Category: The systemic effects of benchmarking

In over-the-counter OTC markets for assets such as currencies, derivatives, and commodities, staggering sums of money are tied to single, critical financial benchmarks. Inestimates of notional exposure to U. GDP that year. The ubiquity of these benchmarks is not difficult to understand: They have substantially harmonized otherwise decentralized, opaque dealer markets where a dealer such as Goldman Sachs or other large market-making entity is a counterparty to each transaction.

By coordinating the price discovery-like functions of dealers, benchmarks have enhanced price transparency, lowered the cost of contracting, expanded the range of hedging opportunities, and generated enormous liquidity through network effects. Upon initial observation, this narrative fits the prevailing view of financial regulation: Because sophisticated market participants, through wealth-maximizing behavior, tend to select structures that maximize efficiency, aggregate social welfare is maximized, meaning that observed equilibria are likely the most efficient equilibria.

I argue that this understanding is incomplete. First, the dominance of certain benchmarks has helped entrench the natural oligopoly of dealers in OTC markets. The most powerful dealers, already concentrated, have outsize influence over the price discovery functions of benchmarks.

As benchmarks become critical to the functioning of the economy, those dealers can correspondingly gain some control over legal and regulatory aspects of the market as well.

Benchmarking: Types, Process, Advantages & Disadvantages

LIBOR has become systemically important in the same way that a bank or financial institution can be, which has already reduced the credibility of regulatory discipline.

Inregulators at the Bank of England seem to have implicitly endorsed LIBOR manipulation to avoid further undermining global confidence in the banks. Second, the widespread hardwiring of benchmarks throughout transactions has made manipulating them particularly tempting. A small tweak to a benchmark will have a disproportionately large financial effect. For example, economists have shown that in a single quarter, a 25 basis point 0. And as both the entities involved in the benchmark-setting process, as well as the counterparties to transactions that reference those benchmarks, dealers are uniquely well positioned to manipulate.

Finally, network effects and path dependencies can promote inefficient pooling around the default benchmark, even if it is suboptimal. Market participants may choose to transact at a benchmark simply because everyone else is doing so. Entire ecosystems of additional products can sprout up around a particularly successful benchmark. The switching costs become enormous.

As network effects proliferate and the same benchmark is used again and again, the likelihood of competition in the form of other benchmarks or referents becomes vanishingly small. In this environment, not only will a dominant benchmark provider lack adequate incentive to promulgate additional benchmarks, it might also fail to invest in improvements to the existing benchmark or adequately monitor for wrongdoing. I argue that, so long as a benchmark remains entrenched in an ecosystem dominated by powerful institutions, there is little likelihood of innovation or competition from socially-beneficial alternative benchmarks, and market-based discipline will remain ineffective.

Instead, suboptimal yet systemically important benchmarks will persist, with skyrocketing switching costs for market participants and zero incentives to develop better benchmarks. One size cannot and should not fit all.Second, momentum traders can exploit the flows of funds in the benchmarked industry.

The below are excerpts from the papers Headings, links and cursive text have been added.

Benchmarking and Energy Efficiency Grading

This research is summarized in the third section of our overview on systemic risk from institutional asset management. Delegation creates asymmetric information: agents have better information and different objectives compared with principals, and principals are uncertain of the competence and diligence of agents…The seemingly obvious solution is to benchmark the portfolio to an appropriate market cap index, including constraints on the margin by which annual returns may diverge from index returns.

A typical instruction would be for the manager to aim for rolling returns three percentage points over benchmark returns, subject to an annual tracking error standard deviation of, say, plus and minus six percentage points.

This limits the potential damage done by an incompetent manager taking excessive risk. It also has the advantage of comparing the return of the fund with the default option of passive investment in the index.

For the fund manager, it provides a well-defined objective and a clear basis for measuring his contribution. He has to be most vigilant of underweight positions in securities with large weights in the index, especially those with volatile and rising prices. If a security doubles in price and the investor is half-weight, the mismatch doubles; if he is double-weighted and the price halves, the mismatch halves also.

Underweight positions in large, risky securities therefore have the greatest potential to cause the manager grief. The effect is strongest when an industry sector or entire asset class is involved. This describes the plight of value managers forced to buy bubble stocks they know to be over-priced …The initial price rise to the new valuation level is thus amplified, making these stocks both more expensive and more volatile.

There is an opposing force upon stocks suffering negative shocks but the effect is stronger for stocks that increase in price because they account for a larger fraction of market movements. Benchmarks based on market cap will therefore be skewed towards high risk, low return securities. Similarly, global benchmarks will have an over-allocation to high risk, low return markets. The first effect is stronger than the second, implying that the overall market becomes permanently over-valued and prone to sector bubbles.

