Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Agenda
• Derivatives
• A Futures Exchange
• NCEL
– Vision / Mission
– Business Model
– Technology
– Operations
– Analytics & Risk Management
– Contract Design
– NCEL & Agriculture
Derivatives
Derivatives
• Introduced in 1972
• Doubling every 3 years
• Extremely low failure rate even if compared
to bank lending
• Derivatives are termed as “new technology”
• Common analogy – aircrafts versus cars
• Rates of accident per kilometer are
extremely low as compared to road travel
• Trillions of $s are traded daily
SIZE, as a percentage of US GDP
(2004)
Derivatives, Outstanding
Trillion US$, notional principal (as percent of U.S. GDP)
US GLOBAL
OTC Derivatives $84.18*(722%) $220.06 (1887%)
Exchange Traded $31.06 (266%) $52.80 (453%)
Total $115.24 (988%) $272.86 (2340%)
* US commercial banks only, broker-dealers and others not reporting
8%
Financials
Non Financials
Global Financials Breakdown 2005
Currency
Individual 2%
Equities
26% Equity
Indicies
44%
Interest
Rates
28%
Global Agricultural, Metal and Energies Breakdown
2005
Agricultural
44%
Energies
36%
Other
0% Metals
20%
Global Commodity Exchanges
Growth of Commodity Exchanges
• Three new commodity exchanges in India - 2004
– NCDEX is the sixth largest in the world within 2 years of
its operations
• MCX to launch cotton yarn contract
• Two commodity exchanges in Iran and third will be
opening in 2006
• Dubai Gold and Commodity Exchange launched in
November 2005
– To launch cotton and rice futures in Q3 2006
• Dubai Mercantile Exchange being launched in Q3
2006 – Crude Oil, Oil Products and Metals
Growth of India's Commodity Exchanges
18m
NCDEX
CQGR > 120%
Number of futures contracts
8m 8.94
7.75
6m
4m 5.29
4.31
2m 1.85 3.51
0.50
0.24 1.67 2.13
0m 0.72
0.06 0.17
Q1 04 Q2 04 Q3 04 Q4 04 Q1 05 Q2 05 Q3 05 Q4 05
1300
1200
Harvest
Rupees/100 Kg
1100
Sowing
Sowing
Harvest
1000
Sowing
Harvest
900
b
pr
pr
pr
pr
ug
ug
ug
n
n
ct
ct
ct
ct
ec
ec
ec
ec
Fe
Fe
Fe
Fe
Ju
Ju
Ju
O
O
A
A
D
D
Source: Federal Bureau of Statistics & Agri. Marketing Deptt.
NCEL Business Model
Basis of NCEL’s Business Model
• What are the ills in our market?
– Benami accounts
– Only, broker level surveillance
– Very narrow base
– High volatility due to excessive leverage
– Value based margining
– Broker capital adequacy based on solvency
criteria
– ‘Check is in the mail’ syndrome
– Misuse of collateral
NCEL Highlights
• First partially demutualized exchange
• First all-electronic exchange of Pakistan
• First to introduce client level identification
• First to provide complete segregation between
broker/client and client/clients
• First to introduce risk based gross margining
• First to integrate online banking with trading
• First to undertake client level surveillance
Recent happenings highlights the strengths of
NCEL’s business model
NCEL Business Model
Business Drivers Implications
Intellectual
Capital
Ensuring
Compliance
Technology
A cost effective
Regulations solution of
exceptional
Managing Controlling quality
Markets Risks Costs
Market Operations
Participants
OPERATIONS COMPLIANCE
• Clearing and Settlement • Member Services
• Margining and Accounting • Surveillance and Monitoring
• On-line Banking • Discipline and Enforcement
• Delivery • Process Management
Market
Trader “A” Monitoring
House
Member
111-000-000 111-000-1000
Client 1
111-000-1001 Client 2
111-000-1002
Client 2
111-000-1002
Client 3
111-000-1003
Client 3
111-000-1003
Client 4
Client 4 111-000-1004
111-000-1004
Client 1 Client 2 Client 3
Symmetric Participation
Natural Longs
Natural Shorts
Online Bank
Multan Faislabad Muree
Transfer
Quetta 70,000
Online Bank
Online Clearing Bank Accounts
