IOSCO published final report on the guidance to help IOSCO members address potential conflicts of interest and associated conduct risks that market intermediaries may face during the debt capital raising process. These market intermediaries are typically banks, broker-dealers, or other types of corporate finance firms. The guidance also seeks to address specific concerns observed by certain regulators during the COVID-19 crisis that may affect the integrity of the capital raising process. Finally, the report explores the potential benefits and risks of blockchain technology in addressing conflicts of interest in the debt capital raising process.
The report describes the key stages of the debt raising process and identifies where the role of intermediaries might give rise to conflicts of interest. It also provides a detailed description of debt capital raising involving traditional corporate bonds, including the participants and the various stages of the process, in addition to providing an overview of the legal and regulatory framework in certain jurisdictions. The guidance is in the form of nine measures, with each measure designed to address one or more of the key risks. The consultation report (published in December 2019) on the guidance, which was published prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, had set out eight measures. However, the final report includes a ninth measure to address concerns that emerged from the COVID-19 crisis. It seeks to address the potentially problematic conduct of lenders that may opportunistically leverage their role during debt capital raising to pressure corporate clients into awarding them future mandates. Hence, the guidance now comprises nine measures grouped according to the four key aspects of the debt raising process—namely the guidance to address conflicts of interest in pricing, quality of available information, allocations, and preparations for raising debt finance. While the guidance focuses on traditional corporate bonds, it may prove useful to IOSCO members considering raising capital through other types of debt securities.
As part of its general approach to monitor the digital transformation of the financial industry, IOSCO has undertaken various strands of work on distributed ledger and blockchain technologies. To explore the benefits and potential risks of Blockchain in debt capital raisings, the relevant IOSCO Committee posed questions in its consultation report to gather public feedback on the potential of blockchain in reducing conflicts of interests in debt capital raisings. Annex 2 to the final report presents a summary of these responses. In general, respondents indicated that blockchain technology is still nascent and it is too early to provide any definitive conclusions on its potential for reducing conflicts of interests in debt capital raisings. Respondents also identified the potential benefits and risks of using blockchain technology to address conflicts of interest in debt capital raising process:
- The cited benefits included increased transparency in the capital raising process, simplification of the process and increased efficiency, reduction in cost and administrative burden, and confidential treatment of non-public information.
- The cited risks included operational and IT risk, smart contract risk and cyber considerations, liability risk (arising from failure to perform due assessment of potential legal liability), risks related to the integrity of the issuance process, and the irreversibility risk (making it difficult to identify and correct transaction errors).
Keywords: International, Banking, Securities, Conduct Risk, COVID-19, Credit Risk, Blockchain, Debt Capital, Governance, Conflicts of Interest, IOSCO
Leading economist; commercial real estate; performance forecasting, econometric infrastructure; data modeling; credit risk modeling; portfolio assessment; custom commercial real estate analysis; thought leader.
Previous ArticleUS Agencies Publish Technical Corrections to SA-CCR Rule
ESAs published the final draft implementing technical standards on reporting of intra-group transactions and risk concentration of financial conglomerates subject to the supplementary supervision in EU.
EBA published the annual report on asset encumbrance of banks in EU.
FED updated the reporting form and instructions for the FR Y-9C report on consolidated financial statements for holding companies.
EBA issued a consultation paper on the guidelines on monitoring of the threshold and other procedural aspects of the establishment of intermediate EU parent undertakings, or IPUs, as laid down in the Capital Requirements Directive.
EC published Regulation 2021/25 that addresses amendments related to the financial reporting consequences of replacement of the existing interest rate benchmarks with alternative reference rates.
BIS published a bulletin, or a note, that examines the cyber threat landscape in the context of the pandemic and discusses policies to reduce risks to financial stability.
HM Treasury, also known as HMT, has updated the table containing the list of the equivalence decisions that came into effect in UK at the end of the transition period of its withdrawal from EU.
EBA published an erratum for technical package on phase 1 of the reporting framework 3.0.
APRA updated a frequently asked question (FAQ), for authorized deposit-taking institutions, on the measurement of credit risk weighted assets.
ECB published a letter from Andrea Enria, the Chair of the Supervisory Board of ECB, answering questions raised by the President of the Bundestag (the German federal parliament) on how ECB assesses the financial stability of the euro area in the context of the significant level of nonperforming loans.