Blockchain and T2S:
A potential disruptor
by Margaret Harwood-Jones
Managing Director
Head, Investors and Intermediaries for Transaction Banking
3
Contents
Introduction 4
The overarching potential of blockchain 7
Could blockchain be incorporated into T2S or replace it? 10
Operational issues to be considered 12
Regulatory challenges facing blockchain and T2S 16
Conclusion 18
Market Participants
Custodians
Custodians
CSD CSD CSD
CSD CSD CSD
4
The concept of blockchain, a technological architecture facilitating a shared, distributed ledger,
has gained enormous traction in the securities services industry over the last two years.
Blockchain was historically associated with Bitcoin, a cryptocurrency, but its relevance and
usage could potentially extend far beyond that. Blockchain, put simply, is a database holding
unalterable transactional information supplied by financial institutions.
A number of financial institutions and market infrastructures have expressed interest in blockchain,
pointing out it could replace manual and duplicative processes which can be highly inefficient,
expensive and prone to operational error. This paper will explore whether blockchain could have a
material role or impact on the European Central Bank’s (ECB) Target2Securities (T2S) project, the long-
standing and ambitious initiative launched in 2006. T2S is a pan-EU settlement platform designed to
provide centralised delivery versus payment (DVP) trade settlement in central bank funds across the
European securities market.
T2S aims to standardise European cross-border trade settlement by integrating securities and cash
accounts onto a single IT platform. The T2S platform and Central Securities Depositories (CSDs)
across Europe will therefore be interconnected through a single utility. This is known as the integrated
model intended to enable cross-border real-time DVP settlement inside Europe. As the rules and
standards governing T2S will be harmonised, this should help reduce some of the complexities and
costs inherent in EU cross-border trade settlement.
Introduction
The current landscape of EU settlement
Source:
Custodians
D
ir
e
c
t
A
c
c
e
ss
Market Participants
CSD CSD CSD CSD
5
T2S has been subject to a number of delays over the last few years although deadlines are fast
approaching. The ECB highlights migration of CSDs onto the T2S platform will occur in waves and
has been doing so since June 2015. The final wave of CSDs located in countries including the Baltics,
Finland and Spain will be migrated onto T2S on September 18, 2017. However, some hypothesise
whether blockchain’s evolution and implementation in the securities services industry could threaten
or even replace T2S.
The first part of this white paper will explore the overarching implications blockchain could have on
financial markets more broadly with a particular focus on securities services.
Part two of this paper will look at the practical implications blockchain could have on T2S and whether
T2S could be a test case for the technology’s usage. This will analyse whether T2S could be upgraded
and amended to incorporate blockchain and the associated benefits this may bring. It will question the
willingness of the T2S sponsor (effectively the ECB) to consider such a disruptive change in a system
that is still in the process of launch.
Part three will explore some of the operational challenges of implementing blockchain onto T2S.
Incorporating blockchain onto legacy systems that have been designed for T2S, both at the ECB and
across users could be operationally difficult, expensive and risky. Attaining industry-wide agreement
on blockchain’s usage and standards is going to be a long-term project, and waiting for consensus on
this will only delay T2S further.
Part four assesses some of the regulatory impediments which could inhibit blockchain’s adoption
into T2S. The ECB has invested enormous amounts into T2S’s success. Simply replacing it with
blockchain is not going to happen quickly. Furthermore, regulatory agencies including the International
Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) and the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) have
warned that Fin Tech could pose a systemic risk to capital markets. These regulators referenced
distributed ledger technology as being one source of Fin Tech systemic risk.
The future landscape with T2S
However, some
hypothesise
whether
blockchain’s
evolution and
implementation
in the securities
services industry
could threaten or
even replace T2S.
Source:
Others argue blockchain could infiltrate the
securities settlement space dominated by CSDs.
6
1 2 3
4 5 6
A B
A
B
A
B
7
The overarching potential of blockchain
The potential of blockchain has generated significant debate over the preceding two years.
This is particularly true in the custody and securities settlement chain.
As blockchain
operates on a
real-time trade
settlement time-
frame and there
is complete
transparency
that trading
counterparties
can meet their
obligations at the
point of settlement
finality, some have
questioned if it will
remove the need
for CCPs.