Benchmarked funds are the sacrificial counterparties and without them momentum traders would struggle to make a living. They eventually withdraw funds from underperforming managers causing them to sell shares that have mostly done badly, thereby amplifying the price declines. Outperforming managers receive inflows and increase their holdings of assets that have been doing well. Fund flows and price adjustments take place gradually and in a manner consistent with momentum.

They can follow fund flows and pursue momentum strategies, hoping to sell before reversal sets in. Alternatively they can take advantage of mispricing created by over-shooting and adopt value strategies. Momentum is a short-term approach because trends are typically short-lived and pay-offs established quickly.

Value calls for patience while waiting for prices to revert to fair value. Momentum traders can exploit this predictability. The implication is that benchmarking to market cap both fosters momentum and is gamed by it. Earlier it was shown that benchmarking leads to the inversion of the relationship between risk and return as well as to the over-valuation of the entire market. Momentum investors compound the buying and selling pressure and amplify the distortions caused by benchmarkers.

So much so that studies are able to describe the optimal lookback the period of rising price before purchase and holding period. Optimal periodicities for both lookback and holding periods are found to be quite stable at months over many decades and in most national markets. Systemic Risk and Systematic Value.

5 Steps of Every Benchmarking Process and Key Business Benefits of Benchmarking

LOG IN. Log into your account.The benchmarking process helps a company to gain a competitive edge by comparing its practices and performance against one or more similar companies. The benefits of benchmarking lie in its main objective, which is to identify and analyze best practices that will help in improving the overall performance of the business. Such assessments help the company to become more competitive. A benchmarking process is a structured approach that requires the collection of data via a questionnaireanalysis, and reporting.

Some of the benefits of benchmarking include the identification of internal opportunities for improvement and the growth of the organization.

The benchmarking process generates a report through a detailed analysis, which helps in breaking down the mechanism that makes any superior performance possible. The benchmarking process facilitates the examination of things like the amount of production, revenue, employee productivityexpenses, and so on.

the systemic effects of benchmarking

There are several benefits of benchmarking, but the process needs to be followed perfectly. Following are a few steps that will help you understand the benefits of benchmarking:. Identify the components to benchmark. The first step of every benchmarking process starts with identifying components that have to be benchmarked. This can be a product or a commodity, quantities of a shipped commodity, or an amount of economic output. Once the identification is done, it becomes easy to collect relevant data and then contribute to the desired set of output.

Analyze the components. This step involves data collection and its analysis. This step of the benchmarking process helps in understanding the best practices adopted by the competitors and analyzing the performance gap between the two competitive organizations.

Additionally, it is the most effective way to address the discrepancy in performance. Integrate operational goals. This is one of the important steps of the benchmarking process that involves establishing the goals of operations for organizational transformation.

In this step, it is required to communicate benchmarking findings in the organizational structure and develop the plan of actions accordingly.

Formulate an action plan. Now, the next step of benchmarking process involves the development of a plan of action.

This requires the construction of specific strategies and tactical decisions that can help to implement new practices. Apart from this, the most important thing that must be done in this step is identifying the factors of barriers to successful implementation of a strategy that is very essential to leverage the benefits of benchmarking.

Incorporate the best practices. At this step of the benchmarking process, benchmarking becomes fully institutionalized. Here the strategies that are being planned to be implemented are realized to bring the change. This step requires the adoption of best practices identified via benchmarking process to eliminate negative gaps of performance.

The potential of the benchmarking process is realized only when it is incorporated fully along all the verticals of an organization. Improve the quality of the product. This is one of the key benefits of benchmarking.All definitions of bronchopulmonary dysplasia BPD have limitations and a new definition for the purpose of clinical research, benchmarking, and prognostic prediction is needed.

Different inhaled and systemic drugs are currently used to prevent or treat BPD. Despite some positive effects on BPD, more information about the effects of inhaled corticosteroids is required to assess overall efficacy and associated risks. One needs to balance the risks of neurodevelopmental impairment owing to systemic corticosteroids against those of BPD itself. Future studies should, therefore, focus on infants with a very high risk of developing BPD and include pharmacokinetics and long-term developmental outcomes.

Keywords: Bronchopulmonary dysplasia; Dexamethasone; Hydrocortisone; Inhaled bronchodilators; Inhaled corticosteroids; Pharmacology; Systemic corticosteroids. Abstract All definitions of bronchopulmonary dysplasia BPD have limitations and a new definition for the purpose of clinical research, benchmarking, and prognostic prediction is needed.

Publication types Review. Substances Glucocorticoids.The NYC Benchmarking Law, Local Law 84 of as amended by Local Law ofrequires owners of buildings that meet the criteria outlined in the law to annually measure their energy and water consumption through a process called benchmarking. Local Law of amended the Administrative Code of the City of New York by expanding the list of buildings required to benchmark for energy and water efficiency.

