Securities Finance US Symposium
27 May 2025
Overlooking the iconic Boston harbour, experts and industry leaders came together for the third annual Securities Finance Symposium. Karl Loomes and Daniel Tison report
Image: Andrew Davis
The third annual Securities Finance US Symposium once again took place at the impressive State Room, a Longwood Venue, overlooking the misty Boston skyline as industry experts came together to network, and gain valuable insights from market leaders.
Discussions ranged from fostering and promoting innovation within the industry, to automation, blockchain and digital assets, all the way through to regulatory challenges and market trends.
The regulatory horizon for securities finance
In a relaxed discussion, moderator Ranada Fergerson, managing director and senior counsel, Global Securities Lending at Brown Brothers Harriman, made it clear there would be one main topic of discussion dominating conversation — the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) 10c-1a rule.
Tom Veneziano, head of North America product at Pirum, suggested the current timeline of January 2026 is tight, especially depending on how far along firms currently are. “It’s going to be a tight timeframe,” he noted, echoing concerns raised by fellow panellists.
Jonathan Lee, senior regulatory reporting specialist at Kaizen, went further: “Firms are never really ready,” he said, noting that getting the industry compliant by January 2026 may even be “pie in the sky”.
That said, Dean Bruyns, executive director at S&P Global Market Intelligence Cappitech, emphasised that most firms are preparing — though with one key caveat: “There’s only so much you can do before the details are confirmed.”
Lee also raised another major concern, warning that it could turn into a bureaucratic exercise, rather than a system that genuinely supports market function.
While Veneziano did highlight some recent amendments to the rule offering relief, he flagged the two major outstanding issues he currently identifies — extraterritoriality and the scope of securities that are reportable. Without clearer guidance from the SEC, he warned, some firms may wrongly consider themselves out of scope.
Given the makeup of the panel, and the audience, the question of who should take responsibility for reporting, was naturally raised.
In Europe, he noted, asset managers want their agent lenders to take responsibility, as with the Securities Financing Transactions Regulation (SFTR); however, in the US, this may not be an option.
Bruyns agreed: “There’s pressure on vendors, but most firms want to retain compliance control themselves.”
With many firms operating globally, the SEC’s reach over international players was another unresolved issue. As Bruyns succinctly put it: “Does the SEC really have authoritative power over banks in a faraway place?”
Speaking of the example of T+1 as a driver, Nancy Steiker, senior director, global securities finance product management at FIS, noted “the industry came together and said: ‘this is what we are going to do’.” That kind of collaboration, she said, will be essential again.
There may be other regulatory changes being talked about, but for now at least, the focus remains squarely on 10c-1a.
Self-reflection creates a culture of change
Automation is no longer optional but essential for competitive survival, industry experts agreed at the Securities Finance Symposium in Boston.
With artificial intelligence and automation being a hot topic across industries, experts from six firms sat together to discuss the benefits and challenges of these technologies.
The ‘Automation in Securities Finance: The Future is Now’ panel was moderated by Gavin Marcus, head of North America Sales at S&P Global Market Intelligence Cappitech, who started by asking each representative about how their respective companies have adopted AI.
Harsh Devpura, principal and product owner, Securities Finance at OCC, spoke about the organisation's technological transformation, noting they are "re-platforming” their clearing, risk, and data applications, while using cloud technologies to provide real-time data access.
Alvin Oh, global head of securities lending product at Wematch.live agreed that there are good use cases for AI, but emphasised the need for creativity, which can bring “secret recipes” for companies to be successful in this field.
From a vendor’s point of view, Mike Norwood, director and head of trading solutions at EquiLend, said: “For us, it’s about getting a framework in place that allows you to have centralised access to information, to consume data points that may help inform your internal AI models, and maybe, at some point, to look at a framework that allows you to weight different variables and control the levers about they way that you implement AI. We’re here as partners, facilitators, and enablers as our clients invest in AI.”
William J Pepe Jr, securities lending manager at Interactive Brokers Group, noted that the landscape has been changing over the past two years, with “tremendous competition” among fintech firms and vendors.