The potential of blockchain has generated significant debate over the preceding two years. This is
particularly true in the custody and securities settlement chain. A prime example could be central
counterparty clearing houses (CCPs) whose importance has been elevated following passage of the
Dodd-Frank Act and European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR), which have mandated a
growing number of over-the-counter (OTC) derivative transactions be centrally cleared through these
market infrastructures.
As blockchain operates on a real-time trade settlement time-frame and there is complete transparency
that trading counterparties can meet their obligations at the point of settlement finality, some have
questioned if it will remove the need for CCPs. This is overly simplistic. CCPs are likely to still have a
role in a blockchain era for two fundamental reasons. First, they would add value in their clearing and
netting function as that reduces settlement volumes and demand for settlement liquidity. Furthermore,
they would have a role in terms of transaction collateral management, ranging from period transactions
in derivative markets through to administrative demand for settlement in cash markets.
The six steps in a blockchain transaction
A and B wish to
conduct an ‘interaction’
or ‘transaction’.
Cryptographic keys are
assigned to the interaction
that both A and B hold.
The interaction is
broadcast and verified by
a distributed network.
Once validated, a
new block is created.
The transaction between
A and B is completed.
This block is then added to the
chain, creating a permanent
‘golden source’ of the interaction.
8
Others argue blockchain could infiltrate the securities settlement space dominated by CSDs. Again,
while blockchain has the potential to disrupt a number of elements within the custody cycle such as
corporate actions, there remains a school of thought that CSDs will have a part to play insofar as
monitoring or overseeing this technology and ensuring that it adheres to industry-agreed standards
and protocols.
The technology could gain interest in regulatory reporting as it would represent a golden source or
single source of truth on all financial institutions’ reporting. Financial institutions have to report enormous
swathes of data to different regulators. Oftentimes, these reports may have a similar purpose (.
identifying customers and counterparties, risk exposures, details of trades) but could have different
methodologies behind the calculations. Some of the reports may have different formats or definitions,
which can occasionally lead to regulatory arbitrage and fragmentation.
This arbitrage can often lead to confusion. Even reporting Regulatory Assets under Management
(RAUM) at fund managers is not necessarily consistent between US and EU regulators. Some
regulatory bodies have tacitly encouraged an embrace of blockchain to help facilitate regulatory
reporting. However, issues around a lack of standardisation and the ability of legacy technology
systems to handle blockchain will need to be remedied before distributed ledger technologies can be
properly adopted en masse.
Central Counterparty Clearing
Trade Settlement
Collateral Management
Regulatory Reporting
Corporate Actions
Which market segments could blockchain disrupt?
9
At present, blockchain has been embraced by a small number of market participants. The Australian
Securities Exchange (ASX) has been testing blockchain in equity trade settlement and clearing.
Nonetheless, Australia’s equity market is dematerialised and relatively small making blockchain
adoption potentially more straightforward.
A number of financial institutions are participating in working groups as a means to further develop
blockchain. An example of such a group is the R3 Consortium, which comprises a group of banks
looking to develop blockchain technology across financial services.
Reports also indicate several high-profile asset managers are exploring blockchain as a
mechanism to speed up transactions in illiquid assets. Others are seeking to modernise legacy
platforms to attain compressed straight through processing (STP). Generally, it appears to be the
major asset managers exploring the technology. “Asset management tends to be a conservative
industry because of our fiduciary role managing peoples’ life savings. As such, this can mean the
industry can be slow to adapt to innovative technology. But we must be mindful of the risks of the
technology before we embrace it given our fiduciary obligations,” said one asset manager.
Blockchain’s potential to disrupt capital markets should not be underestimated with Santander
estimating it could incur savings of between $15 billion and $20 billion by 2022 through streamlining
cross-border payments, securities trading and regulatory compliance. However, there are a
number of challenges which must be overcome before this can be realised.
“Blockchain has the potential to impact markets globally including emerging economies, which
are in the early stages of developing their market infrastructures. However, we must be mindful
that change will not happen overnight. Distributed ledger technology – should it truly take off – will
take years to come into fruition. It will require harmonised standards and regulation agreed by the
industry, regulators and governments. The scale of this challenge should not be underestimated,”
said Alan Naughton, Head of Product Securities Services at Standard Chartered.
