TRAction are most popular:
- within Government, Public Sector and Environment topic(s)
ASIC has recently been in contact with a number of trade reporting service providers after evidently having done a large-scale analysis of their trade reporting data which has been reported.
There have mainly been 6 issues or themes that TRAction has seen raised by ASIC across the industry including many reporting entities using various trade reporting service providers and also members of industry bodies. These issues concern compression position reporting, realised profit & loss in the unwinding of trades, unusual times reported for event timestamps, unique client IDs, incorrect valuation of CFDs and inconsistent UPI usage. Some items listed are specific to CFD providers, however they have implications for all firms and therefore should not be overlooked by other firms trading in derivatives.
ASIC found that overall, the industry implementation of the ASIC Rules 2024 has been 'good' but stated that they 'wonder why the weaknesses are not identified and addressed by entities' own compliance arrangements.' Some interesting statistics that came out of ASIC's findings include the below:
- Non-compliance of re-reported reporting entity –
Counterparty 1 combinations were mainly from the buy-side (at 23.9%
of the market); and
- The retail OTC derivatives sector were predominantly high
offenders of (i) having abnormally large notionals across all asset
classes (equating to 9.7% of reporting entities); (ii)
non-compliance of non-LEI counterparty 2 information; (iii)
incorrect UPI usage or error; (iv) non-compliance with direction of
the buyer/seller vs make/take; and (v) having issues with
post-trade collateral related information.
Below we list the issues that ASIC has raised and TRAction's approach to rectifying them.
| Issue | TRAction's Approach to Rectification |
|---|---|
| i.
Single-sided relief errors ASIC observed that many firms failed to report transactions with hedging counterparties that were not eligible for single-sided reporting relief. |
TRAction provides detailed information to support firms with understanding their single-sided relief obligations (which changed during 2025) which is available here. |
| ii.
Compressed position reporting ASIC has observed that some CFD brokers generally report transactions over a given underlier and have noted the following patterns of reporting: " The COMP event type refers to a 'compression or post-trade risk reduction exercise'. It is an event that occurs on at least two open trades. If multiple trades over fungible underliers are consolidated into a single position, reporting entities in the Retail OTC CFD market commonly use the event type: 'INCP' (i.e. the inclusion of a trade into a position, where an existing trade is terminated and there is either a new position created or the modification of the notional amount or total notional quantity of an existing trade.) " Compression is inconsistent with flawed reporting as identified by reporting entities when a single open position is terminated before the trade closes. " It is incorrect for a position message to be reported at the same time as an opening trade – this leads to the same trade being reported twice. |
TRAction has discontinued use of the compression event type and each transaction will be terminated individually. At such point, the termination time will reflect the actual close time of the trade, instead of defaulting to the time at the end of day when the trades are rolled into a position. Further, a unique UTI is assigned to each trade – suffixes no longer need to be applied given that compression will not be part of the reporting workflow. |
| iii.
Realised profit and loss (P&L) in UWIN (Unwind) –
Payments made upon derivatives being terminated When the termination or modification of a Reportable Transaction consists of a payment that is not a payment of an option premium, notional amount or standard fees, taxes or commissions, the reporting of other payment information of type UWIN is required (ASIC Rules: Items 74-79 of Table S1.1(1) and ASIC Technical Guidance: Paragraphs 453-455). UWIN means 'unwind' or 'full termination' (being the final settlement payment made when a transaction is unwound before its end date or where payments may arise from a full termination of derivative transaction(s)). This leads to reporting entities having to list the P&L realised due to the closing trade. |
Since compression will be redundant (as mentioned in Issue 1), the unrealised P&L of each individual trade when closed will be reported in the "OtherPayment" (UWIN (Unwind)) field. |
| iv. Unusual
times reported for Event Timestamp 22:00:00.000 has been observed as being the most common time of the date-time value reported for (i) Event Timestamp and (ii) Reportable Transactions of Action Type and Event Type TERM-ETRM. The ASIC Rules require Counterparty 2 identifiers to be unique such that each legal entity that is subject to a reporting entity's reports is represented by only one identifier. |
TRAction has implemented new lifecycle logic in which trades will no longer be rolled into a COMP (Compression) position at 22:00:00.000. The outcome is that the trades reflect their actual individual close time. |
| v. Unique
client IDs / Duplicate Counterparty 2
Identifiers Some reporting entities have reported multiple Counterparty 2 identifiers for the same legal entity e.g. their clients have been allowed to trade with multiple accounts (logins). In essence, they are allowing for a duplicate of the identifier of their counterparties i.e. for the same Counterparty2name, there are multiple Counterparty 2 identifiers available. |
TRAction provides its
clients with a template which links the back-office account (at the
individual/entity level) with all of the individual/entity's
trading accounts. This template will likely be populated by firms exporting from their back-office system. This should also fix the issue where there are non-named data being reported in the name field like 'ACC#2(USD)' as this information wouldn't be present in the back-office account level record for the person. You can read about this on our website more here. |
| vi.
