Optimizing Syndicated Loan Settlement & Processes. Bhavik Katira, TenDelta Ellen Hefferan, LSTA

Transcription

1 Optimizing Syndicated Loan Settlement & Processes Bhavik Katira, TenDelta Ellen Hefferan, LSTA

2 Overview Operational challenges Heavy manual intervention Extended settlement periods Vision of the future Data consistency & process enhancements Communication infrastructure Change initiatives LSTA & FpML working groups Market identifiers Current status Practical next steps Page 2

3 Operational Challenges The Future Inconsistent communication , fax, telephone Limited standards are agent specific No delivery confirmation No recipient identification only fax number?! Future state Standardization Data Business processes We need governance Page 3

4 Vision of an E -Loan Market 3 rd Party Services Web Flat Files 3 rd Party Loan Market Messaging Providers Page 4

5 Defining the Problem Scope and priority Agent-lender: borrower events E.g. Interest, repayments, fees etc. Lender position management Maintaining current positions Counterparties-agent: trade settlement Deal/facility/contract reference data Golden source : Agent bank Focus on business process and data, not implementation Page 5

6 Scope Details Borrower requests a new loan Funded Utilization Drawdown Notice Rate Set Notice Unfunded Utilization L/C Issuance Notice On-Going Fees Utilization Fee Notice Phase 1: Basic loan Drawdown Interest payment Repayment Borrower makes interest payments Interest Payment Notice L/C Fee Notice Fees (on-going & one-off) Phase 2: Complex loan Borrower repays loan Borrower redraws loan Repayment Notice Breakage Fee (One-Off Fee) Drawdown Notice L/C Balance Change Notice L/C Balance Change Notice Facility Fee Notice Rollover Price change L/C Phase 3: Trading (not illustrated) Loan Rolls Over Rollover Notice L/C Fee Notice Trade settlement Pricing Changes Due to Credit Environment Price Change Notice L/C Cancellation Notice Commitment Fee Notice Lender reconciliation Future (not illustrated) Syndication Deal/Facility reference data Page 6

7 Business & Technical Governance Business requirements LSTA operations group Business requirements document Technical design Syndicated Loan Working Group Schema designs Business validations Leverage FpML organization (ISDA) Working group management XML expertise Derivative designs extended to loans Page 7

8 Business Requirements Detailed requirements are fundamental to good design Fully audited document Business scenarios Business process analysis Optimization opportunities Data fields Mandatory vs. optional Types Business validations Borrower Written Drawdown Request Make Drawdown Payment Only if payment has not already been made. Make Drawdown Payment Agent Bank In Europe, payment could be made by the agent, creating lender receivables. Drawdown Notice Lenders Calculate Lender Drawdown Amts Make Drawdown Payments Data Field Data Type Required? Comments / Outstanding Issues / Questions Message Header Notice Details Notice Type Deal Summary Facility Summary Loan Contract Drawdown Notice Details Drawdown Notice Event Type (see common section) (see common section) (see common section) (see common section) (see common section) (see common section) (see common section) Text List Y An enumeration that describes whether this message is a drawdown or a rate set notification. The same message structure is used for both, with some business validation differences. Condition Precedent Met Text List N An enumeration which describes whether the condition precedent have been met, not met or been waived. Please note: this field in not required since conditions precedent may not be applicable in certain scenarios. Drawdown Payment A structure used to describe the payment to be processed as part of the drawdown notice. Payment Date Date Y The date on which the principal payment is made by the lender to the agent bank. Usually defaults to the effective date of the loan contract. Share Loan Contract Amount Currency Y The amount of principal allocated to the lender for the given drawdown request. This is the same as the payment that must be made by the lender to satisfy the drawdown request. It is based on the share of the overall commitment that the lender is assigned. Facility Commitment Position Loan Contract Position (see common section) (see common section) Page 8

9 Loan FpML Schema Design Structured data Re-usable components E.g. Interest Accrual Schedule Transforming the market Natural transition from paper to emessaging Page 9

10 Business Validations Additional to schema design Complex validations E.g. If rate and notional are populated, then the payment amount = rate * notional Context Rule Id Precondition Validation Rule Interest Rate Period ln-5 (InterestRatePeriod.mlaCost AND InterestRatePeriod.interestRate AND InterestRatePeriod.margin AND InterestRatePeriod.allInRate) ARE NOT NULL (InterestRatePeriod.interestAccrualSchedule.interestRatePeriod.allInRate = InterestRatePeriod.interestAccrualSchedule.interestRatePeriod.margin + InterestRatePeriod.interestAccrualSchedule.interestRatePeriod.interestRate + InterestRatePeriod.interestAccrualSchedule.interestRatePeriod.mlaCost) Requires specific coding Can tighten or loosen, once schemas are implemented Page 10

11 Completed FpML Deliveries FpML Version 4.4 [August 2008] Drawdown notice Rate set notice Interest payment notice Principal repayment notice One-off and on-going fee notice FpML Version 4.5 [February 2009] Rollover notice Pricing change notice L/C notices Page 11

12 Working Groups What s next? Phase 3: Secondary trading [Q2/3 2009] Business requirements (first draft) completed Potential process optimization Trade settlement process pending FpML design Future Phases [End Q and onwards] Commitment adjustments 2-way communication scenarios, e.g. Voting PIK Deal/facility structure extensions Derivative integration, e.g. Loan-only CDS Page 12

13 Future Implementation Challenges Many communication modes Single publisher (agent), many subscribers (lenders) One-to-one communication Secondary loan trading Participants should ideally be agnostic to the messaging intermediary Dependencies Market-wide identifiers Embracing the FpML standard Page 13

14 Market-wide Identifiers for Loans FpML cannot function effectively without market-wide identifiers Agent, borrower, lender, counterparty etc E.g. Markit Entity Ids (MEIs) (12,354 currently available) Loan CUSIPs Fund & fund manager Level ISO-IBEI standard Deal & facility, loan contract identifiers Where are we with Loan CUSIPs? Page 14

15 Loan CUSIPs LSTA CUSIP Committee agreed CUSIPs must: Be issued for all deals/facilities, except Bilateral Deals Be issued prior to the closing of a deal/amendment Be included on all primary allocations, credit and trading documentation Be continually cleansed by Agent Banks to maintain accurate deal/facility data. Page 15

16 CREDIT SUISSE CITIGROUP WELLS JPMORGAN - DEUTSCHE GOLDMAN LEHMAN UBS MORGAN NOVA SCOTIA ROYAL BANK BARCLAYS BANK OF ROYAL BANK SUNTRUST CIBC BNP PARIBAS TD SECURITIES SOCIETE PNC BANK GE CAPITAL M&T BANK ING BK of TOKYO BANK OF Loan CUSIPs Current State Published Deal & Facility CUSIP Numbers (as of 5/31/09) Facility CUSIPs As of 31-May ,356 CUSIPs applied for by 26 Agents 3,474 Deal CUSIPs of which 83% are published 5,882 Facility CUSIPs of which 86% are published Page 16

17 Conclusion Standards only exist if market participants Accept them Help them evolve Provide feedback Market participants must get involved now Use them Internal IT development Business process changes Vendor partnerships Working group infrastructure now exists Focus on implementation and tackle real issues Page 17

18 Useful Online Resources FpML (ISDA) FpML working group updates Schema and business validation downloads LSTA LSTA-FpML business working group updates TenDelta (launching soon) Syndicated loan knowledge & education Design philosophy Syndicated loan FpML architecture Syndicated loan FpML training details Syndicated loan market white papers Page 18

19