Alan Naughton
Head of Product Securities Services
Standard Chartered Bank
Blockchain has the potential to impact markets globally including emerging economies,
which are in the early stages of developing their market infrastructures. However, we must
be mindful that change will not happen overnight.
10
Could blockchain be incorporated
into T2S or replace it?
Incorporating blockchain technology into T2S is a concept that is gaining interest. Some have
hinted the technology could even develop at a rate faster than T2S’s implementation. Both are
hypothetical at the moment, although the ECB is certainly considering the impact blockchain
could have on its T2S project.
In a consultative technical paper – “Eurosystem’s vision for the future of Europe’s financial
market infrastructure: RTGS Services”, the ECB recognised blockchain and distributed ledger
technologies as a potential disruptor. The paper said there would be assessments around how
these technologies could impact financial services.
The challenge around assessing blockchain’s likely impact on T2S is that the technology is still
in its early stages and the markets/segments it is being experimented in are small. Its impact
on an initiative as significant as T2S is purely speculative. One market infrastructure expert puts
it succinctly. “To me, the fundamental question we must consider around distributed ledger
technology is whether it is going to provide an additional benefit or value to an industry initiative like
T2S or if it is going to completely reshape the industry as we know it. If it is the former, then T2S
can adapt. If it is the latter, then we will have to question whether T2S is designed appropriately to
adapt to this evolution,” said the expert.
Proponents of blockchain highlight it could facilitate a real-time environment within T2S in what
would streamline the entire settlement process and theoretically reap cost savings. It could also
reduce counterparty risk for those operating T2S as trades would be settled instantaneously.
It would also help facilitate automation which could potentially reduce operational errors and
duplication in what has historically been a highly manual process.
11
One consultant is sceptical. “Just because the technology exists to do something does not
mean you should necessarily do it. In theory, most markets could migrate to T+0. But real-time
settlement has huge risks. These include FX risks, for example. Theoretically, the platform could
move to the blockchain ideal market. However, this would need major platform re-engineering, a
move to real time settlement from the chosen overnight batches, a careful study of the impact on
liquidity of such an environment and comparable work at all participating CSDs and linked users.
That is a long term project beyond five to ten years,” he said.
Blockchain could potentially replace T2S if the technology developed exponentially quickly.
Blockchain is in an incubator phase at present and the technology could offer opportunities and
cost savings around settlement and reconciliation. The big question for T2S is whether blockchain
technology develops at such a fast rate that it could even replace T2S or result in an upgrade in T2S.
“Blockchain technology could potentially be used by T2S to improve efficiency and cost for its
core delivery versus payment functionality. It could also assist across T2S users such as CSDs
and custodian banks with their processing of transactions at T2S. I suspect if T2S was being
created now, it would use blockchain technology in some shape or form. But it would take a long
time to integrate into T2S today though,” said Alex Powell, independent consultant and advisor to
Credits, a blockchain infrastructure provider.
“There is a possibility blockchain’s technology could develop or result in other advancements. If
blockchain develops as its proponents say it will and it proves to be cheaper to implement and
operate than the current infrastructure and negates all of the manual processes and demonstrates
flexibility, it could bring major change. This would be something T2S would have to adapt to. I
suspect such change would be a slow process as it would need to embrace all parties to the
process. We must remember the T2S concept was launched more than 10 years ago yet we
have still not completed migration from all participating CSDs. Conversely, markets can adopt
to dramatic change in some instances. For example, when automation was introduced to UK
settlement following the launch of the UK CSD in the early 1990s, there was a lot of resistance
in the transfer agency industry, and now most of these opponents to change are no longer in
business,” said Naughton from Standard Chartered.
The fundamental
question we must
consider around
distributed ledger
technology is
whether it is going
to provide an
additional benefit or
value to an industry
initiative like T2S
or if it is going to
completely reshape
the industry as
we know it. If it is
the former, then
T2S can adapt. If
it is the latter, then
we will have to
question whether
T2S is designed
appropriately
to adapt to this
time trade settlement
Reduced counterparty risk
More efficient DVP
Enhanced automation
But this is all hypothetical at present
How could blockchain disrupt T2S?
