Discussion paper
January 2022

Solving the post-tradetransparency challenge
The case for a uniquetransaction identifierin securities

Contents2

Foreword

3

1 Why are we talking about identifiers?

5

2 How do we get there?

8

3 What benefits will this bring?

11

4 So, what next?

12

Solving the post-trade transparency challenge: The case for a unique transaction identifier in securities

Foreword

While the securities industry has improved automationand straight-through processing rates over the past
decades, transparency and end-to-end visibilityon the status of transactions along the settlement
and reconciliation value chain continues to be achallenge. The Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted,
more than ever, the need to tackle these remaining
pockets of inefficiency. Regulators, end investors
and market participants of all kinds have weathered
intense market volatility and increased volumes,
and important lessons have been learned about thebenefits of greater post-trade visibility to reduce
settlement failures and operational risk.
On the client side, the digital transformation
agenda across the financial services
sector has raised expectations forenhanced services across the spectrum,from front-office to back-office. Clientswant to understand their positions andexposures with the immediacy that themarket environment demands. The global
focus on improving operational resilience
across complex, interconnected markets
also lends itself perfectly to the casefor the adoption of a standard aimed atenabling post-trade transparency.
Leveraging our unique position as a neutral,
global cooperative, SWIFT has taken up
the challenge to help digitally transform thesecurities industry and set a path for the
future. We started several years ago, withthe exploration of data validation and alerting
services to help users check the quality of
post-trade transactions against referencedata, market practices, and regulatory
requirements, to name a few. The journey has
been accelerated by the upcoming settlement
discipline regime under the Central Securities
Depositories Regulation (CSDR) and market
initiatives to shorten settlement cycles to T+1.
This paper highlights the work that has
been completed so far to deliver posttrade transparency at industry level andthe roadmap for industry-wide adoptionof a unique transaction identifier (UTI)
that would allow market participants totrack securities transactions from end to
end throughout the lifecycle of a trade.

3

We don’t need to reinvent the wheel either.
Such a UTI already exists, the ISO 23897:2020,
which was created by the securities industry
for the purposes of OTC derivatives reporting,but which has the potential to be extended
to other types of transactions as well.
SWIFT, together with a working group offinancial institutions and several industry
associations, has been assessing thechallenges and opportunities of adopting
the UTI. Industry-wide adoption would
require an initial investment by financial
institutions to implement it across various
systems. However, the working group also
envisages significant benefits, including:– A reduction in the number of presettlement matching and timing
exceptions that require active investigation
with a counterparty by 50%.
– A reduction in the number ofmatching or timing fails by 90%.
Along with the significant cost savings thatcome with reduced investigations and fails,
industry adoption of the UTI would also reduce
operational risk, improve traceability andtransparency across the post-trade lifecycle,
enable improved client service, and support theindustry’s digital transformation agenda overall.
The UTI has the potential to be a key enablerof change for the securities industry as awhole. With our community, we will explore
and harness the opportunities to createtransparency and efficiency across the posttrade settlement and reconciliation value chain.

Solving the post-trade transparency challenge: The case for a unique transaction identifier in securities

We would like to thank all the contributors to this
discussion paper from the following institutions:

Association for Financial Markets in Europe (AFME)
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC)
International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA)
International Securities Association for Institutional Trade
Communication (ISITC)
International Securities Services Association (ISSA)
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA)
Securities Market Practice Group (SMPG)

4

Solving the post-trade transparency challenge: The case for a unique transaction identifier in securities