"Everybody's looking over their shoulders and seeing a number of really good vendors who have hired good people with excellent ideas and, most of all, introduced game-changing coding,” he said. “When you look over your shoulder, when you see somebody doing well or threatening your space, you tend to do better.”
Sharing this sentiment, Oh underscored a transformative moment in securities finance, where technology is not just an enhancement but a fundamental requirement for future success.
“This technology is not just nice to have anymore,” he said. “Going forward, you definitely need this to become a reality for firms who maintain their competitive edge to this point.”
Robert Zekraus, head of business development for global securities lending at GLMX, then added: “There are a lot of great things happening right now in the securities finance technology space, and we, as responsible parties in the financing ecosystem, have to just keep on finding better ways to do things in a smarter, more efficient, and automated way. And we can all agree that competition breeds innovation.”
Following this train of thought, Norwood noted that the industry is not making as much progress with these technologies as they would want to due to a fragmented environment.
“Multiple vendors popped up, but there’s no common language that allows all of these platforms to talk to each other, and there could be, but the industry really has to drive us in that direction,” said Norwood.
He added that how much is going to be driven by vendors and how much is going to be driven by the industry itself remains to be seen.
In terms of benefits, the panel agreed that AI and automation technologies can streamline operations, reduce errors, and enhance efficiency while helping firms stay competitive in a rapidly evolving market.
While one of the key advantages for Oh is cost saving, Norwood believes that automated transaction reporting is becoming more critical, especially with an increasing number of jurisdictions around the world implementing T+1.
However, Ross Levin, head of strategy at Trading Apps, argued that AI itself can also be “pretty dangerous”, recommending education on what the technology can do and its limitations.
“AI does hallucinate from time to time,” he said. “So when companies are looking into AI, they have to be very careful, especially when it's being used to make certain trading decisions, as opposed to programmed automation with predicted results.”
On that note, Zekraus emphasised the role of input data: “There’s a term that is overused, which is ‘garbage in, garbage out’. But at GLMX, we think ‘garbage in, garbage amplified’ is a better way to look at it, and in the same way, it can work as ‘really good amplified’.”
Norwood responded that AI is a tool, similarly to blockchain or DLT, so there are solutions that it can provide, but it’s not a “magic bullet”.
“We have a habit in capital markets, securities finance, and in general, to find a new buzzword and try to solve everything with that new thing,” he said. “But you have to have a flexible, real-time infrastructure that allows you to then embed and interact with other tools in a way that adds value, drives insights, and allows you to make better decisions.”
Devpura also stressed the importance of making new technologies compatible with companies’ disparate systems to ensure interoperability.
“What we’re trying to do with the new platforming is with a more flexible, modular system, with more organised data that can give real-time access to APIs and help our members and clients to make better decisions,” he explained.
Looking ahead, Pepe feels very optimistic: “Really good solutions are coming down the pipe rather quickly from many vendors, and I can see us in a better place, meaning the industry as a whole, in a very short amount of time.”
Oh summarised his thoughts as: “How do we do more with less? I think that people need to collaboratively seek good solutions that can help them fit the industry.”
Norwood then added: “You just need to think critically about your day-to-day and about ways that you can make improvements, and that self-reflection creates a culture of change by itself.”
Bridging the blockchain gap in securities finance
The ‘Blockchain, Digital Assets, and Growing Digitisation of Securities Finance’ panel at this year’s Securities Finance Times North America Symposium opened with a quip — moderator Steve Everett, chief commercial officer for CDS at TMX, hinted that the session’s title might evolve as quickly as the underlying technology.
Greg Wagner, former managing partner at Aeonic Digital Assets, summed up the sentiment surrounding digital assets in securities finance early in the discussion, noting with a laugh: “It’s like high school sex — everyone’s talking about it, but nobody’s doing it.”
Wagner argued that while securities finance is often slow to innovate, this time the delay is not entirely the industry’s fault. With strict capital constraints and regulatory pressure, securities finance faces a “higher mountain to climb” compared to other sectors. Traditional finance is not going away anytime soon, he noted, suggesting digital and traditional systems will need to work in parallel.
