SOFR Replacing LIBOR

The London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) is going away, and the international financial community is working hard to plan for and mitigate risks to make a smooth transition. In the United States, the Federal Reserve’s Alternative Reference Rates Committee (ARRC) has recommended the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) as the preferred replacement rate. The New York Fed began publishing SOFR regularly on April 3, 2018. In July 2018, Fannie Mae issued $6 billion in SOFR-denominated securities, leading the way for other institutions who have since followed suit. In November 2018, the Federal Home Loan (FHL) Banks issued $4 billion in debt tied to SOFR. CME Group, a derivatives and futures exchange company, launched 3-month and 1-month SOFR futures contracts in 2018. All of these steps to support liquidity and demonstrate SOFR demand are designed to create a rate more robust than LIBOR—the transaction volume underpinning SOFR rates is around $750 billon daily, compared to USD LIBOR’s estimated $500 million in daily transaction volume. 

USD LIBOR is referenced in an estimated $200 trillion of financial contracts, of which 95 percent is derivatives. However, the remaining cash market is not small. USD LIBOR is referenced in an estimated: $3.4 trillion in business loans, $1.3 trillion in retail mortgages and other consumer loans, $1.8 trillion in floating rate debt, and $1.8 trillion in securitized products. 

The ARRC has held consultations on its recommended fallback language for floating rate notes and syndicated business loans—the responses are viewable on the ARRC website. On December 7, the ARRC published consultations on securitizations and bilateral business loans, which are both open for comment through February 5, 2019.  

Amid the flurry of positive momentum in the transition towards SOFR, anxiety remains that the broader market is not moving quickly enough. ARRC consultations and working groups indicate that these anxieties derive primarily from a few specific points of debate: development of term rates, consistency of contracts, and implementation timing.

Term Rates

Because the SOFR futures market remains immature, term rates cannot be developed without significant market engagement with the newly created futures. The ARRC Paced Transition Plan includes a goal to create a forward-looking reference rate by end-of-year 2021 – just as LIBOR is scheduled to phase out. In the interim, financial institutions must figure out how to build into existing contracts fallback language or amendments that include a viable alternative to LIBOR term rates.  

The nascent SOFR futures market is growing quickly, with December 2018 daily trade volumes at nearly 16,000. However, they pale in comparison to Eurodollar futures volumes, which logged daily averages around 5 million per day at CME Group alone. This puts SOFR on track according to the ARRC plan, but means institutions remain in limbo until the futures market is more mature and term SOFR rates can be developed. 

In July 2018, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) stated their support for employment of term rates primarily in cash markets, while arguing that spreads are tightest in derivative markets focused around overnight risk-free rates (RFRs), which therefore are preferred. An International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) FAQ document published in September 2018 explained the FSB’s request that “ISDA should develop fallbacks that could be used in the absence of suitable term rates and, in doing so, should focus on calculations based on the overnight RFRs.” This marks a major change, given that derivatives commonly reference 3-month LIBOR, and cash products are dependent on forward-looking term rates. Despite the magnitude of change, transition from LIBOR term rates to an alternative term rate based on limited underlying transactions would be undesirable.

The FSB explained:

Moving the bulk of current exposures referencing term IBOR benchmarks that are not sufficiently anchored in transactions to alternative term rates that also suffer from thin underlying markets would not be effective in reducing risks and vulnerabilities in the financial system. Therefore, the FSB does not expect such RFR-derived term rates to be as robust as the RFRs themselves, and they should be used only where necessary.

In a consultation report published December 20, 2018, ISDA stated the overwhelming majority of respondents’ preference for fallback language with a compounded setting in arrears rate for the adjusted RFR, with a significant and diverse majority preferring the historical mean/median approach for the spread adjustment.

Though ISDA’s consultation report noted some drawbacks to the historical mean/median approach for the spread adjustment, the diversity of supporters – in all regions of the world, representing many types of financial institutions – was a strong indicator of market preference. By comparison, there was no ambiguity about preference for the RFR in fallback language: In almost 90 percent of ISDA respondent rankings, the compounded setting in arrears rate was selected as the top preference for the adjusted RFR. 

