Welcome to Finextra. We use cookies to help us to deliver our services. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you may change your preferences at our Cookie Centre.
Please read our Privacy Policy.

Accept
Channels
Profile
Location
London
Member since
2009
Andrew Chilcott

Andrew Chilcott

Systems Integration Consultant at stpsolutions
Message Message me Posts: 0 Comments: 8
Bio Owner and principal consultant at stpsolutions. Systems Integration Consultant primarily concerned with the efficient movement of electronic data from one end of the information pipe line the other, passing through many different organisations and systems on the way. Career History Trained as a Chartered Accountant and became a partner in a City firm. Moved into the Securities industry in 1980's moving more and more towards the system side of the business. Heavily involved in the initial implementations of networked PC's to deliver market data into stockbroking offices. Direct

Andrew is Commenting on

Monzo gears up for current accounts after receiving full banking license

  Do we have to have the US spelling of "licence".

06 Apr 2017 Reply Read article

Can you trust Corporate Actions notifications?

  Chris I agree entirely with your analysis as I too spent a great deal of time dealing with corporate action notifications. However, a digital notary is not the answer as this does not get to the root of the problem. A whole industry has grown up to cleanse and golden copy the data (usually structured theses days either ISO15922 or ISO20022) but has never sorted out the root cause problem. This is that the Issuers (or rather the PIPS) publish this data as raw text without structure. The problems arise downstream when a myriad of intermediaries such as data providers, custodians and sub-custodians introduce transcription errors when keying the raw data into a structured format. These the get exponentially magnified as each of them sends out notifications to their clients. The LSE which still accounts for some 70% of corporate action notifications provides its issuers with a template to publish the notice. Why has this template not been amended so that issuer input would produce structured output. Together with Gary, I have been banging on about this for the past decade, but still no action. The regulators, in the form of the UK Listing Authority, should mandate that every public company must issue all regulatory news in a structured format. In the US they have grasped this and the DTCC now mandates that all corporate notifications are published in XBRL format (in conjunction with SWIFT and XBRL-US) so the technology is there it just needs the will to do it. I demonstrated this in action nearly ten years ago and found then, probably as now, that the people who understand the problem and its consequences have little or no clout when it comes to allocating budgets and getting consensus for industry-wide initiatives. Unfortunately, corporate actions come a long way down the pecking order when other more high-profile projects are considered

08 Jun 2015 Reply Read article

In wake of latest meltdown, RBS boss admits decades of IT neglect

  This is not a cash versus electronic payment argument as most cash is obtained electronically, it is a problem of having a single point of failure - a card. If you had more than one card in your wallet, you would be inconvenienced but not incapable of paying. So, if the new electronic wallets are trying to get us to put all our card details in a single place they are introducing a potential single point of failure. I will always retain multiple methods of payment, whether it be cash or card.

04 Dec 2013 Reply Read article

ISO publishes LEI standard

  The creation of a federated LEI database that is accessible by all will be a welcome result of this initiative. Initially populating such a database will take some time but is quite achievable given that the national bodies may well be able to link this to existing identifiers issued to registered legal entities. But that is the easy bit. Maintaining the quality of that data in near to real-time poses a huge problem which, if not addressed, will cause the global financial community to believe that they are correctly reporting counterparty risk because it complies with the LEI database, when in fact the risk is incorrectly stated because the underlying data in the federated LEI database is out of date. As an example, a global bank headquartered in the US agrees to sell off a division of its business with subsidiaries in multiple jurisdictions and some SPV's in exotic locations. Although there will no doubt be a regulatory announcement that the listed global bank has completed the deal, there will be no exact detail of which legal entities are part of the deal. Until all of the changes to legal ownership are registered in the LEI database, every counterparty who deals with with one of the subsidiaries or SPV's will be incorrectly aggregating their counterparty risk to the wrong ultimate holding company. The financial intermediaries who are responsible for the actual transfer of legal title need to be required to submit a change record to the LEI database. This would need to be in a structured format that be used as an automated update to the LEI database that would then get synchonised globally across the federation. How do you identify who should have responsibility for these timely updates and do you enforce this?

01 Jun 2012 Reply Read article