Dave Weisberger, co-founder, emeritus of CoinRoutes, echoed this view, but went further in his future predictions: “All assets will end up being tokenised, but it won’t be a big bang — just one slow move at a time.” The convergence of traditional and digital markets may be inevitable, but it will be a gradual process.
Joseph Spiro, product director at DTCC, offered some insight to where he saw this potential convergence coming from, highlighting central securities depositories (CSDs) as a natural collision point between digital and traditional finance.
Meanwhile, Sal Giglio, senior advisor at GLMX, emphasised the need for liquidity before the infrastructure truly takes off. “It’s existential,” he said. “Trillions of dollars a day are borrowed — no one can afford to mess this up.” After over a decade of development, he noted, only around 30 percent of the market has embraced repo trading technology.
The issue of transparency in the market is, perhaps, a double-edged sword. Though generally seen as an advantage — particularly by regulators — there is a downside. As Weisberger succinctly put it: “Firms don’t want their competitors seeing everything.”
Smart contracts — automated, self-executing agreements — were another area of debate. Wagner noted their inflexibility: “The good thing is smart contracts don’t take vacations. The bad thing is, they’re not negotiable.”
Giglio also picked up on this potential rigidity, asking: “When things go sideways, how flexible is the technology to handle that?” If things do go wrong, or are in some way out of the ordinary, the importance of a human being able to step in and amend trades is key.
Weisberger was keen to counter these points however, noting that standardised smart contracts would lead to both greater efficiency and reduced systematic risk.
Regulation, of course, as another area of discussion, Everett declared it “the elephant in the room” when it comes to speed of adoption, technology and capability.
Wagner stressed that the regulatory framework is out of sync with the assets themselves. “Until recently, banks had to treat digital assets as a liability on the balance sheet,” he noted, adding that while the Trump administration “has made some progress”, there are concerns this could be reversed when elections come around again.
The sentiment is positive, and the market seemingly eager, but as Spiro aptly put it, “it’s going to take a minute”.
New technologies drive collateral management evolution
From regulatory changes to technological innovations, a wide range of topics were discussed at ‘The future of collateral management and optimisation’ panel at the Securities Finance Symposium in Boston.
Moderated by Michael Newallo, president of InSecFi Corp, the discussion included the role of artificial intelligence in collateral management and cross-border mobilisation challenges.
In the beginning, tokenisation emerged as a key theme, with Amy Caruso, head of collateral initiatives at the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA), calling herself a “big fan”.
"Tokenising — whether it’s government securities, corporate securities, or equities — can reduce post-settlement issues like substitutions, dividends, and corporate actions," she explained.
Eileen Herlihy, managing director and global head of trading services at J.P. Morgan, brought a pragmatic perspective, cautioning about development costs while recognising digital opportunities.
"When assessing digital use cases, we have to be really meticulous about analysing the opportunity cost and weighing up the value-add and return on investment,“ she said, particularly highlighting sell side use cases as most scalable.
Following that train of thought, Steve Everett, chief commercial officer CDS at TMX, added: “There are a lot of lessons learnt when we speak about tokenisation and expanding asset classes that are used as collateral.”
The panel agreed that the collateral management industry is witnessing a significant transformation in triparty services, with market data suggesting triparty services are growing faster than traditional lending models.
As financial markets become increasingly complex, triparty services are emerging as a critical tool for institutions seeking operational efficiency, regulatory compliance, and strategic flexibility.
Everett spoke about his organisation’s experience of winning a new triparty in Canada, which was “eye-opening” to him.
“Before we went live on the triparty in Canada, there were very limited asset classes used and very chunky pieces of collateral,” said Everett. “And the first thing that we started to see as soon as we turned on non-long-box triparty in the Canadian market was this willingness to expand asset classes and to use little pieces that will collateral at the same time.”
Herlihy provided a global perspective on buyside adoption of triparty services, noting significant regional variances, with Australia “really embracing” the service while European adoption has been mixed.
“We are also increasingly focused on expanding in the Americas outside of the US and Canada,” she added. “For example, we're starting to see a lot more demand from hedge funds down in Latin America.”