Local Law 33 of amended the Administrative Code of the City of New York in relation to energy efficiency scores and grades for buildings required to benchmark their energy and water consumption. An energy efficiency score is the Energy Star Rating that a building earns using the United States Environmental Protection Agency online benchmarking tool, Energy Star Portfolio Manager, to compare building energy performance to similar buildings in similar climates. As per Local Law 95 of grades based on Energy Star energy efficiency scores will be assigned as follows:.

the systemic effects of benchmarking

Please reference the following document for more information: Local Law 33 as amended by LL95 of Steps to Compliance. Building owners may assign a representative to work in accordance with the operating staff to benchmark the energy and water use of a building. Enter building characteristics and uses. Please note the following update. Please email sustainability buildings. All data entry related to property usage is subject to audit by the Department. Buildings with Separate Property Uses For buildings with separate property uses, follow the guidelines of the Portfolio Manager tool for reporting of mixed-use buildings.

Collect whole building energy and water data from the utilities this data is automatically uploaded to the ESPM account by most utilities. Once the whole building energy and water data is uploaded, the owner needs to retrieve a Reporting Template found at the Compliance Instructions page and submit a benchmarking report.

To start the benchmarking process please go to the Compliance Instructions page. Print and display the label in a conspicuous location near each public entrance within 30 days after October 1 of every year. If you believe your property is erroneously listed on the Covered Buildings List, contact DOF at benchmarking finance. Please include the following in the email:. The annual benchmarking data is required to be submitted to the City by May 1st of every year.

Once a satisfactory report is submitted by the May 1st deadline, there is no additional responsibility until the following year. If you do not submit a report by May 1, you may aim for the next quarterly deadline of August 1. Subsequent deadlines are November 1 and February 1 of the following year. The Department may issue a Notice of Violation to any property on the Covered Buildings List that has not provided a fully compliant benchmarking report by the May 1 deadline.

If you believe a violation was issued in error, you may submit a Benchmarking Violation Challenge Form. This form must be sent to the Department within 30 days of the violation postmark. Email the form to sustainability buildings.

Pushing Back on the Narrative of Modern Systemic Racism \u0026 White Privilege by Casey Petersen

To follow up on a challenge, please call the or email sustainability buildings. Documentation substantiating a challenge must accompany the challenge form. A challenge may include, but is not necessarily limited to, one of the following:. To pay a benchmarking violation penalty, log into eFiling at www. If you need to create an eFiling account, visit www.Most of the companies maintain some sort of quality in their working environment. And these natures of work can be compared with the rest of the companies involved in the same field of work.

To specify that comparison, these companies use some sort of benchmarking process. The benchmarking process helps to increase the competitive nature in different companies working in the same field of business. Benchmarking also provides a sense of awareness regarding the maintenance of quality in their field of work. Benchmarking is a process where different companies compare their nature of work with other companies in the same field of business and they set a certain type of standard of work.

It is a matter of work from different companies which creates some standard for the work they deliver. And this standard of their work is considered and called as benchmarking.

This benchmarking allows different companies to compare their workability with other companies. Benchmarking is mainly used to assess the competitive insight and also gather the information based on the performance which was done throughout the product or organization development process. With the help of this benchmarking process, we can evaluate and identify the process to eliminate hindrances which help further in improving and enhancing our performance.

In this type of benchmarking the comparison of practices and performance is done between teams, individuals or groups within an organization. In the external benchmarking process, the comparison of organizational performance towards the company peers or across companies. Benchmarking is usually a process to see how the competitors are working or how they are able to gain success. When using process benchmarking, the data is gathered via research, surveys, and website visits.

All this information is helpful for people who are working on similar kind of tasks and objectives. Here when comparing competitors or analyzing clients, numerical metrics are gathered as information. The details later are used to identify performance gaps, prioritize tasks, etc and then work accordingly.

Strategic benchmarking analyzes how top companies compete and use the best strategies to achieve success in this competitive market. This type is mainly helpful for all the organizations which are aiming for their long term goals. There are different types of benchmarking which helps in understanding the actual concept of the benchmarking process. Most of the benchmarking process involves a legitimate competitive element in different types of business. As per the abbreviation goes, it can be elaborated as strength, weakness, opportunities, and threat.

In this type of benchmarking process, most of the companies provide their own strength, weakness, opportunity, and threat.

And finally, the result of all this analysis covers up a new idea of change inside the company itself. There is some kind of criteria that needs to be considered while benchmarking and these criteria provide some sort of dimension for all the companies. And in this peer benchmarking the competition is among those industries or companies which deal with a similar field of work. Therefore, the comparison is among those companies which deliver similar work field. It is one of the forms of combined benchmarking where in which a group of companies joins hands with some relevant association and that association helps them provide the report that can be necessary to deliver their benchmarking aspects.

