Transparency???

We're off to a new year and hopefully some new and more positive attitudes towards transparency when it comes to disclosure of basic business entity information. Or perhaps not???

We've been working closely with a number of our clients over the years to verify information about firms registered in "secretive" jurisdictions (that does not mean that they leak by the way). Many of these tend to be in warm climates (although CNBC recently conducted a poll and found that the most secretive jurisdiction on the planet happens to be a little over an hour plane ride South East of Toronto where I'm writing this now - take a look http://www.cnbc.com/id/33591918/?slide=16).

The fundamental problem that we all face in trying to learn about companies we might like to transact with is that many of them incorporate in jurisdictions where they have no obligation to tell anyone else that they even exist. And if these firms don't have to publish anything about themselves, you as a financial institution or client simply need to trust what they tell you. Who's going to argue? Indeed this is one of the reasons that firms incorporate in such jurisdictions.

So the question is this. In such a huge, interconnected, leveraged and complex global economy, shouldn't we adopt some very basic yet universal standards around transparency if we are to minimize the chances or at least impact of another economic crisis? For example, shouldn't it be necessary for every registration authority in every jurisdiction to publish on a read only website, at no cost to the viewing public, the legal name and registered address of all entities registered in their jurisdiction? And shouldn't that registration authority (the one that typically has the legal mandate to prosecure the owners of a firm should they lie) also inform the public if each entity registered with them is active or not? Companies House sets a nice example of this in the UK. This information is also consolidated on Avox's www.wiki-data.com where it has been multiply sourced from various authorities.

This basic data serves as a kernel for a lot of other information however that core bit of data, if reliable and maintained in each jurisdiction by the authority with penalty inflicting power goes a long way to helping everyone converge on what is real, accurate and up to date. We call this Authoritative Source Convergence or "ASC". It's not an Avox product but a general initiative which we are working on with our clients, partners and a growing number of willing Authoritative Sources. This basic level of disclosure is vital for universal business entity identification (read "the holy grail").

Let us (and everyone else for that matter) know if you are interested in joining this initiative. We believe it can make all the difference.

Ken

FIMA London 2009

A busy week, last week. FIMA attendance was down a bit however we at least got back into the City. We missed attendees from Asia and Australia who participated last year however I suspect budget restrictions imposed in 08 had an impact on that.

It was a great pleasure for us to have Jeremy Ruston of Osmosoft spend a few minutes during the Avox presentation to give the audience insight into the power of open source software development. Jonathan Lister, an independent opensource software developer working with Avox pulled off the almost impossible by successfully demoing two live applications over the internet during the presentation (www.wiki-data.com and a custom app developed the night before using the wiki-data API - apps like these never work when you are doing live demos in front of large audiences!).

Thanks to all who joined the party at Prohibition on Tuesday night. The turnout was excellent (>200 people I'd say). Thanks to all the additional sponsors - Asset Control, EDM Council, Interactive Data, GoldenSource, S&P and SWIFT. The bash always makes our business a bit more tolerable.

Based on all the presentations, panel discussions and networking discussions last week, I see the potential for some substantial progress in the standardization and transparency around business entity data in 2010. Watch this blog over the next week or two. We've got some more things brewing.

Ken

NIF - Bark worse than Bite?

It's no secret that I've not been convinced of the "achievability" or desirability of the proposed regulatory infrastructure being proposed by the National Institute of Finance. But you know, I may be mellowing a bit. Here's why.

I bumped into an old business school/Algorithimcs alumni friend of mine in the Toronto airport on Tuesday (Dr. Dan Rosen - the brain with legs). He has been involved in NIF discussions over the past months and was actually the first person to tell me about it.

Well, I took the opportunity to suggest to Dan that NIF was behaving either arrogantly or naively or both. Dan gave me a kind but patronizing look and asserted the following.

"Ken, when the US government shut down Lehman but not AIG, they had no real understanding of whether that was the right move or not. They did not have anything to objectively measure what was the better decision." Crap, that's clear to me... "The objective of NIF is to help generate that understanding", Dan continued.

I immediately and quite cleverly (I thought) countered by shouting "Yes, but these guys are talking about splitting atoms, sending man to the moon and regulatory harmonization. The first two were easy!". Finally, I've managed to achieve some minimal sort of intellectual equity with the Ph.D. who was able to construct, graphically, Mick Jaggar's lips with a gamma graph on RiskWatch while drinking his cappucino and developing new credit risk management algorithms on his dirty napkin.

"Ken, Ken, Ken" (Dan's impatience starting to become evident), "these guys are politicians. They have to talk that way. All NIF wants to do is help increase transparency and provide better decision support.".

Now that makes sense to me. If the NIF folks start talking pragmatically and dump the atom splitting talk, I'm in . Forget about world peace, regulatory harmonization and poltical multi-partisanship. Transparency is the single most valuable objective we can shoot for.

And wouldn't you know it, the dark knight steps up to the plate. Bloomberg, are you serious?

The plot thickens...