Valuation of CFD should be unrealised profit not underlying
notionals Valuation Information reported by some CFD brokers for OTC Derivatives includes Valuation Amounts that are significantly higher than expected. ASIC suspects that certain brokers may be reporting the current Notional Value of the quote leg as the Valuation Amount as opposed to the price paid to terminate (refer to Item 6 of Table S1.1(2) of the ASIC Rules). ASIC expects this to be the value of the position to the licensee which should be the amount that the client would pay to its broker if the position were terminated at the time the Valuation was performed. |
The Valuation Amount is
to be the unadjusted value of the trade, calculated as the amount
that would be paid to terminate the trade in an orderly market on
the valuation date. ASIC has found that Notional Values of CFD trades are currently reported by some brokers, as the Valuation Amount, causing discrepancies. These discrepancies are occurring because the notional value represents the total value of the underlying asset and not the current market value or termination value of the CFD. Such data values would normally come from the unrealised profit on a trade that has been transacted over platforms like MT4 or MT5. TRAction suggests that CFD brokers, in particular, review the definition of Valuation Amount and ensure valuations are being calculated correctly. |
| vii.
Abnormally large notionals across all asset
classes Even small discrepancies such as an incorrect contract size or missing currency can result in incorrect notional reporting, reconciliation breaks, or data quality issues. |
TRAction provides its
clients with a symbols table each week to help them with verifying
their reporting, along with a detailed Symbol Data File
Guide. The Symbol Data file is the instrument reference information that contains key details about every tradable instrument used in a client's trading platform. TRAction use this information to complete regulatory transaction reporting for clients, so it is important that it is accurate. By reviewing Symbol Data file, firms can ensure that the information we submit is both accurate and consistent across all reporting regimes. |
| viii.
Non-compliance with LEI requirements for counterparty
2 The ASIC Reporting Rules now provide that Legal Entity Identifiers (LEIs) are the only allowable entity identifier for all eligible relevant entities under the ASIC reporting regime. The previous ASIC Reporting Rules (i.e. prior to the changes that occurred on 21 October 2024) provided that, for other than an individual, an LEI is required to be reported but, if not available, an AVID or a BIC is a valid entity identifier (see Rule 2.1.1). |
TRAction conducts a
monthly review for its clients, assisting to identify entities
which may need an LEI. These reports are provided to clients with
explanatory detail. TRAction has published a variety of guidance which is helpful for its clients and other reporting entities. " LEI-only policy for ASIC after October 2024 " LEI status requirements " Trust or Trustee – which should obtain an LEI? |
| ix.
Different UPI, same underlier Example 1 UPIs of varying product types, over the same underlying asset classes are being reported. However, the most appropriate UPI for the reportable transaction is to be reported, being the UPI with attributes that most closely correspond to the OTC derivative which is the subject of the report. If such UPIs are not available for the given underlier, but a more appropriate one can be created, reporting entities are expected to create one. ASIC has thus requested reporting entities to: (i) account for the varying UPIs within asset classes; (ii) undertake a review of all UPIs reported across all asset classes; and (iii) correct any erroneous UPIs identified, and subsequently, advise ASIC of this along with the corresponding replacement. Example 2 There have been observations of a Mismatch of UPI Asset Class/Instrument Type to ASIC Asset Class/Contract Type. For example, reported ASIC 'Asset Class' field is CURR, but reported UPI Asset Class is 'Commodities'. Example 3 There have been several inappropriate choices of UPIs being used. The ASIC Rules require the most appropriate UPI is to be given depending on the kind of OTC derivative to be reported. For FX transactions, for example, some reporting entities have been using several UPIs of product type 'Non_Standard', where UPIs are available or may be created for the product type 'Contract_For_Difference'. |
Two OTC Derivatives can
have unique UPIs but share a common ISIN. This can occur where the
OTC derivative has different settlement methods – one settled
in cash and one physically settled. TRAction provides its clients a symbols table listing all their OTC derivatives and their associated pre-populated UPI. Our clients can review on a weekly basis their symbols tables to identify any anomalies. TRAction can also assist in identifying the trades associated with erroneous UPIs and backload corrections where necessary. Read more about whether UPIs need to be matched with your counterparty's submission in our article here. |
| x. Direction
of buyer/seller vs make/take ASIC noted that 43 firms where incorrectly reporting the directions of each leg of foreign currency CFDs. Many Firms reported CFDs over currency pair underliers by reporting only one leg of the transaction. The Rules require FX CFDs to be reported across two legs, by populating items "Direction 2 – Leg 1" and "Direction 2 – Leg 2". |
TRAction's transformation logic now ensures that FX CFDs are reported across two legs, with "Direction 2 – Leg 1" and "Direction 2 – Leg 2" both populated. |
| xi. Issues
with collateral information ASIC noted that many firms failed to report collateral information correctly and, in some cases, failed to report collateral information at all. Under the previous version of the ASIC rules, due to an anomaly in the legislation, brokers with retail clients or clients that are not Reporting Entities didn't have to report how much collateral was posted by the client. Brokers only had to report the collateral that they post for trades, i.e. hedging trades. This changed under ASIC Rewrite and brokers now have to report margin/collateral received. |
TRAction is able extract Initial Margin, Variation margin and excess Collateral automatically from Various CFD platform like Metatrader 4 Metatrader 5 and CTrader. |
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