1
Why are we talking
about identifiers?

Let’s begin with a quick story to put all of this into
context. Around the globe, we’ve spent the best partof two years navigating lockdowns and movement
restrictions. One of the saving graces of thissituation is that we have been able, as an industry,
to switch from working in an office to working fromhome. But we can also get just about whatever
we want delivered to us too, efficiently and safely.
From laptops to pizzas, almost everything can bedelivered at the click of a button.
Just think about that delivery process fora second. How happy would you be if you
were receiving a high-value item but wereunable to identify where that package wasin the delivery process at any point in time?
If there was a high risk that the package
could accidentally be delivered to Jim, four
doors down, or Helen, in another city, would
you be comfortable with ordering that item?
What if that package had to pass throughmultiple delivery services? Now think about
how we operate in the securities markets.
Currently, we have no way of uniquely
identifying and tracking a transaction acrossall the intermediaries in the securities lifecycle.
Thinking back to the delivery process for yourpackage, that’s like relying on the package
being passed through numerous delivery
services without a way to ensure it ends up in
the right hands at the end of the process, letalone knowing where it is at any point in time.
Now, of course, securities don’t often end
up in the wrong place but, when they do,
significant costs and risks arise, which
will be exacerbated once the financial
penalties introduced by CSDR’s settlement
discipline regime come into effect. Given
the intense industry focus on operational
resilience and risk, this should give
your firm’s C-suite executives cause forconcern, especially if we’re trying to reduce
settlement failures overall as an industry
and modernise our market practices, which
will be required in T+1 environments.
The problems we need to solve forEven though firms are able to trade in fractionsof a second and most have a relatively good
handle on their execution costs, when it comesto post-trade processing, the industry often
struggles with inefficiency due to manual
processes and a lack of transparency.

5

Firms may be able to monitor once a trade has
settled, but they have little information while
the post-trade process is in-flight. This means
end-to-end visibility on the whole lifecycle isextremely challenging and management of
any hotspots of operational risk is difficult.
Given the increased industry focus on systemic
resilience, this lack of process transparency isconcerning. If an intermediary has operational
issues and creates a bottleneck, firms needto know that it’s happening through real-time
visibility so they can manage the situation.
Moreover, as firms continue to focus on
improving the client experience acrossthe whole spectrum of services they
offer, post-trade transparency becomeseven more important. Firms risk cedingclients to competitors if they are unable
to keep pace with their peers in servicing
client requirements in a timely manner,
including responding to queries about thestatus of transactions and transparency
into any settlement issues that arise.
Regulators have begun to take much moreinterest in these post-trade inefficiencies
in recent years too – first with regulations
targeted at encouraging centralised
clearing and reporting, and later withregulation targeted at reducing settlement
inefficiency. The costs of trading, clearing
and settlement are under the microscope
as a result of industry pressures related tothinning margins and settlement discipline
regimes. Regulators generally stop shortof mandating standards adoption outsideof regulatory reporting formats, but that
doesn’t mean the industry shouldn’t takeaction to increase end-to-end transparency.

Solving the post-trade transparency challenge: The case for a unique transaction identifier in securities

Share of failed settlement instructions in 31 European countries as a percentage ofvalue, 2018 to 2020
Corporate bonds

Government bonds

Equities

20%

18%

16%

14%
9.9

12%

10.6

10%
9.3

9.1

8%
5.5

5.1

6%

4.2
3.0

4%

2.3

2%

Source: European Securities and Markets
Authority (ESMA), Report on Trends, Risks and

2.2

2.2
3.5

2.3

2.1

2018 to 2019

Jan to Feb 2020

2.3

3.6
2.7

2.2

May 2020

June 2020

0%March 2020

April 2020

Vulnerabilities, No. 2, 2020

Operational risk stems from the plethora ofmessaging formats and communication anddata standards used across the whole lifecycleof a trade, as well as the various technology
platforms that this information must pass throughwithin different intermediaries. As the industry
witnessed in 2020, equities settlement failuresincreased significantly in the early days of thepandemic and the industry still sees higher thannormal levels of failures in the EU. As an industry,
if we are to keep failures to a minimum, then weneed to work in a smarter way.
If we take the ESMA statistics as arepresentation of fails at the global industry
level, an average of 5% to 10% of equity
settlements fail and an average of 2% to 4% ofbond trades fail. This may not seem like a lot,
but it adds up to billions in operational costs
and fees.
All firms in the settlement chain are financiallyor operationally impacted by those failures
and their impact can extend beyond thosefirms if the wider group of counterparties
in the repo and securities financing chain
are taken into account. Lending activity
can actually slow down if a cascade ofsettlement and collateral movements
are impacted by a large trade failure.
Firms of all sizes can experience trade
failures. Larger firms often attribute fails to“broker locate issues” due to securities being
unavailable as they are on loan. Smallerfirms tend to have many more internal
operational issues underlying their failure
6