12
Operational issues to be considered
The scalability of blockchain is something that needs to be addressed. The T2S project
comprises 24 CSDs across multiple markets. While blockchain’s ability to handle Bitcoin
transactions is not in dispute, the transactional volumes that will be occurring on T2S will
be far higher, and many believe the technology is not mature enough to deal with this at the
current stage.
Scalability
The ECB estimates that daily T2S peak volumes will reach million transactions with a value
of approximately €10 trillion to €15 trillion. In contrast, daily transactional volumes in Bitcoin total
around 250,000 with a value of US$257 million. “Bitcoin had a limited scope, and blockchain
has to demonstrate it is scalable before it can be considered for use alongside or within the T2S
platform. I understand this is an issue proponents of the technology are trying to tackle, but until
I see blockchain being deployed and working effectively on a massive scale, then I struggle to
believe it will be incorporated onto T2S,” said Virginie O’Shea, Research Director of Aite Group’s
Institutional Securities research practice.
Others agree. “Scalability is a challenge blockchain must overcome. The volume of Bitcoin
transactions versus T2S will be very small. If blockchain is to truly evolve, it must prove itself beyond
niche or small segments of the market. It needs to show that it can handle huge volumes of time-
critical transactions in a highly regulated environment,” said Naughton from Standard Chartered.
T2S will after all handle several thousands of different securities across multiple geographies over the
course of each settlement day. Furthermore, one must be mindful that a securities transaction does not
only comprise of a single, simple transfer of value. It may also include special ex dividends and special ex
rights transactions. Transactions, unless the parties are made redundant by the new process, need to be
matched or approved with all parties to the trade or settlement and maybe even the fund administrator
for control purposes. Oftentimes, a single securities transaction may need to be allocated across multiple
funds and beneficiaries. Nonetheless, proponents of blockchain believe the technology will be able to
cope with the complexity and volume of securities transactions passing through T2S.
13
Standardisation
Perhaps the biggest impediment to blockchain’s adoption or even replacement of T2S surrounds
attaining an industry-wide consensus on the standards governing the technology. Industry-wide
consensus on blockchain’s adoption would have to be agreed between financial institutions, market
infrastructures and regulators across a diverse array of geographies. “Today’s distributed ledger
landscape lacks standardisation at all levels – from technical protocols to ledger and transaction data
formats, to smart contracts. Moreover, distributed ledger development is being completed entirely in
isolation from existing business standards organisations such as ISO (International Organisation for
Standardisation), ISDA (International Swaps and Derivatives Association) or FPL (FIX Protocol Ltd).
The direct consequence of this lack of standardisation is that the various distributed ledgers are not
interoperable and information stored on the ledger is not aligned to market standards and practices,”
reads a position paper published by SWIFT and Accenture.
“It is essential that industry-wide standards are agreed on blockchain if it is to develop. This
may include having a common language and adherence to uniform market practices around
entitlements, record dates and registrations. Technical standards such as an agreed message
format type to identify securities or markets and capture data would have to be decided
upon. A failure to agree on standards governing blockchain will hinder interoperability between
organisations. Blockchain for securities would need harmonised governance and community
management and be able to interoperate on a global scale,” said one expert.
A paper – “Blockchain in Capital Markets” – published by Euroclear in conjunction with Oliver
Wyman said alignment would be needed in a number of areas including whether the systems
are completely open or if access must be permissioned. Other issues which would need to be
addressed might include the principles outlining suitability to use blockchain and safeguards
against coding errors, added the paper. The pace of change in obtaining agreement in areas as
sensitive as this could be slow.
It is essential that industry-wide standards are agreed on blockchain if it is to develop.
This may include having a common language and adherence to uniform market practices
around entitlements, record dates and registrations. Technical standards such as an
agreed message format type to identify securities or markets and capture data would
have to be decided upon. A failure to agree on standards governing blockchain will hinder
interoperability between organisations.
14
Technology challenges
The T2S implementation programme has been in train for a decade. Market participants have been
connecting to T2S through SWIFT’s Value Added Network Solution or via SIA (Societa Interbancaria
per I’Automazione) and COLT. A number of smaller financial institutions have connected to T2S via
larger financial institutions. This has been a delicate and protracted process, which has overcome a
number of technological and administrative impediments, not to mention legacy systems. Bolting on
blockchain technology infrastructure to T2S could be operationally challenging, costly and even risky.
