Transcript of Question & Answer Session An update on the FX Global Code

The code is certainly relevant to the buy side, as mentioned, there are some direct principles which directly speak to them, as well at a high level. The high-level principles on ethics and governance would be relevant to everyone. With the specific question you asked, there's a principle … which speaks to partly that issue of communicating, whether or not it is the full size – that sort of thing.

Any more questions, don't be shy. I have one more question. If a bank signs up, a global bank, signs a statement of commitment does that cover the prime brokerage side as well?

Well, that's really a question you'd have to ask them. Different banks have taken different approaches. Some have signed multiple statements of commitment for different parts of the business. Because essentially what you find is that the statement of commitment will be signed by the executive, or the most senior person, responsible for the FX activities. So depending how they've thought about it, which arms of the business are involved, then they can take different approaches. But that's something that's well worth clarifying with those banks if it's not clear from what statements of commitment are in the public domain.

We have one more question on Slido, the AFXC is dominated by sell-side participants. Why is that?

Well it's certainly true that historically all these FX committees, not just in Australia, but globally were largely made up of sell-side participants. But as mentioned we've consciously tried to move away from that in recent years. We've brought in more and more buy side participants and platforms, etc etc. So I wouldn't say it's dominated by them any more but obviously they're the largest grouping and no doubt, always perhaps will be. But it is something we're very conscious of. But the GFXC, the approach it's taken to drafting the code and in these working groups again, those working groups, they're not dominated by the sell side or anything like that. There's a very conscious effort to drag in people from the buy side as well as platforms and the like.

Any more questions?

Thank you. I just have one quick question. I've realised there are two versions with the code, there was a May version and a December version, I just wanted to understand what the biggest difference would be between the two versions and which one we all are expected to adopt?

Use the December. The May version, it's archived on the GFXC website and I assume all previous versions of the code will be archived in the same way. But certainly, the current version of the code is the December version and that was what was published after the GFXC finalised its response to the consultation on Last Look, which took place in the second half of last year. So, again, whether the current working groups or anything else the GFXC is doing prompt future revisions to the code, it will follow the same process.

I have one last question on Slido, how long should the Last Look window be?

Well, that's something well worth discussing, clients should be discussing with their banks who are using Last Look as to how long it is and what's happening during that window.

One more, we have one more coming in. Is ASIC part of the AFXC?

No, they're not. But we keep them informed of what's going on. The AFXC itself is quite transparent. We publish our agendas in advance and minutes etc etc, and ASIC from time to time, on invitation, will come along if they've got something to say or people want to hear from them. But no, they're not formally part of the AFXC.

Thank you very much. Please join me in thanking Matthew for his presentation.