rates, for example, manual processes and“fat finger” entry of trade data, such as
standing settlement instructions (SSIs).
Add into the mix that most financial institutions
are attempting to digitally transform theiroperations at scale, and every firm is atdifferent stages of this evolution. Some firms
are building distributed ledger technologies
to transform their approach to data storage,
while others are building new services andapplication programming interfaces (APIs) tomake consumption and transmission of data
easier. And there’s one thing that all of these
efforts need to enable interoperability between
next generation technologies and incumbent
or legacy platforms across all market
participants – consistent, standardised data.

With a baseline ofcommon information thatcan be communicatedbetween these platforms,
the industry can
avoid a lot of pain inconverting data fromone format to another.
With a baseline of common informationthat can be communicated between theseplatforms, the industry can avoid a lot ofpain in converting data from one format toanother. Market participants also reduce theSolving the post-trade transparency challenge: The case for a unique transaction identifier in securities

operational risk and cost involved in theirdigital transformation activities. The biggest
beneficiaries of this work will likely be thebuy-side as the reduction in settlement
penalties expected under the settlement
discipline regime, and staff hours required
to deal with failures, will ultimately benefit
the asset owner in terms of fees charged byintermediaries. All other market participants
will benefit too, as staff hours dedicated todealing with failures, and costs related tobuy-ins or financial penalties, will be reduced.
Why are we doing this now?
Commercial, compliance and costpressures have combined with ongoingdigital transformation projects to create
an opportunity to overhaul the way thatthe industry approaches the post-trade
lifecycle. The priority should be eliminating
redundancy and improving efficiency, where
possible, and it is here that standards
must play a key role. Technology alone
cannot solve the industry’s challenges.

A unique transaction
identifier (UTI) alreadyexists in the securities
industry as part of the
ISO stable, namely ISO
23897:2020. Industrywide adoption of it
would help to reducerisk and improve theclient experience acrossthe full trade lifecycle.
What’s more, a unique transaction identifier(UTI) already exists in the securities industry
as part of the ISO stable, namely ISO
23897:2020. Industry-wide adoption of it
would help to reduce risk and improve theclient experience across the full trade lifecycle,
regardless of the technology platform a firm isusing. The business case is there, but it takes
more than just creating a standard to make it
successful. Success is predicated on industry
adoption, agreement on the principles of thestandard, and the process through which it
is implemented. And although the UTI would
reduce cost and risk for all market participantsin the short and long-term, implementing
it will require an upfront investment on
the part of all market participants.

The business case to adopt the UTI can bebuilt by highlighting several key benefits:– Improved status timing – reducing
latencies and gaps in status exchange.
– Greater transaction visibility – connecting
the delivery and receipt instructions acrossthe lifecycle stages, reducing costly
counterparty communication, and faster
determination of root cause/owner.
– More accurate issue detection –earlier identification of settlement
data discrepancies.
– Enhanced workflow processes – selfsourced data, improving decision
making, whether action is required andnext steps to ensure settlement.
Statistics can also be helpful when building
a business case and the estimatedsavings from adopting the UTI, based on
working group discussions, include:– A reduction in the number of presettlement matching and timing
exceptions that require active investigation
with a counterparty by 50%.
– A reduction in the number ofmatching or timing fails by 90%.
Addressable market calculations
The following information provides guidance
to identify an organisation’s current spend on
exceptions and estimate the equivalent savings
from cost reduction. While UTI transaction data
will not eliminate pre-settlement matching andtiming exceptions, it will identify them sooner,
provide the data points required to determine
the cause of these exceptions and facilitate
faster subsequent actions. It will also reduce
the number of instances where a firm needs
to query their counterparty. Consolidated datafrom UTI adoption can also directly eliminate
some failures from matching and timing issues.
Pre-settlement exceptions calculation
Average cost / effort per exception = A Unit
Count of exceptions = B
Proportion with matching or
timing issues = C%
Organisational current spend =(A * B * C) on target exceptions
Failed trades calculation
Average cost / effort per failed trade = X Unit
Count of fails = Y
Proportion of fails with matchingor timing issues = Z%
Organisational spend = (X * Y * Z) on target fails