Elsewhere, Herlihy highlighted the growing potential of the Middle East market from both a triparty and lending perspective.
“It’s a bit like a space race to ‘put the flag on the Moon’, so to speak,” she exclaimed. “We are focused on building the infrastructure and capabilities in the Middle East in alignment with the growth of the region to be able to service swelling balances and collateral.”
Ed Corral, head of collateral services at Pirum, described triparty's fundamental value as outsourcing collateral operations while maintaining critical asset flexibility.
“Triparty moves the collateral to where it needs to be, so it satisfies that collateral obligation, but the dealer still has access to that collateral, so it’s the best of both worlds,” he explained.
This approach allows firms to meet complex collateral obligations without sacrificing trading capabilities.
Caruso observed an increasing number of pension funds and insurance companies adopting triparty solutions, driven by regulatory requirements and operational efficiencies.
The panel also emphasised the technology's evolving nature, predicting continued improvements that will make triparty even more attractive.
A notable trend is the increasing adoption of triparty services by buy side firms, the speakers acknowledged, driven by operational efficiencies and regulatory requirements like the Uncleared Margin Rules (UMR).
Moving on to the next topic, Corral emphasised the potential of AI in collateral optimisation, suggesting it could "turbo charge" existing capabilities by adapting to complex, changing inputs.
The panel also addressed cross-border challenges, with Everett stressing the importance of trusted third parties in facilitating international transactions.
Shining a light on holistic collateral management, the panellists defined it as linking financing, derivatives, and cash execution in a comprehensive approach.
On that note, Ed Corral added: “It's all about data. You need to be able to see your full pool of inventory in real time, and you need to know all your collateral obligations.”
Everett then stated: "If you can make a capability for something relatively easy, that really helps with curiosity and the ability to productionise something, which has been our goal.”
Towards the end, Newallo referenced an old financial magazine he read with a headline ‘The future belongs to collateral management’, which seemed to bring the discussion full circle.
As a veteran in the field, Corral concluded: “When you started in collateral management 20-30 years ago, people felt bad for you.
“Now, when you say you're in a collateral management function, you’re ‘cool’. It’s a front office financing function. I think that says it all about the evolution of collateral."
Discussions ranged from fostering and promoting innovation within the industry, to automation, blockchain and digital assets, all the way through to regulatory challenges and market trends.
The regulatory horizon for securities finance
In a relaxed discussion, moderator Ranada Fergerson, managing director and senior counsel, Global Securities Lending at Brown Brothers Harriman, made it clear there would be one main topic of discussion dominating conversation — the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) 10c-1a rule.
Tom Veneziano, head of North America product at Pirum, suggested the current timeline of January 2026 is tight, especially depending on how far along firms currently are. “It’s going to be a tight timeframe,” he noted, echoing concerns raised by fellow panellists.
Jonathan Lee, senior regulatory reporting specialist at Kaizen, went further: “Firms are never really ready,” he said, noting that getting the industry compliant by January 2026 may even be “pie in the sky”.
That said, Dean Bruyns, executive director at S&P Global Market Intelligence Cappitech, emphasised that most firms are preparing — though with one key caveat: “There’s only so much you can do before the details are confirmed.”
Lee also raised another major concern, warning that it could turn into a bureaucratic exercise, rather than a system that genuinely supports market function.
While Veneziano did highlight some recent amendments to the rule offering relief, he flagged the two major outstanding issues he currently identifies — extraterritoriality and the scope of securities that are reportable. Without clearer guidance from the SEC, he warned, some firms may wrongly consider themselves out of scope.
Given the makeup of the panel, and the audience, the question of who should take responsibility for reporting, was naturally raised.
In Europe, he noted, asset managers want their agent lenders to take responsibility, as with the Securities Financing Transactions Regulation (SFTR); however, in the US, this may not be an option.
Bruyns agreed: “There’s pressure on vendors, but most firms want to retain compliance control themselves.”
With many firms operating globally, the SEC’s reach over international players was another unresolved issue. As Bruyns succinctly put it: “Does the SEC really have authoritative power over banks in a faraway place?”