In the Structured Finance Industry Group (SFIG) LIBOR Task Force Green Paper, the group indicates strong preference for viable term rates and leaves the question of whether such calculations should be done in advance or in arrears as an open item, while indicating preference for continuing prospectively determining rates at the start of each term. They list their preference for waterfall options as first an endorsed forward-looking term SOFR rate, and second, a compounded or average daily SOFR. SFIG is currently drafting their response to the ARRC Securitization Consultation, which will be made public on the ARRC website after submission. 

Despite stated preferences, working groups are making a concerted effort to follow the ARRC’s guidance to strive for consistency across cash and derivative products. Given the concerns about a viable term rate, some market participants in cash products are also exploring the realities of implementing ISDA’s recommended fallback language and intend to incorporate those considerations into their response to the ARRC consultations. 

In the absence of an endorsed term rate, pricing of other securities such as fixed-rate bonds is difficult, if not impossible. Additionally, the absence of an endorsed term rate creates issues of consistency within the rate itself (i.e., market standards will need to developed around how and over what periods the rate is compounded). The currently predominant recommendation of a compounding in arrears overnight risk-free rate would also have added complexity when compared with any forward-looking rate, which is exacerbated in the cash markets with consumer products where changes must be fully disclosed and explained. Compounding in arrears would require a lock-out period at the end of a term to allow institutions time to calculate the compounded interest. Market standards and consumer agreement around the specific terms governing the lock-out period would be difficult to establish.

Consistency:

While ISDA has not yet completed formal consultation specific to USD LIBOR and SOFR, and their analysis is only applicable to derivatives and swaps, there are several benefits to consistency across cash and derivatives markets. Consistency of contract terms across all asset classes during the transition away from USD LIBOR lowers operational, accounting, legal, and basis risk, according to the ARRC, and makes the change easier to communicate and negotiate with stakeholders.  

Though it is an easy case to make that consistency is advantageous, achieving it is not. For example, the Mortgage Bankers Association points out that the ISDA-selected compounding in arrears approach to interest accrual periods “would be a very material change from current practice as period interest expenses would not be determined until the end of the relevant period.” The nature of the historical mean/median spread adjustment does not come without drawbacks. ISDA’s consultation acknowledges that the approach is “likely to lead to value transfers and potential market disruption by not capturing contemporaneous market conditions at the trigger event, as well as creating potential issues with hedging.” Additionally, respondents acknowledge that relevant data may not yet be available for long lookback periods with the newly created overnight risk-free rates.  

The effort to achieve some level of consistency across the transition away from LIBOR poses several challenges related to timing. Because LIBOR will only be unsupported (rather than definitively discontinued) by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) at the end of 2021, some in the market retain a small hope that production of LIBOR rates could continue. The continuation of LIBOR is possible, but betting a portfolio of contracts on its continuation is an unnecessarily high-risk decision. That said, transition plans remain ambiguous about timing, and implementation of any contract changes is ultimately at the sole discretion of the contract holder. Earlier ARRC consultations acknowledged two possible implementation arrangements:   

1. An “amendment approach,” which would provide a streamlined amendment mechanism for negotiating a replacement benchmark in the future and could serve as an initial step towards adopting a hardwired approach.  
2. A “hardwired approach,” which would provide market participants with more clarity as to a how a potential replacement rate will be identified and implemented. 

However, the currently open-for-comment securitizations consultation has dropped the “amendment” and “hardwired” terminology and now describes what amounts to the hardwired approach as defined above – a waterfall of options that is implemented upon occurrence of a predefined set of “trigger” events. Given that the securitizations consultation is still open for comment, it remains possible that market respondents will bring the amendment approach back into discussions.  

Importantly, in the U.S. there are currently no legally binding obligations for organizations to plan for the cessation of LIBOR, nor policy governing how that plan be made. In contrast, the European Union has begun to require that institutions submit written plans to governing bodies.