Given the systemic importance of T2S in the functioning of European securities settlement processes,
any incorporation of new technology must be carefully considered. Suggestions to minimise the
risk of technological error could be to run parallel infrastructures, a point made in the Euroclear
and Oliver Wyman paper. Simply latching blockchain architecture onto T2S is certainly achievable
but potentially costly and high-risk. However, running parallel structures would also be extremely
expensive, particularly if the migration was delayed. Many of these IT systems will store huge
swathes of data, and there are questions whether blockchain has the bandwidth to do this as well.
“Technology upgrades and changes can be rife with operational risk and overheads. T2S has been
in the mainstay for ten years and a number of financial institutions in Europe with global client bases
have been building their internal architecture, at considerable cost, around T2S. While blockchain
is exciting, we must be mindful that implementing blockchain onto these proprietary technology
systems is complex and risky, and could put businesses all over the world with European interests
in a difficult position if there was an error,” commented Naughton from Standard Chartered.
Others agree that any migration by T2S onto blockchain would be difficult. “The sheer risk of
replacing these systems would be huge and there is no easy way around it. There is a reason
why financial institutions do not often replace systems and back offices, which are not revenue
generating. It is risky and costly and does not add to the bottom line. Furthermore, one must
remember that when you replace one system, you have to make changes to every system
connected to that replaced system. This can facilitate a number of problems,” said O’Shea.
Should blockchain take off, its systemic importance cannot be dismissed. Having a select few blockchain
providers servicing capital markets would turn those providers into systemically important entities. There
are a number of blockchain providers coming to market. One market infrastructure expert highlights this
presents a conundrum. “There are a number of innovations coming to market. The big issue would be
if firms leverage a blockchain provider who does not become the dominant player in the space, or goes
out of business. This could prove to be a costly error or worse,” said the expert.
The asset manager acknowledged market participants are fully aware that technologies change
rapidly and will have systems in place to deal with such disruption. “Technology in today’s market
is used to this problem. Digital technology is very mobile and market participants recognise that
change is happening all of the time. Most firms implement technology with the view that it will have
a three year life span. Reviews of the technology and its long-term prospects and viability within the
business will be conducted within 18 months of its implementation usually,” said the asset manager.
Technology
upgrades and
changes can be
rife with operational
risk and overheads.
T2S has been in
the mainstay for
ten years and a
number of financial
institutions in
Europe with global
client bases have
been building their
internal architecture,
at considerable
cost, around T2S.
15
Another challenge would be interoperability or lack of. If a number of blockchain providers emerge,
it is crucial that their systems can co-exist and interact. “Blockchain providers need to be able to
interoperate. It is crucial one blockchain can actually refer to information on another blockchain
and cross-reference it,” said Powell.
If a single or multiple blockchain providers were to suffer a technological fault, hacking or default,
the ramifications would be severe. A number of financial institutions have suffered cyber-attacks
including information leaks or Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks by malicious parties.
It is critical that any blockchain technology system has excellent cyber-protections in place.
Cyber-crime is a concern for all market participants. The on-going fear of cyber-activities could
be something which stymies adoption of blockchain in T2S. “Cyber-risks are a huge risk for
market infrastructures. Awareness of cyber-security has increased but I do not feel blockchain
proponents have done a huge amount to allay fears around this as yet,” said O’Shea. The asset
manager highlighted blockchain would inevitably suffer a cyber-attack as malicious parties work
out its encryption models and become increasingly sophisticated. “Dealing with cyber-crime will
be a case of cat and mouse for blockchain providers, but it is something the industry should be
thinking about continuously,” said the asset manager.
Mitigating this risk would require blockchain firms to have business continuity planning (BCP) in
place, with technology infrastructure storing transactions in real-time on a separate server.
“Cyber-crime and cyber-security is something international regulators are taking increasing note
of. There have been a number of high-profile incidents. While proponents of blockchain highlight
that it has excellent cyber-security, it has yet to be tested on a wider scale in a highly regulated
environment. Exchanges, banks, broker-dealers and fund managers have all been impacted by
cyber-crime and regulators require these financial institutions to ensure not only their own cyber-
protections are fully robust but the cyber-protection measures at their service providers including
technology vendors meet these standards,” said Naughton from Standard Chartered.
