investing space: The Managing Partner of GCCVest Advisors Limited, Mr Ben Jelloun; The Managing Principal, Global Head of Capital Markets, Co-Chair of Alternative Investments of Gaw Capital Partners, Ms Christina Gaw; Partner of 5Y Capital, Mr Elwin Yuan; The Co-founder and Managing Partner of DST Global, Mr John Lindfors; and The Co-founder and Chairman of Gobi Partners, Mr Thomas G. Tsao. Finoverse is the appointed event organiser of HKFW 2024. For more information and the latest updates on speakers and livestream details, please visit www.fintechweek.hk/, or follow via official social media accounts: LinkedIn: Hong Kong Fintech Week; and YouTube: www.youtube.com/c/HongKongFinTechWeek.### Photo Captions: (High resolution photos are available for download here)