Timing

Because the terms of implementation remain open for discussion and organizational preference, there is some ambiguity about when organizations will begin transitioning contracts away from LIBOR to the preferred risk-free rates. In the structured finance market, this compounds the challenge of consistency with timing. For commercial real estate securities, for example, there is possibility of mismatch in the process and timing of transition for rates in the index and for the underlying assets and resulting certificates or bonds. This potential challenge has not yet been addressed by the ARRC or other advisory bodies.

Mortgage Market

The mortgage market is still awaiting formal guidance. While the contributions by Fannie Mae and the FHLBanks to the SOFR market signal government sponsored entity (GSE) support for the newly selected reference rate, none of the GSEs has issued any commentary about recommended fallback language specific to mortgages or guidance on how to navigate the fact that SOFR does not yet have a viable term rate. An additional concern for consumer loan products, including mortgages, is the need to explain the contract changes to consumers. As a result, the ARRC Securitization consultation hypothesizes that consumer products are “likely to be simpler and involve less optionality and complexity, and any proposals would only be made after wide consultation with consumer advocacy groups, market participants, and the official sector.”  

For now, the Mortgage Bankers Association has recommended institutions develop a preliminary transition plan, beginning with a detailed assessment of exposures to LIBOR.

How can RiskSpan Help?

At any phase in the transition away from LIBOR, RiskSpan can provide institutions with analysts experienced in contract review, experts in model risk management and sophisticated technical tools—including machine learning capabilities—to streamline the process to identify and remediate LIBOR exposure. Our diverse team of professionals is available to deliver resources to financial institutions that will mitigate risks and streamline this forthcoming transition.

Data becomes an asset only when it is efficiently harnessed and managed. Because firms tend to evolve into silos, their data often gets organized that way as well, resulting in multiple references and unnecessary duplication of data that dilute its value. Master Data Management (MDM) architecture helps to avoid these and other pitfalls by applying best practices to maximize data efficiency, controls, and insights.

MDM has particular appeal to banks and other financial institutions where non-integrated systems often make it difficult to maintain a comprehensive, 360-degree view of a customer who simultaneously has, for example, multiple deposit accounts, a mortgage, and a credit card. MDM provides a single, common data reference across systems that traditionally have not communicated well with each other. Customer-level reports can point to one central database instead of searching for data across multiple sources.

Financial institutions also derive considerable benefit from MDM when seeking to comply with regulatory reporting requirements and when generating reports for auditors and other examiners. Mobile banking and the growing number of new payment mechanisms make it increasingly important for financial institutions to have a central source of data intelligence. An MDM strategy enables financial institutions to harness their data and generate more meaningful insights from it by:

• Eliminating data redundancy and providing one central repository for common data;
• Cutting across data “silos” (and different versions of the same data) by providing a single source of truth;
• Streamlining compliance reporting (through the use of a common data source);
• Increasing operational and business efficiency;
• Providing robust tools to secure and encrypt sensitive data;
• Providing a comprehensive 360-degree view of customer data;
• Fostering data quality and reducing the risks associated with stale or inaccurate data, and;
• Reducing operating costs associated with data management.

Not surprisingly, there’s a lot to think about when contemplating and implementing a new MDM solution. In this post, we lay out some of the most important things for financial institutions to keep in mind.

MDM Choice and Implementation Priorities

MDM is only as good as the data it can see. To this end, the first step is to ensure that all of the institution’s data owners are on board. Obtaining management buy-in to the process and involving all relevant stakeholders is critical to developing a viable solution. This includes ensuring that everyone is “speaking the same language”—that everyone understands the benefits related to MDM in the same way—and  establishing shared goals across the different business units.

Once all the relevant parties are on board, it’s important to identify the scope of the business process within the organization that needs data refinement through MDM. Assess the current state of data quality (including any known data issues) within the process area. Then, identify all master data assets related to the process improvement. This generally involves identifying all necessary data integration for systems of record and the respective subscribing systems that would benefit from MDM’s consistent data. The selected MDM solution should be sufficiently flexible and versatile that it can govern and link any sharable enterprise data and connect to any business domain, including reference data, metadata and any hierarchies.