Therefore, group benchmarking or collaborative benchmarking allows all the information of the different companies through those associations and actual work of those associations is that they need to provide better reports of benchmarking of their companies. In this form of benchmarking, the companies look forward to those companies which already made their impression on the business field. The practices which they followed to be in the top list of the best companies are followed and incorporated by the rest of the company which aspires to be similar like that successful company.

Therefore, it is necessary to create benchmarking where in which it includes all the best practices delivered and reported by the company. The benchmarking process is a process in which all the different steps are included which helps all the companies from similar or different work field find out their strengths and weakness. These steps provide all the aspects of the companies which can provide them an actual success rate of their company.The FSB monitors and assesses vulnerabilities affecting the global financial system and proposes actions needed to address them.

In addition, it monitors and advises on market and systemic developments, and their implications for regulatory policy. See More. Annual monitoring exercise to assess global trends and risks in non-bank financial intermediation. Read More. A number of concerns have been raised regarding the integrity and reliability of major financial market benchmarks, particularly interest rate and foreign exchange FX benchmarks.

The cases of attempted market manipulation and false reporting of global reference rates, together with the post-crisis decline in liquidity in interbank unsecured funding markets, undermined confidence in the reliability and robustness of existing interbank benchmark interest rates.

Uncertainty surrounding the integrity of these reference rates represents a potentially serious source of vulnerability and systemic risk.

the systemic effects of benchmarking

Against this background, the G20 asked the FSB to undertake a fundamental review of major interest rate benchmarks and plans for reform to ensure that those plans were consistent and coordinated, and that interest rate benchmarks are robust and appropriately used by market participants.

The FSB worked with authorities and standard-setting bodies to develop reform proposals for these benchmarks. The FSB published its recommendations on interest rate benchmarks in July The recommendations included measures to:. Strengthen IBORs in particular by anchoring them to a greater number of transactions, where possible.

Encouraging derivative market participants to transition new contracts to an appropriate RFR, where suitable.

Since publishing the recommendations in the FSB has published a series of progress reports to assess implementation of the recommendations by FSB jurisdictions. The OSSG engages regularly with the International Swaps and Derivatives Association ISDA and with other stakeholders with a view to their taking action to enhance contractual robustness in derivatives products and cash products, such as loans, mortgages, and floating rate notes.

Since JulyISDA has undertaken work, at the request of the OSSG, to strengthen the robustness of derivatives markets to the discontinuation of widely-used interest rate benchmarks. ISDA launched a second consultation on this issue in February The indication from the UK authorities that they will neither persuade nor compel panel banks to participate in LIBOR panels after end, has highlighted the importance of ensuring smooth transitions to avoid risks to financial stability.

Euro area. South Africa. United Kingdom. United States. Similar concerns were expressed regarding FX benchmarks, stemming in particular from the incentives for potential market malpractice linked to the structure of trading around the fixings for these benchmarks. As a result, the FSB established a working group to undertake analysis of the FX market structure and incentives that may promote particular types of trading activity around the benchmark fixings.

The group published recommendations in September to address these adverse incentives and improve the construction of benchmarks. The Global Foreign Exchange Committee was established in May as a forum bringing together central banks and private sector participants with the aim to promote a robust, fair, liquid, open, and appropriately transparent FX market in which a diverse set of participants, supported by resilient infrastructure, are able to confidently and effectively transact at competitive prices that reflect available information and in a manner that conforms to acceptable standards of behaviour.

As part of its work in this area, the FSB endorsed the Principles for Financial Benchmarks developed by the International Organization of Securities Commissions IOSCOwhich cover the important issues of benchmark governance, integrity, methodology, quality and accountability. Progress report on implementation of the FSB recommendations for reform of major interest rate benchmarks.

FSB report on progress implementing the recommendations on reforms to foreign exchange benchmarks. Financial and other firms should continue to ensure that their transition programmes enable them to transition to LIBOR alternatives before end This report sets out reform recommendations for major FX benchmark rates, responding to concerns around the integrity of these rates.

Toggle navigation Toggle Search. Vulnerabilities Assessment The FSB monitors and assesses vulnerabilities affecting the global financial system and proposes actions needed to address them. Latest Publications. Global Monitoring Report on Non-Bank Financial Intermediation Annual monitoring exercise to assess global trends and risks in non-bank financial intermediation. Latest Press Releases. Financial Benchmarks A number of concerns have been raised regarding the integrity and reliability of major financial market benchmarks, particularly interest rate and foreign exchange FX benchmarks.

Interest rate benchmarks The FSB worked with authorities and standard-setting bodies to develop reform proposals for these benchmarks.