{"id":82,"date":"2020-05-18T10:54:56","date_gmt":"2020-05-18T08:54:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hedgingfx.fr\/?page_id=82"},"modified":"2022-09-01T09:47:11","modified_gmt":"2022-09-01T07:47:11","slug":"our-added-value","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/hedgingfx.fr\/?page_id=82","title":{"rendered":"Added-value"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
<\/span>\"\"
\n

MIFID clearly states that Asset Managers will ultimately bear final responsiblility for any wrong doing by the execution tables<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

For an Asset Manager<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

4 main issues compared to an operating model where FX hedging related orders are in-house:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. Booking risk<\/li>
  2. Operational risk<\/li>
  3. Collateral optimization<\/li>
  4. Regulatory risk<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Booking risk:<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
    \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Currently AM must integrate all FX hedging related orders (red one particularly as it is traded by an asset servicer outside its IT) into their own PMS to reflect the correct fund asset composition. To do so, asset manager’s IT must create and maintain channels between the asset servicer and the asset manager to retrieve the necessary information (fully and on time). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Failure to collect those FX hedging related orders taken outside their PMS will lead to:<\/p>\n\n\n\n