Speaking of the example of T+1 as a driver, Nancy Steiker, senior director, global securities finance product management at FIS, noted “the industry came together and said: ‘this is what we are going to do’.” That kind of collaboration, she said, will be essential again.
There may be other regulatory changes being talked about, but for now at least, the focus remains squarely on 10c-1a.
Self-reflection creates a culture of change
Automation is no longer optional but essential for competitive survival, industry experts agreed at the Securities Finance Symposium in Boston.
With artificial intelligence and automation being a hot topic across industries, experts from six firms sat together to discuss the benefits and challenges of these technologies.
The ‘Automation in Securities Finance: The Future is Now’ panel was moderated by Gavin Marcus, head of North America Sales at S&P Global Market Intelligence Cappitech, who started by asking each representative about how their respective companies have adopted AI.
Harsh Devpura, principal and product owner, Securities Finance at OCC, spoke about the organisation's technological transformation, noting they are "re-platforming” their clearing, risk, and data applications, while using cloud technologies to provide real-time data access.
Alvin Oh, global head of securities lending product at Wematch.live agreed that there are good use cases for AI, but emphasised the need for creativity, which can bring “secret recipes” for companies to be successful in this field.
From a vendor’s point of view, Mike Norwood, director and head of trading solutions at EquiLend, said: “For us, it’s about getting a framework in place that allows you to have centralised access to information, to consume data points that may help inform your internal AI models, and maybe, at some point, to look at a framework that allows you to weight different variables and control the levers about they way that you implement AI. We’re here as partners, facilitators, and enablers as our clients invest in AI.”
William J Pepe Jr, securities lending manager at Interactive Brokers Group, noted that the landscape has been changing over the past two years, with “tremendous competition” among fintech firms and vendors.
"Everybody's looking over their shoulders and seeing a number of really good vendors who have hired good people with excellent ideas and, most of all, introduced game-changing coding,” he said. “When you look over your shoulder, when you see somebody doing well or threatening your space, you tend to do better.”
Sharing this sentiment, Oh underscored a transformative moment in securities finance, where technology is not just an enhancement but a fundamental requirement for future success.
“This technology is not just nice to have anymore,” he said. “Going forward, you definitely need this to become a reality for firms who maintain their competitive edge to this point.”
Robert Zekraus, head of business development for global securities lending at GLMX, then added: “There are a lot of great things happening right now in the securities finance technology space, and we, as responsible parties in the financing ecosystem, have to just keep on finding better ways to do things in a smarter, more efficient, and automated way. And we can all agree that competition breeds innovation.”
Following this train of thought, Norwood noted that the industry is not making as much progress with these technologies as they would want to due to a fragmented environment.
“Multiple vendors popped up, but there’s no common language that allows all of these platforms to talk to each other, and there could be, but the industry really has to drive us in that direction,” said Norwood.
He added that how much is going to be driven by vendors and how much is going to be driven by the industry itself remains to be seen.
In terms of benefits, the panel agreed that AI and automation technologies can streamline operations, reduce errors, and enhance efficiency while helping firms stay competitive in a rapidly evolving market.
While one of the key advantages for Oh is cost saving, Norwood believes that automated transaction reporting is becoming more critical, especially with an increasing number of jurisdictions around the world implementing T+1.
However, Ross Levin, head of strategy at Trading Apps, argued that AI itself can also be “pretty dangerous”, recommending education on what the technology can do and its limitations.
“AI does hallucinate from time to time,” he said. “So when companies are looking into AI, they have to be very careful, especially when it's being used to make certain trading decisions, as opposed to programmed automation with predicted results.”
On that note, Zekraus emphasised the role of input data: “There’s a term that is overused, which is ‘garbage in, garbage out’. But at GLMX, we think ‘garbage in, garbage amplified’ is a better way to look at it, and in the same way, it can work as ‘really good amplified’.”
Norwood responded that AI is a tool, similarly to blockchain or DLT, so there are solutions that it can provide, but it’s not a “magic bullet”.
“We have a habit in capital markets, securities finance, and in general, to find a new buzzword and try to solve everything with that new thing,” he said. “But you have to have a flexible, real-time infrastructure that allows you to then embed and interact with other tools in a way that adds value, drives insights, and allows you to make better decisions.”
