Death, taxes and technology risk
Exchanges must plan for the certainty that their technology will fail, sometimes
Benjamin Franklin – one of the founding fathers of the United States – is widely credited with saying that there are only two certainties in life: death and taxes. To this a third can perhaps now be added: technology failures.
Breakdowns in technology infrastructure are going to happen from time to time. They simply cannot be avoided. Even worse, just because you’ve fixed today’s glitch in your technology infrastructure doesn’t mean you’ve prevented others from emerging in a whole other guise.
The repercussions can be serious enough when technology falls over within a bank or other financial institution. The consequences can be even more far-reaching when the very infrastructure underpinning financial markets is threatened by systems failures.
This is starkly highlighted by a recent software glitch that came to light within the futures trading platform of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.
Unable to fix the systems bug, the exchange had no choice but to suspend trading, which meant that issuers of listed products on the Hong Kong market struggled to properly hedge risk and to deliver a fair price to the market.
Confusion reigned supreme. Some firms recalibrated their systems to deal with the outage – which they were able to do by identifying the issue early enough in the day – while others stopped offering quotes, letting market forces take over instead. At least one issuer chose to suspend trading in the listed products market altogether.
Of course, the outage at HKEX is only the latest example of a long string of technology failures that have occurred at exchanges or other providers of financial infrastructure over the years.
Giving consideration to the knock-on or spillover effects is as important an exercise as a cyber risk management itself
In 2014, a lightning strike at the Singapore Exchange knocked out securities and derivatives trading at the exchange for half-a-day, severely undermining traders’ ability to manage risk. This is despite SGX having as many as four backup systems, which ordinarily should have been enough to keep things running smoothly; but everything failed at the same time.
In 2016, the Australian Securities Exchange had to temporarily suspend trading when a hardware failure brought down one of its equities trading database at the same time as its backup data centre failed.
The list goes on.
So, given the capricious nature of such systems failures, what should be done to soften the blow?
Technology failures are an inevitable part of the modern world, and it is not always possible to know when and how they are going to occur. But, as with death and taxes, proper planning can go some way to easing the pain.
Take the example of the recent systems failure at HKEX. The outage itself was bad enough, but it was made far worse by the widespread market confusion that ensued. With products trading at wildly differing prices – and at least one issuer suspending trading altogether – clients didn’t know where they stood.
Some have argued that it might have been better had the exchange suspended trading-affected products altogether – preferably with some rule about knockout events – rather than leaving everything to the whims of the market.
In view of the certainty that technology failures will occur sometimes, giving consideration to the knock-on or spillover effects is as important an exercise as a cyber risk management itself.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Our take
Are market-makers better at dealing with central bank intervention?
Lack of pain following BoJ intervention suggests dealers are better at handling event risk
Hedge funds must race the clock to check their dealer-rule status
Working out whether a firm is caught by SEC registration requirement could take months
Filling gaps in market data with optimal transport
Julius Baer quant proposes novel way to generate accurate prices for illiquid maturities
Why Europe still awaits a private credit CLO
Tricky questions face managers that plan to launch the structure on the continent
The signs of tacit collusion in the dividend play trade
Game theory and real-world data point to a different understanding of how arbitrage in markets works
Decades of history says you can beat high inflation with quality
Factors such as momentum and value generally outperform the market irrespective of inflation, but new research suggests quality stocks are best when prices are rising rapidly
Esma faces tough task in implementing Emir 3.0
EU regulator must contend with tight timeframes and increasing workload without additional resources
Quants are using language models to map what causes what
GPT-4 does a surprisingly good job of separating causation from correlation
Most read
- Breaking out of the cells: banks’ long goodbye to spreadsheets
- Too soon to say good riddance to banks’ public enemy number one
- Industry calls for major rethink of Basel III rules