However, others point out blockchain has a strong cyber-security track record. “Blockchain has
a robust cyber-security record so far and one could argue it is superior to existing systems. It
has strong encryption and cryptography built in which protects data,” said Powell. While there
were some high-profile Bitcoin hackings, this had nothing to do with the underlying blockchain
technology, and this is something market participants ought to be cognisant of.
Scalability concerns
Lack of standards
Operational risk of incorporating blockchain onto legacy systems
Costs of incorporating blockchain onto legacy systems
Lack of interoperability between blockchain providers
Cyber-security issues
Key operational challenges facing blockchain
16
Regulatory challenges
facing blockchain and T2S
Regulators have embraced disruptive technologies as a means by which antiquated, manual,
error-strewn processes could be modernised. Nothing illustrates this better than Project
Innovate, an initiative jointly agreed between the UK FCA and the Australian Securities and
Investments Commission (ASIC) whereby both regulators will support fintech projects in each
other’s market.
Despite this embrace, there is scepticism among market participants that the ECB will be as receptive
to blockchain being incorporated onto T2S. “Huge amounts of money – millions of euros - and effort
have been spent trying to get T2S operational at the ECB and among market participants. I believe
the ECB would need to take some serious convincing around blockchain’s role in T2S,” said O’Shea.
Other regulatory challenges are more pronounced. Distributed ledger technology could pose major
systemic risks in the event of a technical fault, cyber-attack or default. Such a scenario – and if
blockchain were incorporated into T2S – would have a significant impact on securities settlement. The
FCA has publicly commented on the systemic risks that could arise through blockchain. The Financial
Stability Board (FSB) is exploring the issue too. IOSCO published its Securities Markets Risk Outlook
2016 report and this referenced distributed ledger technology as a phenomenon that needed to be
carefully understood along with its associated risks.
17
Virginie O’Shea
Research Director
Aite Group’s Institutional
Securities
Huge amounts of
money – millions of
euros – and effort
have been spent
trying to get T2S
operational at the
ECB and among
market participants.
I believe the ECB
would need to
take some serious
convincing around
blockchain’s role
in T2S.
Some have warned that the shared nature of blockchain could make it difficult for regulators to impose
sanctions against market participants for wrong-doing. However, this would require an entity – possibly
a CSD – to assume management, trust and governance of the blockchain record. As such, this could
potentially address this issue. “Blockchain must be subject to oversight, and market infrastructures
and custodians are in an excellent position to assist. Organisations such as Standard Chartered are
well-placed given its strength in emerging markets across APAC, MENA and Africa to assist local
market participants in formulating systems to transpose blockchain onto their existing architecture and
market practices,” said Naughton from Standard Chartered.
The legal challenges posed for regulators should not be underestimated. Should the technology truly
take off, huge volumes of legislation will have to be rewritten or amended to take account of this. This
will not be a quick process, particularly as adopting this technology is likely to have a global impact.
Regulators across impacted jurisdictions would have to be involved in the process. The Euroclear
paper highlights that rules around the legal definition of settlement finality would have to be revised.
As such, finality in blockchain would have to be aligned with regulations such as the EU’s Finality
Directive. One consultant highlighted the structure of blockchain’s records could create legal problems
if regulators or laws demanded erroneous or illegal transactions be unwound.
Furthermore, outstanding issues around data security – a topic of growing prominence – would need
to be resolved. There are a number of questions surrounding where the data is physically held, which
could pose problems. “Regulators are always looking at where data is held, and this is something
blockchain would have to address,” said the market infrastructure expert.
Will the ECB be receptive to blockchain upending its T2S project?
What would the implications be if regulators designated blockchain
as systemically important?
Lack of regulatory harmonisation
Data security issues
Key regulatory issues facing blockchain
18
1 A number of financial institutions are interested in blockchain,
but its adoption will not happen overnight. Rather, it could
potentially take place over several years, across different
aspects of financial services.
2 Blockchain offers a number of opportunities for T2S but hurdles
must be overcome.
3 Blockchain must demonstrate scalability and the industry must
agree on standards before it can be considered for T2S.