Devpura also stressed the importance of making new technologies compatible with companies’ disparate systems to ensure interoperability.
“What we’re trying to do with the new platforming is with a more flexible, modular system, with more organised data that can give real-time access to APIs and help our members and clients to make better decisions,” he explained.
Looking ahead, Pepe feels very optimistic: “Really good solutions are coming down the pipe rather quickly from many vendors, and I can see us in a better place, meaning the industry as a whole, in a very short amount of time.”
Oh summarised his thoughts as: “How do we do more with less? I think that people need to collaboratively seek good solutions that can help them fit the industry.”
Norwood then added: “You just need to think critically about your day-to-day and about ways that you can make improvements, and that self-reflection creates a culture of change by itself.”
Bridging the blockchain gap in securities finance
The ‘Blockchain, Digital Assets, and Growing Digitisation of Securities Finance’ panel at this year’s Securities Finance Times North America Symposium opened with a quip — moderator Steve Everett, chief commercial officer for CDS at TMX, hinted that the session’s title might evolve as quickly as the underlying technology.
Greg Wagner, former managing partner at Aeonic Digital Assets, summed up the sentiment surrounding digital assets in securities finance early in the discussion, noting with a laugh: “It’s like high school sex — everyone’s talking about it, but nobody’s doing it.”
Wagner argued that while securities finance is often slow to innovate, this time the delay is not entirely the industry’s fault. With strict capital constraints and regulatory pressure, securities finance faces a “higher mountain to climb” compared to other sectors. Traditional finance is not going away anytime soon, he noted, suggesting digital and traditional systems will need to work in parallel.
Dave Weisberger, co-founder, emeritus of CoinRoutes, echoed this view, but went further in his future predictions: “All assets will end up being tokenised, but it won’t be a big bang — just one slow move at a time.” The convergence of traditional and digital markets may be inevitable, but it will be a gradual process.
Joseph Spiro, product director at DTCC, offered some insight to where he saw this potential convergence coming from, highlighting central securities depositories (CSDs) as a natural collision point between digital and traditional finance.
Meanwhile, Sal Giglio, senior advisor at GLMX, emphasised the need for liquidity before the infrastructure truly takes off. “It’s existential,” he said. “Trillions of dollars a day are borrowed — no one can afford to mess this up.” After over a decade of development, he noted, only around 30 percent of the market has embraced repo trading technology.
The issue of transparency in the market is, perhaps, a double-edged sword. Though generally seen as an advantage — particularly by regulators — there is a downside. As Weisberger succinctly put it: “Firms don’t want their competitors seeing everything.”
Smart contracts — automated, self-executing agreements — were another area of debate. Wagner noted their inflexibility: “The good thing is smart contracts don’t take vacations. The bad thing is, they’re not negotiable.”
Giglio also picked up on this potential rigidity, asking: “When things go sideways, how flexible is the technology to handle that?” If things do go wrong, or are in some way out of the ordinary, the importance of a human being able to step in and amend trades is key.
Weisberger was keen to counter these points however, noting that standardised smart contracts would lead to both greater efficiency and reduced systematic risk.
Regulation, of course, as another area of discussion, Everett declared it “the elephant in the room” when it comes to speed of adoption, technology and capability.
Wagner stressed that the regulatory framework is out of sync with the assets themselves. “Until recently, banks had to treat digital assets as a liability on the balance sheet,” he noted, adding that while the Trump administration “has made some progress”, there are concerns this could be reversed when elections come around again.
The sentiment is positive, and the market seemingly eager, but as Spiro aptly put it, “it’s going to take a minute”.
New technologies drive collateral management evolution
From regulatory changes to technological innovations, a wide range of topics were discussed at ‘The future of collateral management and optimisation’ panel at the Securities Finance Symposium in Boston.
Moderated by Michael Newallo, president of InSecFi Corp, the discussion included the role of artificial intelligence in collateral management and cross-border mobilisation challenges.
In the beginning, tokenisation emerged as a key theme, with Amy Caruso, head of collateral initiatives at the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA), calling herself a “big fan”.