7

Solving the post-trade transparency challenge: The case for a unique transaction identifier in securities

2
How do we get there?

The industry should be in the driver’s seat to ensure
the UTI’s usage properly meets the requirementsof the market. Industry standards should be at theforefront of our design ethos as we build the financial
infrastructures and services of the future – common
standards are the foundations of current and futureinteroperability. Something as important as thesefoundations should be shaped by industry experts
and supported by all financial market participants.
The UTI will not replace the existingtransaction references that firms use today.
Instead, it will provide a transaction-linking
reference that everyone in the transaction
chain can use to unify the process. In apractical sense, the UTI will be assigned
at the block level, for matching purposes,
and separate UTIs will be assigned for each
allocation that is instructed downstream tothe custodian. The same reference would
be persistent throughout the lifecycleof a transaction and be maintained forthe majority of amendments or version
changes from exceptions, however,certain conditions such as novation or
netting would trigger a new reference.

A group of early adopters has begun the
groundwork to implement the standard
and this work is expected to be completed
in 2022. These market participants haveidentified the challenges to overcome, theworkflows and segments to focus on, andthe benefits they will receive as first wave
adopters of the standard. They will lay thegroundwork for future waves and are building
on top of the work that has already been donein other areas such as securities finance.
The following diagram shows when and how a
UTI will get assigned and how it flows throughthe system:

How the UTI flows through the settlement lifecycle for securities trades:
Generation and communication
The UTI identifies a securities transaction obligation between
a buyer and seller that is allocated to settlement accounts
with SSI data, an agreed instrument and quantities.

Generation of the UTI for a settlement transaction occurs
as part of the trade allocation / confirmation process
between a buyer and seller via:
– central generation by trade venues / matching platforms /market infrastructures– instructing party generation who communicates the value
to their counterparty
Communication of UTI values within securities
settlement workflows‘Account owners’ sending instructions to their ‘accountservicers’– Populate UTI: from an agreed trade confirmation or
allocation process– Maintain UTI: use same UTI for version changes andlifecycle updates‘Account servicers’ receiving instructions from their ‘accountowners’ and ‘account servicers’ sending statuses andconfirmations to their ‘account owners’– Echo UTI: populate same UTI on status and confirmations
sent for received instructions– Persist UTI: populate same UTI when instructing onward
delivery or receipt for received instructions

A UTI can be applied to all securities post- trade
settlement workflows including both CCP cleared and nonCCP settlements.

8

UTI

UTI

UTI
Buyer

Seller

Account
Owner

UTI
Account
Servicer

Account
Owner

UTI
Account
ServicerIndustry standards and market best practice on UTI
generation and communication:
IOSCO / ESMA / ISDA / GFMA

Solving the post-trade transparency challenge: The case for a unique transaction identifier in securities

Learning from the UTI in Europe
The implementation of the UTI that was
mandated for reporting as part of the European
Markets Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) andthe EU Securities Financing Transactions
Regulation (SFTR) is, in many ways, afrontrunner that can provide the industry witha number of important lessons. Europe was
not alone in implementing identifiers either, as
the Dodd-Frank Act in the United States also
required the introduction of a UTI-like uniqueswap identifier (USI) to be included in swaps
reporting, under part 45 of the regulation.

