Executive Summary: The High-Stakes Imperative
The global derivatives market, a multi-trillion-dollar ecosystem of immense complexity, serves as both the engine of modern finance and its potential undoing. For financial institutions, multinational corporations, and asset managers, derivatives are indispensable tools for hedging volatility, unlocking capital efficiency, and engineering yield. However, the line between strategic utility and catastrophic failure is razor-thin. As historyâfrom the collapse of Barings Bank to the systemic shocks of the 2008 financial crisisâdemonstrates, the mismanagement of these instruments does not merely result in losses; it results in extinction.
In the current geopolitical and economic climate of 2025, characterized by inflationary pressures, fragmented supply chains, and divergent regulatory regimes, the mandate for robust risk control is absolute. This report does not merely offer suggestions; it provides a survival kit. It outlines an exhaustive, expert-level framework for implementing Global Derivatives Risk Controls. It moves beyond basic compliance to establish a âfortress balance sheetâ capable of withstanding the most extreme market dislocations.
The following analysis is structured around ten strategic pillarsâour âMaster List of Controls.â Each pillar is subsequently deconstructed into a deep-dive narrative, synthesizing regulatory mandates (Dodd-Frank, EMIR), legal safeguards (ISDA negotiation), quantitative rigor (stress testing), and operational resilience.
The Master List: 10 Commandments of Derivatives Risk Control
Before delving into the exhaustive details, the following list encapsulates the strategic imperatives for any entity engaging in derivatives trading. These are the non-negotiable pillars of a modern risk framework.
- Define a Granular Risk Architecture: Move beyond generic ârisk appetiteâ statements to precise, quantitative limits on market, credit, liquidity, and operational exposures.
- Master the Regulatory Matrix: Navigate the distinct but overlapping requirements of Dodd-Frank, EMIR Refit, and Basel III to turn compliance into a competitive advantage.
- Negotiate the Legal Shield: Treat the ISDA Master Agreement not as a template, but as a battlefield. Optimize termination events, cross-default clauses, and netting provisions.
- Automate the Collateral Engine: Transform collateral management from a back-office burden into a liquidity optimization machine using Straight-Through Processing (STP).
- Stress Test for the âUnthinkableâ: Abandon Gaussian distribution models. Stress test for geopolitical fragmentation, liquidity freezes, and reverse-stress scenarios.
- Eliminate the âShadow Balanceâ: Eradicate spreadsheets and shadow IT. Enforce a âGolden Sourceâ of truth for all trade data to prevent rogue trading.
- Enforce Segregation of Duties: The âFour Eyes Principleâ is sacrosanct. Total separation between execution, confirmation, and settlement is the only defense against internal fraud.
- Optimize Liquidity for the Margin Call: Forecast âFunding Liquidity Riskâ with the same rigor as âMarket Risk.â Ensure sufficient High-Quality Liquid Assets (HQLA) for extreme volatility.
- Deploy Next-Generation Tech Stacks: Leverage integrated platforms (Kyriba, Murex) and AI-driven anomaly detection to monitor risks in real-time.
- Cultivate a Culture of Radical Transparency: incentivize the reporting of ânear missesâ and ensure risk management has the authority to stop the trading floor.
1. Strategic Pillar I: Defining a Granular Risk Architecture
The foundation of any derivatives risk framework is a clear, taxonomical understanding of the risks involved. It is insufficient to merely identify âmarket riskâ or âcredit risk.â A robust architecture decomposes these into granular sub-categories, recognizing that in the derivatives world, risks are mutually reinforcingâa market shock often triggers a liquidity crisis, which in turn exposes credit weaknesses.
1.1 The Interconnected Risk Matrix
Modern best practices, as outlined by institutions like the SMFG and the OCC, require an integrated approach where risk is not managed in silos but as a nexus of exposures.
- Market Risk (The First Order): This is the risk of loss due to changes in market variablesâinterest rates, FX rates, equity prices, and commodity values. In derivatives, this is amplified by leverage. A small movement in the underlying asset can result in a total loss of principal (in the case of options) or unlimited liability (in the case of naked shorts). The âBasic Approachâ mandates managing this through quantification methods consistent with strategic goals.
- Credit and Counterparty Risk (The Second Order): This is the risk that the counterparty defaults before the final settlement. It is distinct from lending risk because the exposure is dynamic. A swap that is out-of-the-money (a liability) today may be in-the-money (an asset) tomorrow. If the counterparty defaults when the swap is an asset, the firm loses that potential gain. This risk is heavily mitigated by netting and collateral, but never eliminated.