An MDM “stewardship team” can add value to the process by taking ownership of the various areas within the MDM implementation plan. MDM is just not about technology itself but also involves business and analytical thinking around grouping data for efficient usage. Members of this team need to have the requisite business and technical acumen in order for MDM implementation to be successful. Ideally this team would be responsible for identifying data commonalities across groups and laying out a plan for consolidating them. Understanding the extent of these commonalities helps to optimize architecture-related decisions.

Architecture-related decisions are also a function of how the data is currently stored. Data stored in heterogeneous legacy systems calls for a different sort of MDM solution than does a modern data lake architecture housing big data. The solutions should be sufficiently flexible and scalable to support future growth. Many tools in the marketplace offer MDM solutions. Landing on the right tool requires a fair amount of due diligence and analysis. The following evaluation criteria are often helpful:

• Enterprise Integration: Seamless integration into the existing enterprise set of tools and workflows is an important consideration for an MDM solution.  Solutions that require large-scale customization efforts tend to carry additional hidden costs.
• Support for Multiple Devices: Because modern enterprise data must by consumable by a variety of devices (e.g., desktop, tablet and mobile) the selected MDM architecture must support each of these platforms and have multi-device access capability.
• Cloud and Scalability: With most of today’s technology moving to the cloud, an MDM solution must be able to support a hybrid environment (cloud as well as on-premise). The architecture should be sufficiently scalable to accommodate seasonal and future growth.
• Security and Compliance: With cyber-attacks becoming more prevalent and compliance and regulatory requirements continuing to proliferate, the MDM architecture must demonstrate capabilities in these areas.

Start Small; Build Gradually; Measure Success

MDM implementation can be segmented into small, logical projects based on business units or departments within an organization. Ideally, these projects should be prioritized in such a way that quick wins (with obvious ROI) can be achieved in problem areas first and then scaling outward to other parts of the organization. This sort of stepwise approach may take longer overall but is ultimately more likely to be successful because it demonstrates success early and gives stakeholders confidence about MDM’s benefits.

The success of smaller implementations is easier to measure and see. A small-scale implementation also provides immediate feedback on the technology tool used for MDM—whether it’s fulfilling the needs as envisioned. The larger the implementation, the longer it takes to know whether the process is succeeding or failing and whether alternative tools should be pursued and adopted. The success of the implementation can be measured using the following criteria:

• Savings on data storage—a result of eliminating data redundancy.
• Increased ease of data access/search by downstream data consumers.
• Enhanced data quality—a result of common data centralization.
• More compact data lineage across the enterprise—a result of standardizing data in one place.

Practical Case Studies

RiskSpan has helped several large banks consolidate multiple data stores across different lines of business. Our MDM professionals work across heterogeneous data sets and teams to create a common reference data architecture that eliminates data duplication, thereby improving data efficiency and reducing redundant data. These professionals have accomplished this using a variety of technologies, including Informatica, Collibra and IBM Infosphere.

Any successful project begins with a survey of the current data landscape and an assessment of existing solutions. Working collaboratively to use this information to form the basis of an approach for implementing a best-practice MDM strategy is the most likely path to success.

Reducing time to delivery by developing in smaller incremental chunks and incorporating an ability to pivot is the cornerstone of Agile software development methodology.

“Agile” software development is a rarity among business buzz words in that it is actually a fitting description of what it seeks to accomplish. Optimally implemented, it is capable of delivering value and efficiency to business-IT partnerships by incorporating flexibility and an ability to pivot rapidly when necessary.

As a technology company with a longstanding management consulting pedigree, RiskSpan values the combination of discipline and flexibility inherent to Agile development and regularly makes use of the philosophy in executing client engagements. Dynamic economic environments contribute to business priorities that are seemingly in a near-constant state of flux. In response to these ever-evolving needs, clients seek to implement applications and application feature changes quickly and efficiently to realize business benefits early.

