Agenda item 6: XMAP and T2S Optional Matching Fields
10th HSG Meeting
22nd – 23rd October 2013
T2S Programme Office
European Central Bank
0
Background
 During its 8th meeting (01.02.13) the HSG discussed the issue of
T2S matching fields. According to the HSG…
- …the aim of further harmonisation of matching fields should be i) the
maximisation of matching rates in T2S and ii) the
minimisation of cross-matching (i.e. matching of the wrong
instructions in T2S).
- …work is urgently required in the area of establishing a T2S
market practice for optional matching fields (for release 1 of T2S)
and for having a common definition and understanding of how to
feed some mandatory or additional fields when differences may occur
from one market to another.
- …the XMAP could also analyse the possibility of eliminating
optional and additional matching fields for release 2 of T2S, i.e.
agreeing on a revised T2S mandatory matching fields list.
1
Assessment of T2S Optional Matching Fields
 Drawbacks of categorisation as ‘Optional Matching Fields’
Envisaged benefits difficult to realise because
-
Matching fields are optional,
Use of non-standardised and non-unique data,
Timely availability of matching data is difficult and
T2S allows matching of non-blank values to blank values
 Conclusion
- Optional Matching Fields have a very limited effect on the matching
or cross matching rates, unless they are supported by a market
practice (e.g. use of default values)
2
Options for Changes / Market Practice
 Option 1: Conversion of ‘Optional Matching Fields’ to ‘Mandatory Fields’
- Presents implementation challenges because the data is not relevant
and available for all business scenarios across all markets
- Potential increase of operational burden
 Option 2: Conversion of ‘Optional Matching Fields’ to ‘Optional Matching
Field with Default’
- Similar implications as Option 1
 Option 3: Conversion of ‘Optional Matching Fields’ to ‘Additional
Matching Fields’
- Allows flexible usage of a matching field according to the business
context and ease of implementation
- However, the assessment of the impact on non-matching and
operational overhead is difficult at this stage
3
Recommendations
 Based on the evaluation of options, the pragmatic step would be to
change the ‘Optional Matching Fields’ to ‘Additional Matching Fields’
 However, in the absence of a thorough assessment and on the basis of
NUG and XMAP member surveys, it is difficult to ascertain whether
some or all the optional matching fields should be made additional and
to assess the impact of such a change in terms of efficiency
 Therefore, the XMAP recommends to maintain the status quo of the
‘Optional Matching Fields’
 Going forward, additional analysis will be required to define the metrics
and methodology for calculation of cross matching. The cross matching
metrics would facilitate the assessment of magnitude of issue
4
Recommendations
 No common T2S market practice may result in
implementation of different market practices across markets
to address specific issues
- May be complex to unwind the different market practices and adopt
a harmonised practice
 On the other hand, forcing the market to adopt and
implement
certain
settlement
practices
without
experiencing the T2S platform can result in unforeseen
complexities and process inefficiencies
5
XMAP Report on T2S Optional Matching Fields
 XMAP will deliver a report to HSG covering the detailed analysis
of T2S Optional Matching Fields and conclusions
6
Thank you for your attention
www.t2s.eu
7