IOSCO Consults on Transparency of Structured Finance Products
The International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) technical committee has published a consultation report ‘Transparency of Structured Finance
Products’. The report sets out a number of factors to be considered by market authorities when considering enhancing post-trade transparency of structured finance products in their respective jurisdictions.
The technical committee is seeking input from financial services practitioners, industry participants and other relevant stakeholders. The closing date for responses is 13 November 2009.
The report was prepared following the Subprime Task Force’s mandate in 2008 to the technical committee standing committee on the regulation of secondary markets to examine the viability of a secondary market reporting system for structured finance products (SFPs), with a particular focus on the nature of the market and its participants, as well as on the potential benefits and drawbacks of such a reporting regime. In preparing the report information was solicited from a variety of sources in the financial services industry across several jurisdictions.
Currently, a mandated post-trade transparency regime for SFPs does not exist in any member jurisdiction, although some pricing information on SFPs is available from a number of sources. While there are divergent views on the possible benefits and drawbacks of a post-trade transparency regime, the technical committee believes that greater information on traded prices of SFPs could be a valuable source of information for market participants. It therefore encourages each member jurisdiction to actively consider enhancing post-trade transparency in its own jurisdiction.
In seeking to develop an appropriate post-trade transparency regime for SFPs, member jurisdictions may wish to consider the following factors:
The technical committee believes that enhanced post-trade transparency should be provided in the most cost-effective way possible, while at the same time seeking to avoid a negative impact on efficiency and liquidity of markets. Moreover, it believes it may be appropriate in some jurisdictions to introduce post-trade transparency on a step-by-step or phased-in basis. Finally, each member jurisdiction is best placed to determine itself what constitutes an effective way of implementing a post-trade transparency regime for SFPs.