- Liquidity Risk (The Silent Killer): This is often the immediate cause of failure.
- Market Liquidity Risk: The inability to unwind a position without moving the price against oneself. This is critical in OTC markets where customized derivatives may have no secondary market.
- Funding Liquidity Risk: The inability to meet cash calls (Variation Margin) or collateral requirements (Initial Margin). The shift to mandatory clearing has transformed counterparty risk into funding liquidity risk; while you are less likely to lose money to a bankrupt partner, you are more likely to go bankrupt yourself from a cash crunch during a margin spike.
- Operational Risk (The Process Failure): This encompasses the risk of loss resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes, people, and systems. In derivatives, this includes settlement failures, documentation errors, and legal unenforceability. As trade volumes rise and settlement cycles shorten (e.g., T+1), operational resilience becomes the primary defense against chaos.
1.2 The Three Lines of Defense Model
To operationalize this architecture, firms must implement the âThree Lines of Defenseâ model, a standard endorsed by global supervisors.
- First Line (Business Units/Front Office): The traders and treasurers who execute the deals. They âownâ the risk. They must have embedded risk controls (e.g., pre-trade limit checks) and are responsible for operating within the defined risk appetite.
- Second Line (Risk Management & Compliance): The independent oversight function. This team establishes the frameworks, monitors the limits, and challenges the First Line. They must have the authority to block trades and report directly to the Board or a specialized Risk Committee, bypassing the trading desk heads to ensure independence.
- Third Line (Internal Audit): The assurance function. They provide an objective review of the effectiveness of the First and Second lines, ensuring that the controls are not just designed well but are actually operating as intended.
2. Strategic Pillar II: Mastering the Regulatory Matrix
The post-2008 regulatory environment is a labyrinth. Compliance is no longer just about avoiding fines; it is about maintaining access to markets. The two dominant regimesâthe Dodd-Frank Act (USA) and the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR)âhave fundamentally reshaped market structure.
2.1 The Dodd-Frank Act: Reshaping US Derivatives
Enacted in response to the 2008 crisis, Dodd-Frank aimed to bring transparency to the âWild Westâ of OTC derivatives. Its primary mechanism is the mandate to clear standardized swaps through Central Counterparties (CCPs) and to execute them on Swap Execution Facilities (SEFs).
- Clearing Mandates: Dodd-Frank requires that âstandardizedâ swaps (such as certain Interest Rate Swaps and Credit Default Swaps) be cleared. This replaces the bilateral credit risk of the counterparty with the credit risk of the CCP. For the risk manager, this shifts the focus from analyzing individual bank counterparties to analyzing the systemic health of the Clearing House and managing the operational flow of margin to it.
- The Commercial End-User Exception: For corporate treasurers, this is a critical relief valve. Non-financial entities that use swaps to hedge or mitigate âcommercial riskâ (e.g., an airline hedging jet fuel, a manufacturer hedging interest rates on debt) can elect not to clear. This avoids the costly requirement of posting Initial Margin at a CCP. However, to claim this, the entity must:
- Obtain Board-level approval for the non-cleared strategy.
- Report the election to a Swap Data Repository (SDR).
- Disclose how they generally meet financial obligations associated with non-cleared swaps.
- Documentation Requirements: Implementing this requires specific documentation, including the OTC Cleared Derivatives Execution Agreement and adherence to the ISDA Dodd-Frank Protocols (DF Protocol 1.0 and 2.0) to facilitate the exchange of regulatory data.
2.2 EMIR and EMIR Refit: The European Framework
EMIR shares the goals of Dodd-Frank but differs in execution, particularly regarding the scope of who must clear and report.
- Counterparty Classification: EMIR categorizes entities into Financial Counterparties (FC) and Non-Financial Counterparties (NFC). NFCs are further split based on the âClearing Thresholdâ:
- NFC+ (Above Threshold): Subject to clearing obligations similar to banks.
- NFC- (Below Threshold): Exempt from clearing and some margining, but still subject to reporting.
- Dual-Sided Reporting: Unlike the US âone-sidedâ reporting (where usually the dealer reports), EMIR mandates dual-sided reporting. Both the bank and the corporate must report the trade to a Trade Repository (TR). This creates a massive reconciliation challenge. If the data fields (e.g., Notional Amount, Maturity Date) do not match exactly, the report is rejected.