This growing need for speed and “agility” makes Agile software development methods an increasingly appealing alternative to traditional “waterfall” methodologies. Waterfall approaches move in discrete phases—treating analysis, design, coding, and testing as individual, stand-alone components of a software project. Historically, when the cost of changing plans was high, such a discrete approach worked best. Nowadays, however, technological advances have made changing the plan more cost-feasible. In an environment where changes can be made inexpensively, rigid waterfall methodologies become unnecessarily counterproductive for at least four reasons:

1. When a project runs out of time (or money), individual critical phases—often testing—must be compressed, and overall project quality suffers.
2. Because working software isn’t produced until the very end of the project, it is difficult to know whether the project is really on track prior to project completion.
3. Not knowing whether established deadlines will be met until relatively late in the game can lead to schedule risks.
4. Most important, discrete phase waterfalls simply do not respond well to the various ripple effects created by change.

Continuous Activities vs. Discrete Project Phases

Agile software development methodologies resolve these traditional shortcomings by applying techniques that focus on reducing overhead and time to delivery. Instead of treating fixed development stages as discrete phases, Agile treats them as continuous activities. Doing things simultaneously and continuously—for example, incorporating testing into the development process from day one—improves quality and visibility, while reducing risk. Visibility improves because being halfway through a project means that half of a project’s features have been built and tested, rather than having many partially built features with no way of knowing how they will perform in testing. Risk is reduced because feedback comes in from earliest stages of development and changes without paying exorbitant costs. This makes everybody happy.

Flexible but Controlled

Firms sometimes balk at Agile methods because of a tendency to equate “flexibility” and “agility” with a lack of organization and planning, weak governance and controls, and an abandonment of formal documentation. This, however, is a misconception. “Agile” does not mean uncontrolled—on the contrary, it is no more or less controlled than the existing organizational boundaries of standardized processes into which it is integrated. Most Agile methods do not advocate any particular methodology for project management or quality control. Rather, their intent is on simplifying the software development approach, embracing changing business needs, and producing working software as quickly as possible. Thus, Agile frameworks are more like a shell which users of the framework have full flexibility to customize as necessary.

Frameworks and Integrated Teams

Agile methodologies can be implemented using a variety of frameworks, including Scrum, Kanban, and XP. Scrum is the most popular of these and is characterized by producing a potentially shippable set of functionalities at the end of every iteration in two-week time boxes called sprints. Delivering high-quality software at the conclusion of such short sprints requires supplementing team activities with additional best practices, such as automated testing, code cleanup and other refactoring, continuous integration, and test-driven or behavior-driven development.

Agile teams are built around motivated individuals subscribing what is commonly referred to as a “lean Agile mindset.” Team members who embrace this mindset share a common vision and are motivated to contribute in ways beyond their defined roles to attain success. In this way, innovation and creativity is supported and encouraged. Perhaps most important, Agile promotes building relationships based on trust among team members and with the end-user customer in providing fast and high-quality delivery of software. When all is said and done, this is the aim of any worthwhile endeavor. When it comes to software development, Agile is showing itself to be an impressive means to this end.

Using open source data modeling tools has been a topic of debate as large organizations, including government agencies and financial institutions, are under increasing pressure to keep up with technological innovation to maintain competitiveness. Organizations must be flexible in development and identify cost-efficient gains to reach their organizational goals, and using the right tools is crucial. Organizations must often choose between open source software, i.e., software whose source code can be modified by anyone, and closed software, i.e., proprietary software with no permissions to alter or distribute the underlying code.

Mature institutions often have employees, systems, and proprietary models entrenched in closed source platforms. For example, SAS Analytics is a popular provider of proprietary data analysis and statistical software for enterprise data operations among financial institutions. But several core computations SAS performs can also be carried out using open source data modeling tools, such as Python and R. The data wrangling and statistical calculations are often fungible and, given the proper resources, will yield the same result across platforms.

Open source is not always a viable replacement for proprietary software, however. Factors such as cost, security, control, and flexibility must all be taken into consideration. The challenge for institutions is picking the right mix of platforms to streamline software development.  This involves weighing benefits and drawbacks.