The implementationof the UTI that was
mandated for reportingas part of the European
Markets Infrastructure
Regulation (EMIR)
and the EU Securities
Financing Transactions
Regulation (SFTR)
is, in many ways, afrontrunner that can
provide the industry
with a number ofimportant lessons.
There is also support for the introductionof the UTI at a global level, with theInternational Organization of Securities
Commissions’ (IOSCO) recommendations
to use the identifier for derivatives
transaction reporting. Although CPMI IOSCO
developed the UTI for the purposes of OTC
derivatives reporting, they acknowledgedat the time that it could be extensible forother types of transactions as well.
EMIR came into force in February 2014
and SFTR in July 2020. As part of both
regulations’ requirements, financial institutions
are required to include an alphanumeric codeof 52 characters (ISO 23897:2020), the UTI,
in their transaction reports to a registeredtrade repository. The UTI is generated by oneof the two counterparties in the derivatives
or securities finance transaction and thencommunicated to the other party for use
within the reports of both parties. The UTI canalso be generated by a market venue, whichis then consumed by both counterparties.

9

If we look at some of the challenges thatfirms have faced in adopting the UTI,
one of the greatest problems has arisen
because of uncertainty about which party
is responsible for generating the code.
That’s why the industry needs a commonly
agreed rulebook for these processes that is
rigorously followed by all market participants.
Another challenge is communication of the
UTI between counterparties that do not havededicated in-house or vendor solutions inplace and that are reliant on manual processes.
This is why some firms in the Danish market
turned to SWIFT messages early on as asolution to the problem. The communication of
the UTI in either an ISO 20022 or ISO 15022
message removes the need to use thirdparty solutions or manually exchange files.
The key lesson here? Careful planning andhard work need to go into making surebest practices are understood and followedby market participants. And SWIFT is a
key facilitator to make sure the industry’s
adoption journey is as smooth as possible.
The challenges along the way
Sharing the actual identifier is not a technicallydifficult task using one that is already in place:ISO 23897. Adopting the identifier will require
some internal changes, such as making suresystems are able to accommodate the new data
field for the identifier and its requisite character
length. The real challenge across the industry,
however, is ensuring that everyone involved ina securities transaction uses the same identifier
and that market practices are clear and welldefined. This is where key market participants
and working group members are tasked withfocusing their efforts in the coming months.
This work will involve discussing andunderstanding any challenges firms may facein adopting the standard. Standards adoption
typically requires firms to update their internal
data models and client and counterparty
interfaces to be able to ingest and transmit
the identifier unchanged across the chainof intermediaries involved in the securities
lifecycle. At a high level, passing on the UTI
will require all parties in the trade lifecycle toconduct system development to consume theidentifier and functionally support the identifierin the lifecycle, such as to provide any statuschanges to vendor transparency tools.
Firms would be required to populate andreceive UTI values on inbound and outboundmessages, as well as sharing settlement data
downstream on corresponding instructions
and upstream on status response messages.

Solving the post-trade transparency challenge: The case for a unique transaction identifier in securities

This means they must be able to pass thesame UTI onward to the next party in the chain
for instruction front-to-back, as well as status
updates or confirmations back-to-front in termsof trade flow. This may entail the reconfiguration
and adjustment of multiple internal systems
in order to accept the new identifier.
The importance of market
infrastructures and networks
Market infrastructures and network providers
play a key role in enabling the industry toadopt new market practices, including data
standards. By acting as champions for the
adoption of the standard and leading theway in identifying common approaches tosystem changes across industry practitioners,
these bodies can become a marketneutral central resource for all firms.
As key players in the ecosystem, CSDs
can use the UTI to propagate transaction
information much quicker across systems in
the processing chain to increase settlement
efficiency through early visibility. By adopting
the UTI, CSDs will facilitate processes
such as forecasting, claims management
and pre-validation of data. The UTI canalso be used to improve the regulatory
reporting that some CSDs offer, as well as
pre-matching services. In addition, the UTI
can greatly improve cross-CSD settlement
and cross-markets interoperability.
The Depository Trust & Clearing
Corporation (DTCC), SWIFT and Hong
Kong Stock Exchange are some of themarket participants working together tosupport the introduction of the identifier.