- Unique Transaction Identifier (UTI): To pair the dual-sided reports, a UTI must be generated and shared. A common failure point is when both parties generate their own UTI, causing a mismatch at the TR. Best practice is to agree in the ISDA (or via the ISDA Tie-Breaker Logic) that the dealer generates and sends the UTI.
- EMIR 3.0 and the Active Account Requirement: The latest evolution, EMIR 3.0, introduces the âActive Account Requirement.â To reduce systemic reliance on non-EU CCPs (specifically LCH in London post-Brexit), EU firms subject to the clearing obligation may be required to maintain active accounts at EU-based CCPs (like Eurex). This is a strategic risk for firms heavily entrenched in UK liquidity pools.
2.3 Regulatory Reporting as a Control
Reporting is often viewed as a back-office chore, but it is a vital risk control. The high rejection rates cited by regulators (often due to data quality issues) are red flags. If a firm cannot accurately report its trades, it likely does not accurately understand its risk positions.
Key Differences in Regulatory Reporting Obligations
|
Feature
|
Dodd-Frank (USA)
|
EMIR (EU) / UK EMIR
|
Implication for Risk Control
|
|
Reporting Responsibility
|
Generally âOne-Sidedâ (Swap Dealer reports).
|
âDual-Sidedâ (Both parties must report).
|
EMIR requires robust inter-party reconciliation logic to prevent breaks.
|
|
End-User Exemption
|
Available for commercial hedgers; requires SDR notification.
|
Available for NFC- (below clearing threshold).
|
Firms must constantly monitor notional volumes against thresholds to ensure status doesnât change.
|
|
Data Fields
|
CFTC Taxonomy.
|
ISO 20022 XML Standard (under Refit).
|
The shift to XML requires significant IT upgrades; CSV uploads are becoming obsolete.
|
|
Validation
|
SDR validation rules.
|
Strict TR validation; âRejectionâ requires remediation.
|
High rejection rates trigger regulatory audits; data quality is a proxy for governance quality.
|
3. Strategic Pillar III: Negotiating the Legal Shield (ISDA)
The legal contract is the ultimate risk control. The ISDA Master Agreement is not merely a form to be signed; it is a sophisticated legal instrument that defines what happens when things go wrong. A standard ISDA offers a baseline, but a negotiated ISDA builds a fortress.
3.1 The Architecture of the ISDA Master Agreement
The ISDA Master Agreement acts as a âmasterâ contract that governs all future trades between two parties. Its genius lies in its capacity for Close-Out Netting.
- The Netting Concept: Without an ISDA with netting provisions, if Counterparty X defaults while owing you $100M on Trade A, but you owe them $80M on Trade B, a liquidator could demand you pay the $80M while offering only cents on the dollar for your $100M claim (Cherry Picking).
- Section 6 (Early Termination): This section allows the non-defaulting party to terminate all transactions immediately upon an Event of Default. The 2002 ISDA Agreement introduced the âClose-out Amountâ methodology, which is more flexible than the 1992 âMarket Quotationâ method, allowing firms to determine the value of terminated trades using internal models if market quotes are unavailableâa crucial feature during liquidity crises.
3.2 Critical Negotiation Points for Risk Managers
To maximize protection, risk managers must intervene in the legal negotiation of the Schedule (the customizable part of the ISDA):
- Cross-Default (Section 5(a)(vi)): This clause triggers a default on the derivatives if the counterparty defaults on other debt (e.g., loans or bonds).
- Risk Tip: Ensure the âThreshold Amountâ is appropriate. If set too low (e.g., $1M for a global bank), a minor operational error could trigger a systemic cross-default. If set too high, you lose the early warning signal.
- Additional Termination Events (ATEs): These are bespoke triggers.
- NAV Triggers: For hedge fund counterparties, insert a clause allowing termination if their Net Asset Value declines by, say, 15% in one month or 30% in 12 months. This allows you to exit before the fund collapses completely.
- Key Person Clauses: If the fundâs performance relies on a star manager, their departure should trigger an ATE.
- Credit Rating Downgrade: If a bank counterparty is downgraded below Investment Grade (e.g., BBB-), an ATE should allow for termination or mandatory posting of additional collateral (Independent Amount).