4 Blockchain’s adoption and success is conditional on a smooth
implementation and incorporation onto legacy technologies.
The costs of getting this wrong could be high.
5 Blockchain must prove to the market it is secure from cyber-
attacks, a phenomenon financial institutions increasingly have
to deal with.
6 Regulators do encourage disruptive technologies to an extent.
Blockchain, however, will face regulatory scrutiny if it becomes
systemically important.
Conclusion
Blockchain has the potential to disrupt a number of processes including T2S and have a
major impact on financial institutions globally. Nonetheless, many operational and regulatory
challenges will need to be overcome before this materialises. This is likely to take several
years, if not up to a decade. Standard Chartered is monitoring and reviewing the potential
opportunities and challenges that blockchain may bring, and how it can be incorporated into
its future business model. The bank has also begun working with clients across the globe to
assess how blockchain can fit into their businesses and ecosystem.
Key takeaways
19
Margaret has more than three decades of experience in financial services, almost 20 years of which
has been within the securities services industry. Previously in senior management positions at
BNP Paribas, and before that at HSBC, Margaret has undertaken roles in global sales management,
relationship and service management, marketing, strategic development and business unit leadership
for global custody and corporate trustee activity. Margaret is a Chartered Individual of the Securities
and Investment Institute and an Associate of the Institute of Bankers. She was a founding Executive
Director of the Depository and Trustee Association in the UK. Margaret holds a General Management
Programme certificate granted by the European Centre for Continuing Education, INSEAD, France.
For more information, contact:
Amod Dixit
Head, Investors and Intermediaries,
ASEAN
@
Prakash Guptan
Head, Investors and Intermediaries,
South Asia
@
Margarita Murray
Head, Investors,
Americas
@
Barnaby Nelson
Head, Investors and Intermediaries,
Greater China and North East Asia
@
Michael Palagonia
Head, Intermediaries,
Americas
@
Jacqui Peachey
Head, Intermediaries,
Europe
@
Craig Perrin
Head, Investors,
Europe
@
Bennie van der Westhuizen
Head, Investors and Intermediaries,
Africa & Middle East
@
Margaret Harwood-Jones is Managing Director and Head, Investors
and Intermediaries for Transaction Banking at Standard Chartered
Bank. Based in Singapore, Margaret joined the bank in January 2013
and is responsible for leading the business agenda for this strategic
client segment on a worldwide basis, across cash management,
securities services and trade finance.
About the author
Disclaimer:
This material has been prepared by Standard Chartered Bank (SCB), a firm authorised by the United Kingdom’s Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated
by the United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority. It is not independent research material. This material has been
produced for information and discussion purposes only and does not constitute advice or an invitation or recommendation to enter into any transaction.
Some of the information appearing herein may have been obtained from public sources and while SCB believes such information to be reliable, it has not been
independently verified by SCB. Information contained herein is subject to change without notice. Any opinions or views of third parties expressed in this material
are those of the third parties identified, and not of SCB or its affiliates.
SCB does not provide accounting, legal, regulatory or tax advice. This material does not provide any investment advice. While all reasonable care has been
taken in preparing this material, SCB and its affiliates make no representation or warranty as to its accuracy or completeness, and no responsibility or liability
is accepted for any errors of fact, omission or for any opinion expressed herein. You are advised to exercise your own independent judgment (with the advice
of your professional advisers as necessary) with respect to the risks and consequences of any matter contained herein. SCB and its affiliates expressly disclaim
any liability and responsibility for any damage or losses you may suffer from your use of or reliance on this material.
SCB or its affiliates may not have the necessary licenses to provide services or offer products in all countries or such provision of services or offering of products
may be subject to the regulatory requirements of each jurisdiction. This material is not for distribution to any person to which, or any jurisdiction in which, its
distribution would be prohibited.
You may wish to refer to the incorporation details of Standard Chartered PLC, Standard Chartered Bank and their subsidiaries at
© Copyright 2016 Standard Chartered Bank. All rights reserved. All copyrights subsisting and arising out of these materials belong to Standard Chartered Bank
and may not be reproduced, distributed, amended, modified, adapted, transmitted in any form, or translated in any way without the prior written consent of
Standard Chartered Bank.
