In general, how have Canadian firms reacted to the push for shorter of settlement cycles? Eugene, in North America, the push for shorten cycle was an industry driven initiative. So, of course the firms were definitely behind that initiative. Where there’s a payback in terms of the costs associated with reducing the settlement cycle. They’ll endorse it for T+2. Everyone was singing in harmony on both sides of the border. Moving forward, it could be more of a disruptive type of event, and maybe there’ll be some firms that are embracing the change and some not. So, we’ll have to wait and see what the future holds. When you say disruptive, why is that? Disruptive in terms of changing the
current settlement process. So, right now, the Canadian and US side there’s really one central securities depository. With the advent of blockchain coming to be, there could be more clearing houses in central securities depository. So, I see there could be some competitive issues. What more has to be done to optimize settlement operations? Well, in terms of reducing the settlement process I mentioned blockchain in an earlier point you had mentioned, and I think that technology is necessary to really cut down the settlement process from T+2 to T something. The Canadian Securities Exchange is planning to launch its own clearing and settlement initiative on a blockchain based environment, and issue security token offerings. In terms of the current process I would think that would be more intraday messaging between exchanges and clearinghouses. How would you describe the level coordination
among global regulators to achieve shorter settlement cycles? I think in terms of, it’s a bit problematic for the regulators in terms of the global aspect, because each jurisdiction is very unique and are based in different settlement cycles already. So, it’s hard to coordinate an exact effort on that. They certainly communicate and on the North American piece, much higher degree of coordination than it will be, say Europe.