- Automatic Early Termination (AET): In certain jurisdictions with strict insolvency laws, âAutomatic Early Terminationâ ensures trades are deemed terminated immediately prior to the insolvency filing. This is critical to ensure netting is enforceable and not stayed by the bankruptcy court.
3.3 Netting Opinions and Enforceability
Netting is only a valid risk mitigant if it works legally. Basel III and other capital regimes allow banks to hold less capital against derivatives only if they have a reasoned legal opinion stating that netting is enforceable in the counterpartyâs jurisdiction.
- The Clean Netting Opinion: ISDA publishes netting opinions for over 50 jurisdictions. Risk managers must verify that their counterparties reside in these âcleanâ jurisdictions. Trading with a counterparty in a jurisdiction without a clear netting opinion (e.g., certain emerging markets) results in Gross Exposure treatment, significantly increasing capital costs and credit risk.
4. Strategic Pillar IV: Automating the Collateral Engine
Collateral is the lifeblood of the modern derivatives market. The transition from âunsecuredâ to âsecuredâ trading has significantly reduced credit risk but has introduced massive operational and liquidity risks.
4.1 The Credit Support Annex (CSA)
The CSA governs the exchange of collateral.
- Variation Margin (VM): This covers the daily mark-to-market swing. Under regulations (NCMR), this is now mandatory for most counterparties. It essentially resets the credit risk to zero every day.
- Initial Margin (IM): This is the âgap riskâ buffer. It covers the potential loss in the 10-day period it might take to close out a defaulted position. Unlike VM, IM must be segregatedâheld with a third-party custodianâso that if the collecting party goes bust, the poster can get their IM back.
4.2 The Operational Nightmare of Manual Margining
Many firms still manage margin calls via email and spreadsheets. This is unsustainable and dangerous.
- The Margin Call Workflow:
- Calculate Exposure (Mark-to-Market).
- Check Thresholds and Minimum Transfer Amounts (MTA).
- Issue Margin Call (by 10:00 AM T+1).
- Counterparty agrees or disputes.
- Move Cash/Securities.
- Dispute Management: If the counterparty disputes the call (e.g., âI calculate exposure at $5M, you say $10Mâ), the CSA specifies a dispute resolution mechanism. This often involves Portfolio Reconciliationâcomparing the trade population and valuation line-by-line to find the break. Automated reconciliation tools (like TriOptima) are essential here.
4.3 Collateral Optimization and Velocity
The requirement to post high-quality collateral (cash or government bonds) creates a âcollateral dragâ on performance.
- Cheapest-to-Deliver (CTD): Algorithms should identify the least valuable asset that is eligible to be posted as collateral. Why post cash (which earns 0%) if you can post a corporate bond (which you hold anyway)?
- Rehypothecation: Understanding rights to re-use collateral is key. While IM generally cannot be rehypothecated, VM often can. Efficient treasuries re-use received VM to satisfy their own outbound margin obligations, increasing collateral velocity.
5. Strategic Pillar V: Stress Testing for the âUnthinkableâ
Standard risk metrics like Value at Risk (VaR) are necessary for day-to-day monitoring, but they are fundamentally flawed for tail risk management. VaR assumes normal market conditions; it tells you what happens on 99 out of 100 days. It tells you nothing about the day the market crashes.
5.1 The Limitations of VaR
- Backward Looking: VaR is based on historical data. If the last 2 years were calm, VaR will be low, giving a false sense of security.
- Static Assumption: VaR often assumes a static portfolio over a 1-day or 10-day horizon. It ignores Intraday Risk, where high-frequency trading or market flash crashes can cause massive losses within minutes.
- Fat Tails: Financial returns do not follow a normal distribution; they have âfat tailsâ (extreme events happen more often than predicted).
5.2 Designing 2025 Stress Scenarios
To bulletproof the portfolio, risk managers must design stress tests that reflect the current, specific threats of the era.
- Scenario 1: Geopolitical Fragmentation (The âChina/Russiaâ Shock): Model a scenario where global supply chains fracture, leading to a simultaneous spike in commodity prices (oil, gas, wheat) and a collapse in global equities, accompanied by a freeze in FX swap markets for specific currencies.
- Scenario 2: The Liquidity Freeze: Model a scenario where bid-ask spreads widen by 500%. Can you exit your positions? If not, how much does the mark-to-market loss increase? This addresses Market Liquidity Risk.