Advantages of Open Source Programs

The Cost of Open Source Software

The low cost of open source software is an obvious advantage. Compared to the upfront cost of purchasing a proprietary software license, using open source programs seems like a no-brainer. Open source programs can be distributed freely (with some possible restrictions to copyrighted work), resulting in virtually no direct costs. However, indirect costs can be difficult to quantify. Downloading open source programs and installing the necessary packages is easy and adopting this process can expedite development and lower costs. On the other hand, a proprietary software license may bundle setup and maintenance fees for the operational capacity of daily use, the support needed to solve unexpected issues, and a guarantee of full implementation of the promised capabilities. Enterprise applications, while accompanied by a high price tag, provide ongoing and in-depth support of their products. The comparable cost of managing and servicing open source programs that often have no dedicated support is difficult to determine.

Open Source Talent Considerations

Another advantage of open source is that it attracts talent who are drawn to the idea of sharable and communitive code. Students and developers outside of large institutions are more likely to have experience with open source applications since access is widespread and easily available. Open source developers are free to experiment and innovate, gain experience, and create value outside of the conventional industry focus. This flexibility naturally leads to more broadly skilled inter-disciplinarians. The chart below from Indeed’s Job Trend Analytics tool reflects strong growth in open source talent, especially Python developers.

From an organizational perspective, the pool of potential applicants with relevant programming experience widens significantly compared to the limited pool of developers with closed source experience. For example, one may be hard-pressed to find a new applicant with development experience in SAS since comparatively few have had the ability to work with the application. Key-person dependencies become increasingly problematic as the talent or knowledge of the proprietary software erodes down to a shrinking handful of developers.

Job Seekers Interests via Indeed

*Indeed searches millions of jobs from thousands of job sites. The jobseeker interest graph shows the percentage of jobseekers who have searched for SAS, R, and python jobs.

*Indeed searches millions of jobs from thousands of job sites. The jobseeker interest graph shows the percentage of jobseekers who have searched for SAS, R, and python jobs.

Support and Collaboration

The collaborative nature of open source facilitates learning and adapting to new programming languages. While open source programs are usually not accompanied by the extensive documentation and user guides typical of proprietary software, the constant peer review from the contributions of other developers can be more valuable than a user guide. In this regard, adopters of open source may have the talent to learn, experiment with, and become knowledgeable in the software without formal training.

Still, the lack of support can pose a challenge. In some cases, the documentation accompanying open source packages and the paucity of usage examples in forums do not offer a full picture. For example, RiskSpan built a model in R that was driven by the available packages for data infrastructure – a precursor to performing statistical analysis – and their functionality. R does not have an active support solutions line and the probability of receiving a response from the author of the package is highly unlikely. This required RiskSpan to thoroughly vet packages.

Flexibility and Innovation

Another attractive feature of open source is its inherent flexibility. Python allows users to use different integrated development environments (IDEs) that have multiple different characteristics or functions, as compared to SAS Analytics, which only provides SAS EG or Base SAS. R makes possible web-based interfaces for server-based deployments. These functionalities grant more access to users at a lower cost. Thus, there can be more firm-wide development and participation in development. The ability to change the underlying structure of open source makes it possible to mold it per the organization’s goals and improve efficiency.

Another advantage of open source is the sheer number of developers trying to improve the software by creating many functionalities not found in their closed source equivalent. For example, R and Python can usually perform many functions like those available in SAS, but also have many capabilities not found in SAS: downloading specific packages for industry specific tasks, scraping the internet for data, or web development (Python). These specialized packages are built by programmers seeking to address the inefficiencies of common problems. A proprietary software vendor does not have the expertise nor the incentive to build equivalent specialized packages since their product aims to be broad enough to suit uses across multiple industries.

RiskSpan uses open source data modeling tools and operating systems for data management, modeling, and enterprise applications. R and Python have proven to be particularly cost effective in modeling. R provides several packages that serve specialized techniques. These include an archive of packages devoted to estimating the statistical relationship among variables using an array of techniques, which cuts down on development time. The ease of searching for these packages, downloading them, and researching their use incurs nearly no cost.