"Tokenising — whether it’s government securities, corporate securities, or equities — can reduce post-settlement issues like substitutions, dividends, and corporate actions," she explained.
Eileen Herlihy, managing director and global head of trading services at J.P. Morgan, brought a pragmatic perspective, cautioning about development costs while recognising digital opportunities.
"When assessing digital use cases, we have to be really meticulous about analysing the opportunity cost and weighing up the value-add and return on investment,“ she said, particularly highlighting sell side use cases as most scalable.
Following that train of thought, Steve Everett, chief commercial officer CDS at TMX, added: “There are a lot of lessons learnt when we speak about tokenisation and expanding asset classes that are used as collateral.”
The panel agreed that the collateral management industry is witnessing a significant transformation in triparty services, with market data suggesting triparty services are growing faster than traditional lending models.
As financial markets become increasingly complex, triparty services are emerging as a critical tool for institutions seeking operational efficiency, regulatory compliance, and strategic flexibility.
Everett spoke about his organisation’s experience of winning a new triparty in Canada, which was “eye-opening” to him.
“Before we went live on the triparty in Canada, there were very limited asset classes used and very chunky pieces of collateral,” said Everett. “And the first thing that we started to see as soon as we turned on non-long-box triparty in the Canadian market was this willingness to expand asset classes and to use little pieces that will collateral at the same time.”
Herlihy provided a global perspective on buyside adoption of triparty services, noting significant regional variances, with Australia “really embracing” the service while European adoption has been mixed.
“We are also increasingly focused on expanding in the Americas outside of the US and Canada,” she added. “For example, we're starting to see a lot more demand from hedge funds down in Latin America.”
Elsewhere, Herlihy highlighted the growing potential of the Middle East market from both a triparty and lending perspective.
“It’s a bit like a space race to ‘put the flag on the Moon’, so to speak,” she exclaimed. “We are focused on building the infrastructure and capabilities in the Middle East in alignment with the growth of the region to be able to service swelling balances and collateral.”
Ed Corral, head of collateral services at Pirum, described triparty's fundamental value as outsourcing collateral operations while maintaining critical asset flexibility.
“Triparty moves the collateral to where it needs to be, so it satisfies that collateral obligation, but the dealer still has access to that collateral, so it’s the best of both worlds,” he explained.
This approach allows firms to meet complex collateral obligations without sacrificing trading capabilities.
Caruso observed an increasing number of pension funds and insurance companies adopting triparty solutions, driven by regulatory requirements and operational efficiencies.
The panel also emphasised the technology's evolving nature, predicting continued improvements that will make triparty even more attractive.
A notable trend is the increasing adoption of triparty services by buy side firms, the speakers acknowledged, driven by operational efficiencies and regulatory requirements like the Uncleared Margin Rules (UMR).
Moving on to the next topic, Corral emphasised the potential of AI in collateral optimisation, suggesting it could "turbo charge" existing capabilities by adapting to complex, changing inputs.
The panel also addressed cross-border challenges, with Everett stressing the importance of trusted third parties in facilitating international transactions.
Shining a light on holistic collateral management, the panellists defined it as linking financing, derivatives, and cash execution in a comprehensive approach.
On that note, Ed Corral added: “It's all about data. You need to be able to see your full pool of inventory in real time, and you need to know all your collateral obligations.”
Everett then stated: "If you can make a capability for something relatively easy, that really helps with curiosity and the ability to productionise something, which has been our goal.”
Towards the end, Newallo referenced an old financial magazine he read with a headline ‘The future belongs to collateral management’, which seemed to bring the discussion full circle.
As a veteran in the field, Corral concluded: “When you started in collateral management 20-30 years ago, people felt bad for you.
“Now, when you say you're in a collateral management function, you’re ‘cool’. It’s a front office financing function. I think that says it all about the evolution of collateral."
NO FEE, NO RISK
100% ON RETURNS If you invest in only one securities finance news source this year, make sure it is your free subscription to Securities Finance Times
100% ON RETURNS If you invest in only one securities finance news source this year, make sure it is your free subscription to Securities Finance Times