- Scenario 3: Interest Rate âHigher for Longerâ: Test the portfolio against a sustained period of high rates (e.g., 5-6%), combined with a widening of credit spreads. This impacts the cost of funding margin calls.
5.3 Reverse Stress Testing
Instead of asking âWhat happens to my portfolio if the market falls 20%?â, Reverse Stress Testing asks: âWhat exact combination of events would cause my firm to become insolvent?â
- By working backward from the point of failure (e.g., breaching regulatory capital ratios), the firm uncovers hidden vulnerabilities (e.g., a specific correlation between FX rates and credit spreads) that standard stress tests miss.
6. Strategic Pillar VI: Eliminating the âShadow Balanceâ (Operational Risk)
Operational risk is the âdark matterâ of derivativesâinvisible until it causes a massive explosion. The primary culprit is invariably the âShadow Balanceââtrades or data kept on user-developed applications (spreadsheets) outside the core system of record.
6.1 The Danger of Excel
In the case of the Allied Irish Bank currency fraud ($691M loss), the trader hid trades in a spreadsheet that was not reconciled with the back office.
- Control: Ban the Shadow Ledger. All trades must be booked into the official risk system (e.g., Murex, Calypso) within minutes of execution. Any trade not in the system does not exist for risk purposes and is a compliance breach.
- Spreadsheet Controls: If spreadsheets must be used (e.g., for complex pricing models), they must be locked, version-controlled, and subject to IT audit.
6.2 The Trade Lifecycle Matrix
Operational control requires mapping every step of the trade lifecycle to a specific control activity.
Derivatives Operational Risk Control Matrix
|
Lifecycle Stage
|
Potential Risk
|
Primary Control Activity
|
Control Owner
|
|
Pre-Trade
|
Exceeding Credit Limit; Unauthorized Trader.
|
Automated Pre-Trade Limit Check in OMS; âHard blockâ on limits.
|
Front Office / Risk
|
|
Execution
|
âFat Fingerâ error (wrong price/quantity).
|
T+0 Trade Recap sent to Counterparty; Price deviation alerts.
|
Middle Office
|
|
Capture
|
Booking errors; Late booking.
|
T+1 Reconciliation between Front Office system and Back Office ledger.
|
Operations
|
|
Confirmation
|
Disagreement on terms (e.g., Day Count Convention).
|
Automated matching via platforms (e.g., MarkitWire, DTCC).
|
Documentation Team
|
|
Valuation
|
Model manipulation (hiding losses).
|
Independent Price Verification (IPV): Risk team prices trades using data independent of the trader.
|
Product Control
|
|
Settlement
|
Payment to fraudulent account.
|
Hard-coded Standard Settlement Instructions (SSIs); dual authorization for payments.
|
Settlements
|
6.3 Outsourcing vs. In-House
Many firms consider outsourcing operational processing to specialized vendors (e.g., for collateral management or reconciliation).
- Pros: Access to scale, reduced technology cost, 24/7 coverage.
- Cons: Loss of control, third-party risk. If the vendor fails to make a margin call, you are in default.
- The Verdict: Outsourcing is viable for standardized tasks (reconciliation), but Risk Decisioning (approving limits, agreeing to disputes) must remain in-house. Regulatory liability cannot be outsourced.
7. Strategic Pillar VII: Optimizing Liquidity for the Margin Call
The most acute risk in the modern derivatives market is not that the asset price falls, but that the firm runs out of cash to support the hedge. This is Funding Liquidity Risk.
7.1 The Liquidity Trap
Consider a corporate treasurer who hedges a bond issuance with an Interest Rate Swap.
- Scenario: Interest rates fall. The swap becomes a liability (out-of-the-money).
- Consequence: The bank counterparty calls for Variation Margin (cash) immediately.
- The Trap: Even though the underlying bond has gained value (offsetting the swap loss economically), the bond gain is unrealized, while the swap loss must be paid in cash today. This liquidity mismatch can bankrupt a solvent firm.
7.2 Liquidity Coverage Metrics
To manage this, firms must integrate derivatives into their Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) planning.
- PFE-based Liquidity Buffers: Calculate the Potential Future Exposure (PFE) at a 95% confidence level and hold that amount in HQLA (High-Quality Liquid Assets like T-Bills).
- Contingent Liquidity Planning: Establish committed credit lines (revolving credit facilities) that can be drawn specifically to fund margin calls.