Open source makes it possible for RiskSpan to expand on the tools available in the financial services space. For example, a leading cash flow analytics software firm that offers several proprietary solutions in modeling structured finance transactions lacks the full functionality RiskSpan was seeking.  Seeking to reduce licensing fees and gain flexibility in structuring deals, RiskSpan developed deal cashflow programs in Python for STACR, CAS, CIRT, and other consumer lending deals. The flexibility of Python allowed us to choose our own formatted cashflows and build different functionalities into the software. Python, unlike closed source applications, allowed us to focus on innovating ways to interact with the cash flow waterfall.

Disadvantages of Open Source Programs

Deploying open source solutions also carries intrinsic challenges. While users may have a conceptual understanding of the task at hand, knowing which tools yield correct results, whether derived from open or closed source, is another dimension to consider. Different parameters may be set as default, new limitations may arise during development, or code structures may be entirely different. Different challenges may arise from translating a closed source program to an open source platform. Introducing open source requires new controls, requirements, and development methods.

Redundant code is an issue that might arise if a firm does not strategically use open source. Across different departments, functionally equivalent tools may be derived from distinct packages or code libraries. There are several packages offering the ability to run a linear regression, for example. However, there may be nuanced differences in the initial setup or syntax of the function that can propagate problems down the line. In addition to the redundant code, users must be wary of “forking” where the development community splits on an open source application. For example, R develops multiple packages performing the same task/calculations, sometimes derived from the same code base, but users must be cognizant that the package is not abandoned by developers.

Users must also take care to track the changes and evolution of open source programs. The core calculations of commonly used functions or those specific to regular tasks can change. Maintaining a working understanding of these functions in the face of continual modification is crucial to ensure consistent output. Open source documentation is frequently lacking. In financial services, this can be problematic when seeking to demonstrate a clear audit trail for regulators. Tracking that the right function is being sourced from a specific package or repository of authored functions, as opposed to another function, which may have an identical name, sets up blocks on unfettered usage of these functions within code. Proprietary software, on the other hand, provides a static set of tools, which allows analysts to more easily determine how legacy code has worked over time.

Using Open Source Data Modeling Tools

Deciding on whether to go with open source programs directly impacts financial services firms as they compete to deliver applications to the market. Open source data modeling tools are attractive because of their natural tendency to spur innovation, ingrain adaptability, and propagate flexibility throughout a firm. But proprietary software solutions are also attractive because they provide the support and hard-line uses that may neatly fit within an organization’s goals. The considerations offered here should be weighed appropriately when deciding between open source and proprietary data modeling tools.

Questions to consider before switching platforms include:

• How does one quantify the management and service costs for using open source programs? Who would work on servicing it, and, once all-in expenses are considered, is it still more cost-effective than a vendor solution?
• When might it be prudent to move away from proprietary software? In a scenario where moving to a newer open source technology appears to yield significant efficiency gains, when would it make sense to end terms with a vendor?
• Does the institution have the resources to institute new controls, requirements, and development methods when introducing open source applications?
• Does the open source application or function have the necessary documentation required for regulatory and audit purposes?

Open source is certainly on the rise as more professionals enter the space with the necessary technical skills and a new perspective on the goals financial institutions want to pursue. As competitive pressures mount, financial institutions are faced with a difficult yet critical decision of whether open source is appropriate for them. Open source may not be a viable solution for everyone—the considerations discussed above may block the adoption of open source for some organizations. However, often the pros outweigh the cons, and there are strategic precautions that can be taken to mitigate any potential risks.

References

 https://www.redhat.com/en/open-source/open-source-way

http://www.stackoverflow.blog/code-for-a-living/how-i-open-sourced-my-way-to-my-dream-job-mohamed-said

https://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/whitepapers/WHITEpapr2.pdf

http://www.forbes.com/sites/benkepes/2013/10/02/open-source-is-good-and-all-but-proprietary-is-still-winning/#7d4d544059e9

https://www.indeed.com/jobtrends/q-SAS-q-R-q-python.html