Dazed and confused,

Ken

New version of wiki-data is live

I’m pleased to say that the new version of www.wiki-data.com is now live. There is also a link from our website.

Features of this new version:

- It has been developed in open source software which will provide significant flexibility to clients when the client specific version of the site is rolled out.

- Every Avox ID (AVID) is a distinct URI (Uniform Resource Identifier) enabling links to and from the entity record. There are no restrictions on the use of AVID, nor are there any license fees associated with it.

- We have put more data fields into this version of wiki-data including formerly known as name, also known as name, trading status, URL and additional operational address details.

- Users can hide/show columns, sort content in columns, click the AVID and land on a company page with a google map, filter content, challenge data values, request additional data for a record and request new records.

- Limited numbers of additional data and new record requests will be processed at no charge. We will soon have a charging mechanism in place for requesting more data and new records. Existing clients will be able to apply these requests against their existing contracts if they wish.

- There is a facility called “New app ideas” at the bottom of the screen where users can suggest and vote for new functionality.

- An email support function is also included at the bottom of the screen.

We have already started working on the client specific version of this application called “my-wiki-data” which will provide clients with more visualization, query and API functionality. We look forward to getting your feedback on both this public site and the client site as it evolves. Don’t hesitate to call if you have any questions. We hope that this new capability is helpful.

Please note that the email request function on the previous version of wiki-data was corrupted and not operational during the past two weeks. My apologies if you had tried to use that capability and received no response. It is working with this new version.

Wiki-data development with BT/Osmosoft

It's been a while since my last post but we have been busy working on wiki-data. Some of you will know that we have been in discussions with the open source software group at British Telecom. It's a subsidiary called Osmosoft comprised of some frighteningly clever technologists with impressive credentials and serious talent.

A group of us from Avox including senior management from our Wrexham office, our sales team including Brett Hodge who came over from Australia and myself spent a day with Osmosoft last week. They affectionately refer to these as "HackDays".

Within the space of 10 hours, this team, led by Jeremy Ruston, the Osmosoft founder, put together a brand new (I mean built from scratch) version of wiki-data with some great interactive functionality. We provided the guys with a very large dataset which they used as a base. By the end of the day, we had a platform where every AVID had its own URI (uniform resource identifier) so that anyone can link to or from it, addresses of companies are now linked to Google Maps so you can visualize where firms are based (we quickly found one in Iraq!), anyone can begin a comment string on an entity and yes, we even had an online edit function (we are going to need to figure out how to govern that one before releasing it!).

If you are interested, your best bet is to have a look at Michael Mahemoff's blog where you will find detailed descriptions of the process and outcome as well as a video of me and Paul Downey of Osmosoft running you through the platform before we ran to the pub for pints. Just click on the link (embedded in the heading) at the top of this post.

Or if you prefer: http://softwareas.com/wikidata-hackathon-wikidata-a-wiki-of-companies-data.

I'll keep you posted on what will be rolling out and when. We are extremely excited.

Ken

KYC - Global Regulatory Conflict

On June 4, GoldTier, a KYC software company hosted a speaker panel to discuss the impact of a changing global political and economic environment on the Know Your Customer (KYC) function at financial institutions. One of the discussion points exposed a great deal of frustration amongst the participants which included representatives from North American and European financial institutions.

As a KYC professional at a global financial institution, it is incumbent upon you to ensure that the head office of your firm is aware of their global exposure to any and all customers. This requires transmission of what some consider to be "sensitive" data across international borders. Countries including Singapore, Switzerland and Korea are asserted to have in place data privacy regulations that prevent such data from being sent across their borders. By definition, this would make it legally impossible for firms located outside of those countries to do business there.

This is clearly not the business reality. The problem as I see it is that compliance officers are paid to be ultra conservative and risk averse. This results in overly conservative interpretations of international regulations governing, amongst other things, data protection. This puts them and their firms in an awkward position of having to rely on the opinion of their locally based compliance function to make judgements without having the ability to regularly audit the process and data from a foreign head office. So ironically the risk averse compliance function is introducing a significant risk to their firm by not sending what is typically generic company information between geographies.

We have international clients who have realized this and have engaged with regulators in countries like Singapore to get clarity. Indeed Avox has been involved in some of these discussions directly. In most cases, there is actually no restriction on sending company information outside of these countries. How on earth would firms in these countries do business internationally if this was the case?

It's time for the business to work closely with compliance and have frank discussions with any regulatory body they believe is hampering transparency. Any country that truly prohibits communication of important decision support information outside of their borders needs to be prepared to suffer a drastic reduction in international trade. I think you will find that the reality is most regulators will not stand in the way of legitimate commerce.

Ken

Canada ready to take a reference data lead?

I've just returned from the third of three EDM Council meetings chaired by Mike Atkin, this one in Toronto. The previous recent meetings were held in Boston and London. I was pretty suprised at the contrast.