- Stress Testing Liquidity: Simulate a â3-notch downgradeâ of the firmâs own credit rating. Most CSAs have âratings triggersâ that require posting additional collateral if the firm is downgraded. The firm must be liquid enough to survive its own downgrade.
8. Strategic Pillar VIII: Deploying Next-Generation Tech Stacks
The era of managing billion-dollar portfolios on legacy mainframes and spreadsheets is over. The complexity of regulatory reporting (XML formats) and real-time risk monitoring demands a modern technology stack.
8.1 The Integrated Platform vs. Best-of-Breed
- Integrated Platforms (The âMurexâ Model): Systems like Murex or Calypso offer a âfront-to-backâ solutionâtrading, risk, and accounting in one box.
- Pros: Single source of truth, real-time data flow, easier reconciliation.
- Cons: Extremely expensive, multi-year implementation projects, âjack of all trades, master of noneâ.
- Best-of-Breed (The Modular Model): Using specialized tools for each function. E.g., Numerix for pricing exotics, Kyriba for treasury/liquidity, Acadia for collateral management.
- Pros: Best-in-class functionality, faster deployment.
- Cons: Integration headaches. You must build robust APIs to ensure data flows seamlessly between systems.
8.2 AI and Machine Learning Applications
AI is moving from hype to practical risk control utility.
- Pattern Recognition in Surveillance: Machine learning models can analyze trader behavior to detect anomalies. If a trader who normally trades EURUSD suddenly books a massive option in Turkish Lira, the AI flags it instantlyâsomething rule-based systems might miss if the notional is technically within âlimitâ but the behavior is aberrant.
- Legal Text Analysis: AI tools (LegalTech) can scan thousands of ISDA agreements to extract structured data (e.g., âShow me all counterparties where the Rating Trigger is BBB-â). This replaces weeks of manual legal review.
9. Strategic Pillar IX: Cultivating a Culture of Radical Transparency
No model, system, or contract can stop a determined rogue trader or an incompetent manager who hides losses. Culture is the ultimate control.
9.1 The Psychology of Loss
Failures like Nick Leeson (Barings) and Jerome Kerviel (SociĂ©tĂ© GĂ©nĂ©rale) shared a common trait: the âDoubling Downâ psychology. A trader loses money, hides it in a shadow account, and takes a bigger, riskier bet to make it back.
- Control: P&L Attribution. Every day, the P&L must be explained. âWe made $1M.â Why? Was it Delta? Gamma? Vega? If the P&L cannot be attributed to a specific risk factor, it is likely mis-marked or fraudulent.
9.2 Incentive Alignment
If traders are paid solely on P&L with no clawbacks for future losses, they are incentivized to take âtail riskâ strategies (make small money steadily, blow up eventually).
- Risk-Adjusted Performance Measures (RAPM): Bonuses should be based on Risk-Adjusted Return on Capital (RAROC), not gross profit.
- Whistleblower Channels: Create a safe, anonymous channel for junior staff to report irregularities. In many fraud cases, junior operations staff knew something was wrong but were afraid to speak up.
10. Final Directives: From Compliance to Competitive Advantage
Implementing this âMaster Listâ of global derivatives risk controlsâfrom the granular definition of risk architecture to the deployment of AI-driven surveillanceâis a formidable undertaking. It requires significant investment in capital, technology, and talent.
However, the return on this investment is not merely âsafety.â A firm with a fortress-like risk framework can trade when others are paralyzed by fear. It can withstand liquidity shocks that bankrupt competitors. It can navigate the regulatory labyrinth to access markets others cannot.
In 2025, risk management is not a back-office function; it is a strategic asset. By meticulously applying the practical tips, legal safeguards, and operational disciplines outlined in this report, organizations do not just protect their bottom lineâthey secure their future.
Summary Checklist for Implementation
- Immediate: Conduct a gap analysis of current ISDA agreements against the âCritical Negotiation Pointsâ (Cross-Default, ATEs).
- Short Term (3 Months): Automate the margin call and reconciliation process (Portfolio Reconciliation) to reduce operational friction.
- Medium Term (6 Months): Implement âReverse Stress Testingâ and update liquidity buffers to account for 2025 geopolitical scenarios.
- Long Term (12 Months): execute a digital transformation of the risk stack, eliminating shadow spreadsheets and integrating real-time AI surveillance.
Â
Manage all your crypto, NFT and DeFi from one place