10

These market infrastructures will also adopt
the standard within their various services
and solutions to enable market participants
to effectively communicate the identifier with
their counterparties and clients. The UTI
will therefore be generated as early in thetransaction chain as possible, as it is importantto get the UTI assigned at an allocation levelwith the first entity in the trade lifecycle.
For example, DTCC will generate the UTI
in its matching platform when it is the party
instructing on behalf of a buy-side firm, whichshould reduce some of the industry friction
when it comes to counterparty interactions.
The UTI will also likely complement andimprove the matching process between thevarious intermediaries, such as the executing
broker, prime broker, global custodian andsub-custodians, by providing a common,
industry standard reference for case creation
and workflow management post-allocation.
DTCC indicates that its Institutional Trade
Processing (ITP) business creates the UTI
within its Central Trade Manager (CTM)
service and then passes it to its Settlements
Management solutions to instruct the global
custodian. The custodian will capture the UTI
and pass it along to the local sub-custodian
and depository for settlement. The UTI isthen passed back to ITP, via settlement
status and confirmation messages, in orderto provide full trade lifecycle management
for clients to monitor settlement and actively
manage exceptions. Furthermore, thisUTI could be used to manage post-trade
settlement position reconciliation issues,in addition to trade settlement claims,of which the industry expects to see a
spike due to CSDR’s discipline regime.

Solving the post-trade transparency challenge: The case for a unique transaction identifier in securities

3
What benefits will thisbring?

To keep it simple, the benefits of the new identifier
will be to reduce operational risk, improve
traceability and transparency across the post-trade
lifecycle, enable improved client service, and support
the industry’s digital transformation agenda overall.
To come back to the analogy of a delivery service,rather than a chain of intermediaries scrambling
to track where a transaction is in its lifecycle,
providers will be able to offer their clients the ability
to see where their instructions are at any point intime. Service providers and the sell-side will beable to provide value-adds for their clients, andthe buy-side will benefit from these offerings. Eachmarket participant will benefit in its own way fromadoption of the standard.
Improving transparency
The chain of intermediaries across the securities
lifecycle will all benefit from a common identifierthat enables them to track the transaction fromtrade execution to settlement, regardless ofthe technology platforms used. This visibility
throughout the transaction chain will allow firms toidentify and resolve any bottlenecks or settlement
cycle issues more rapidly; thus, bringing down
cost and risk. More transparency also enables
proactive operational efficiency improvements
across the post-trade lifecycle – executives caneffectively see where to focus the efforts of theirtime-constrained teams. It will also enhance theability of intermediaries to tell clients exactly why
a transaction is mismatching, and to therefore
resolve breaks caused by incorrect standing
settlement instructions (SSIs) more rapidly.
As the industry gradually adapts to the newstandard, adoption barriers can be minimisedby the reuse of MT and MX messages, thedevelopment of a graphical user interface(GUI), and the introduction of new application
programming interfaces (APIs).
Enhancing client service
At a basic level, greater post-trade transparency
will mean intermediary firms are better equipped
to answer any client queries about clearing andsettlement processes in a rapid manner when
they arise. On the other side of the equation, asset
manager clients will have more timely access to
information about the post-trade lifecycle, which
will allow them to better mitigate risk across theirportfolio. Greater transparency will also reduce thenumber of times firms have to chase informationfrom intermediaries further down the chain.
Furthermore, this data can also be integrated into
intermediaries’ value-added post-trade services,11