The Toronto event was well attended by most of the major banks, funds and a number of vendors. John Mulholland of RBC kindly hosted and injected much relevant and interesting comment. A representative from the cash equities business group at CIBC provided a significant amount of challenging, insightful and truly helpful comments. This helped make the Toronto meeting one of the most dynamic and relevant EDM Council meetings yet in my opinion.

It was rather shocking to see the Toronto financial community coming together with so much vigour. I've personally been trying to foster a reference data community here, (where embarrassingly, I'm based) but to little avail. Hats of to Mike and John for getting the ball rolling and to all the firms that participated for grabbing the bull by the horns. Maybe it's time for Canada to start leading the reference data charge...

Ken

wiki-data.com

If I'm perfectly honest, this exercise has been more painful than anticipated.

We started out by planning to publish a "skinny" version of every record in our CORE (COrroborated, Remediated, Enriched) Avox database. Then we realized that a good chunk of these records had been verified over a year ago for clients wanting just a one time clean-up (some folks never learn...) so those records had a reasonable chance of being out of date. As it takes a good 10 minutes per record to recheck, trolling through hundreds of thousands of stale records would take too long and cost too much for this initiative. Given that we are making this content publicly available so everyone can look at it, we thought it would be risky to publish data we knew had a high probably of being out of date.

Then in the pared down database, we found a large number of records that were not unique "legal" entities. That is to say, they were branches, departments or funds which had been included for specific Avox clients at their request. So while these are valid records from their perspective, we've excluded them from wiki-data for now with a view to starting with pure legal entities.

Then we released the database to a small trial audience and, as expected, we received helpful feedback on some quality issues which we have been in the process of addressing. This is exactly what we had hoped for as every new set of eyes that looks at the content brings with them new perspective and knowledge. The community helps improve its own asset. We also received very helpful feedback from users including some of our own staff about the layout of the search facility, the results and the issue filing process.

Perhaps most interesting and encouraging was the fact that one of our competitors provided constructive feedback. Could it be that we may be able to work with eachother to jointly improve our mutual clients' data? Let's see.

So now we feel the database, although slimmed down quite a lot, is ready for broad public viewing and consumption. There will be out of date information. There may be some duplicate values. And yes, I expect there will be some outright errors. It's all expected. All we ask is that you tell us about any problems you find. You just need to click on the "Correction" button next to the record in question.

I know it's a bit of a pain however please do share your feedback/thoughts with respect to wiki-data on this blog. You can just email me if you prefer. We also have a LinkedIn group (Avox business entity discussion forum) set up.

Ken

Avox partners with CUSIP/S&P

Like a said a few weeks ago, I anticipate a flurry of activity in the reference data space. OK, I had some inside information upon which to make this assertion but the reality is - it's happening.

We are really excited about this arrangement with CUSIP. Some skeptics out there are suggesting that this is not a good partnership because of some negative press CUSIP is getting, particularly in Europe. I look at it the other way around. By partnering with Avox, CUSIP is embracing a more open approach to entity reference data. The content managed by Avox within this partnership will be consistent with that of all Avox clients which currently include the likes of Barclays, Citigroup, Nomura and Standard Bank of South Africa. It will also be consistent with entity data held by our partners including firms such as SWIFT, Interactive Data and Markit. Applying the CABRE will be quick and efficient for these companies as well as for existing CUSIP customers and partners. In essence, this partnership proves that collaboration is growing and succeeding in the reference data world.

Will the CABRE become the industry standard entity identifier? Well, frankly, that's up to the market. What do you think? If you have an opinion, we'd like to hear it and get some public discussion going on.

Ken

Out with the old, in with the new.

I've been tracking Jeff Jarvis, author of "What Would Google Do?" and of the www.buzzmachine.com blog. He posted an article recently about the demise of newspapers in the form of a theoretical testimonial to Senator John Kerry's hearings. What's that got to do with data?

I find interesting parallels between the news business and our industry. Both have historically relied on IP and tight control over it. The Internet destroys control. But on the plus side, it proliferates knowledge. And on the down side, it proliferates much useless noise.

The question is, can large, blue chip businesses that rely heavily on conventional license revenue streams adapt quickly enough to this new regime of transparency to survive and prosper? A number of news organizations have found this a major challenge.

It's an exciting time to test these ideas as firms in the financial services space are forced to seriously question everything they do and how they do it. Might there be a more efficient way to improve data quality. I suppose you know my opinion on that already...

Ken

Is the industry finally getting "collaboration"?!

In the past 3 months, I've seen more concerted effort amongst the vendor community to work together than I have in my 15 years in this industry. Here's a prediction. Before the end of Q2, 2009, we are going to see a series of announcements and real progress toward global vendor collaboration in the business entity space.

We need to move faster in this industry if we want to remain relevant. That applies to all members of the food chain - data vendors, technology providers, consulting firms, regulators, utilities AND users. Business conditions are ripe for change that may initially be percieved as risky but which is already proving to deliver significantly higher value than that which has been achievable in the past.

I'm looking forward to some discussion on this topic.