Transfer
Online Bank
Transfer
Member/Client Electronic
J-Trader
Buy/Sell Broker
Order
MCB
SARA SODNLV
If SODNLV
System
No
>
Updates
Back Office
Order Margin
Required
Yes
Matching Engine
Daily Settlement
• All positions marked-to-market daily
• P&L of positions in real-time
• Margin calls generated at end of today
• Settlement of margin calls latest by 8.00 PM
• Trading matches fund settlement
• Margins, price limits, and clearing and
position limits ensure that few trades
progress to the stage of default
Analytics
&
Risk Management
Slice N’ Dice Approach to Risk Management
Risks in
Clearing and
Settlement
Volatility
Settlement
Risk
Concentration
Risk Risk
Clearing Funds to
mitigate extreme
events (1%)
Value at Risk - An Example
• Let’s use a 5%
probability and a one- Return Distribution
day holding period
• VaR is the one day
Probability
loss that will be
exceeded only 5% of VaR
the time
• It’s the tail of the return
0
)
0
00
00
,0
0,
distribution
00
10
(1
50
Upper Price
40 Limit
Settlement Price
30
Lower Price
20 Limit
Variable Spot Month
10 Margin
Margin
0 Initial Margin
th
s
th
in
on
on
eg
M
M
B
y
ot
g
er
in
Sp
iv
ad
el
Tr
D
Default Protection: Segregation of
Participant Risk
Prop
Prop
Prop
Controlling Excessive Speculation
• Position limits
– Market wide
– Broker level
Reduced in delivery month
– Client level
• Volatility based variable margining
• Online and real-time client level surveillance
• Regulations allow forced reduction of
position limits if prudential concerns
• Close-out if breach of Regulations
Contract Design
Contract Choice and Design
• First Principle: Futures contract should
mirror or improve upon the imperfections
of the spot market
• Four out of Five new futures contracts fail
and are de-listed within the first five years
of trading
• Two possible reasons:
– Lack of demand for the contract itself
– Poor contract design
• Of course these two reasons are related to
one another
Cash Value Research & Product Development Methodology
Cash Price Volatility
Production Need of The Contract in
Market Progressive Growers
Consumption
Desk Research Millers
Export
Questionnaire Manufacturer of Value
Import Development Added Products
Industry
Detailed Study of Market Research Feedback Consultation Traders
Contracts Listed on
Other Exchanges Formulation of Contract
Specifications Exporters / Importers
Trade Associations
Finalization of
Contract
NCEL Producers
Warehousing (Farmers/
An Electronic Middlemen)
Exchange
Traders
Transporters/ (Investors)
Logistic Support Arbitrageurs/
Agencies Client)
Consumers
Global Commodities
(Retail/
Institutional)
Market Market Participants
US $/100 Kg
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
7/1/2005
7/15/2005
7/29/2005
8/12/2005
8/26/2005
9/9/2005
9/23/2005
10/7/2005
10/21/2005
11/4/2005
11/18/2005
12/2/2005
Pak
12/16/2005
12/30/2005
1/13/2006
NCDEX
1/27/2006
2/10/2006
Sugar Price Comparison
2/24/2006
3/10/2006
NYBOT
3/24/2006
Price Stabilization Using Futures (Good Harvest)
If a good harvest
Sale of Futures via Exchange is expected
Price
Demand increases with reduction in Stabilization
spot prices takes place
Price
Demand Decreases with increase in Stabilization
spot prices takes place
Quality
Certification Warehouse Issues Receipt
NCEL
arranges credit Bank finance against WR
through bank
tie-ups
Prerequisites for Commodity based
Financing
• To convert agricultural produce into a
tradable instrument – Warehouse Receipt
• But it Requires an Institutional Framework
– Sound banking system
– Futures exchanges
– Price stability
– Network of warehouses
– Collateral Managers
The Concern is warehousing and collateral managers
Proposal – Jointly with MINFAL