such as self-service client portals. Both buy-side
and sell-side firms continue to focus on improving
operational resilience, and keeping a close
handle on post-trade processes is a part of thisendeavour. Firms could also take advantage ofthis more real-time view of their clients’ activities tobuild out support services further in future.
Lowering operational risk and cost
The UTI will be a building block to improve theindustry’s settlement efficiency. Firms active in theEuropean Union must comply with CSDR, which
increases the financial impact of settlement failures
via a new regional penalty regime and mandatory
buy-ins. A unique identifier will help firms to avoid
these fines by enabling issues to be resolved
proactively and, if fines do occur, enable firms toaccurately attribute those fines and fees to therelevant party in the transaction chain. An identifier
can help firms provide evidence and transparency
into the underlying causes of failures and quickly
resolve any disputes and claims resulting fromthose failures.
The current industry focus on improving
operational resilience and reducing operational risk
can also be better supported by the adoption of astandard that facilitates the reduction of settlement
failures. It may also prove beneficial to firms as
they re-architect their systems ahead of a move to
T+1 settlement in key markets such as the UnitedStates and Canada.
Supporting digital transformation
We need common foundations to digitallytransform our industry. No matter what stage ofthe journey your firm is at, if you have consistent
data at the heart of your platforms, you can better
communicate information from one system toanother. As you adopt next generation technology
tools and solutions, the identifier remains the sameand enables effective transmission and tracking oftransactions between legacy and next generation
technology environments.
The Covid-19 crisis has also highlighted theimportance of integrated communication tools
to better enable collaboration between teams
working in various locations across the globe.
The identifier can provide a connection point forthese new systems and tools for communicating
between internal teams and external clients andcounterparties.

Solving the post-trade transparency challenge: The case for a unique transaction identifier in securities

4
So, what next?

The first wave of early adopters working on theimplementation of the standard expect muchprogress to be achieved over the coming months.
The identifier will be embedded within the posttrade services of several market infrastructures
to begin with. This started at the end of 2021, andmore market infrastructures are expected to embed
it as well over time. The working group will also begathering input from their peers and clients to feed
into the future roadmap of the standards initiative.
Complete transaction lifecycle adoption
will be important to realise ROI with theimplementation and persistence of the UTI
across the various intermediaries involved.
SWIFT’s community of users, along withcollaboration with global trade associations,like ISITC NA, SMPG, and others, will help
drive adoption through endorsing usage withinmarket practice recommendations. In fact,
ISITC NA’s leadership was involved, from the
beginning, in the design and the creation ofthis UTI.
The UTI working group is keen for the wider
industry to provide feedback on their views of
the identifier and the challenges and benefits
they foresee ahead. Industry engagement at
the start of the process is key to the adoptionof the standard and it is important for as manydifferent types of firms as possible to get
involved.
Whether driven by regulations, market
infrastructures or industry initiatives, adoptionof the UTI has already started and has thepotential to be used more widely to increasetransparency and efficiency across the posttrade settlement and reconciliation value chain.
Many players believe in its broad usage acrossthe securities flows in the medium to longterm and some even see benefits in eventually
mandating its usage. In short, the UTI is a
key enabler for change and we encourage
all securities market participants to learn
more about the benefits it could bring to their
institution.

For more information on the benefits of the UTI andwhat it could mean for your organisation, pleasecontact your SWIFT account manager or email us atsecurities@swift.com.
12

Solving the post-trade transparency challenge: The case for a unique transaction identifier in securities

About SWIFT
SWIFT is a global member-owned cooperative
and the world’s leading provider of secure
financial messaging services. We provide ourcommunity with a platform for messaging,standards for communicating and we offer
products and services to facilitate access andintegration; identification, analysis and financial
crime compliance. Our messaging platform,
products and services connect more than
11,000 banking and securities organisations,market infrastructures and corporate
customers in more than 200 countries andterritories, enabling them to communicate
securely and exchange standardised financial
messages in a reliable way.
As their trusted provider, we facilitate global
and local financial flows, support tradeand commerce all around the world; werelentlessly pursue operational excellence andcontinually seek ways to lower costs, reducerisks and eliminate operational inefficiencies.
Headquartered in Belgium, SWIFT’s
international governance and oversightreinforces the neutral, global character of its
cooperative structure. SWIFT’s global office
network ensures an active presence in all the
major financial centres.
For more information, visit
Web: www.swift.com
Twitter: @swiftcommunity
LinkedIn: SWIFT

Copyright
Copyright © SWIFT — all rights reserved.
Disclaimer
SWIFT supplies this publication for
information purposes only. The informationin this publication may change from time
to time. You must always refer to the latest
available version.