The new governance structure has been developed to oversee and manage the operational, regulatory and technological elements of the transition.

Due to the ‘significant’ interconnectedness within the EU capital market, a coordinated approach across the EU, involving authorities, market participants, financial market infrastructures and investors, is desirable, according to the watchdogs.

Among the key elements the governance model seeks to establish is an industry committee, made up of senior leaders and representatives from market players.

This committee will be chaired by Giovanni Sabatini, who has previously served as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee and held roles within International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), European Banking Federation (EBF) and European Central Securities Depositories Association (ECSDA).

The governance model also seeks to establish various technical workstreams, focused on the technological adaptations needed to accommodate the transition to T+1.

The watchdogs added that two more general workstreams will also be established to review the scope and the legal and regulatory aspects of these adaptations.

Lastly, a coordination committee will be established, chaired by ESMA and with representation from the EC, the ECB and the chair of the industry committee.

This committee will be tasked with ensuring coordination between the authorities and the industry, advising on any issue that may occur during the transition.

The first meeting of the coordination committee is scheduled for 6 February.

ESMA has suggested 11 October 2027 as the optimal date for the transition to T+1 in the EU, aligning with the UK’s proposed switch and today, 23 January, Switzerland also announced plans to move to T+1 in October 2017, with the date now being a consensus between the EU, Switzerland and the UK.

The post EU watchdogs launch new governance structure to support T+1 transition appeared first on The TRADE.

The impact of the Credit Suisse/UBS merger, driven through as it was by the Swiss regulators and with serious question marks hanging over the legality of some of its terms, is expected to have long-lasting repercussions on the industry: from the structure of bank funding to the liquidity profile of the bond markets to the potential weakening of the dollar as US banks struggle amid a broader market sell-off.

“It is a mixed bag,” says Valerie Noel, head of trading at Syz Group.  

“On the one hand, the market welcomes the fact that a systemic bank has been rescued through a last-minute weekend deal. A fallout of Credit Suisse would have had major implications for global financial markets, given their derivatives exposure and their ties with other banks. 

Read More – UBS’ Credit Suisse takeover: What you need to know 

“On the other hand, the deal is sending two negative messages to the market. First: that minority shareholders in systemic banks do not have much to say (the deal is going through without shareholders’ approval). And second, that CoCo bondholders are getting fully wiped out despite the fact that CoCos are supposed to be senior to equities. These two points are lowering the market confidence in systemic banks and towards Switzerland.” 

The new UBS/Credit Suisse entity will become a giant in the European banking industry, with more than $5 trillion in assets. Once the investment banking restructuring is behind them, the growth opportunities in asset and wealth management and synergies could mean that the new giant Swiss bank may become profitable. 

Economic impact 

However, Noel warns that the immediate market reaction, especially in the equities space, could be seen as complacent.  

“The reason for the market resilience mainly stems from the trust in the capacity of central banks to run two different monetary policies at the same time. On one hand, they are fighting inflation by hiking rates (see ECB last week). On the other hand, they are rescuing the financial system by providing banks with ample liquidity and a backstop (SNB support, etc.). The latter is even seen by some as a ‘stealth quantitative easing’.  

“While this looks feasible on paper, running these policies at the same time carries important execution risks and creates a vicious circle: injecting liquidity is inflationary, which would force central banks to hike rates even more, which could create more issues for banks and lead to further liquidity injections and so on. In other words, the disinflationary impact of this financial crisis might not happen as it used to. Which means that central banks’ job is not done. And this is not necessarily good news for risk assets.”  

Contagion fears 

“Markets clearly see the UBS takeover of Credit Suisse as a sticking plaster over someone who has lost their arm, so expect to see a bigger sell-off over the coming weeks,” said Muhammed Demir, head of capital markets at City-based multi-asset broker Swiss Finance Corporation (SFC), speaking to The TRADE.  

“But it is not just the stock markets that have been hit. Events in Switzerland also spell trouble for troubled US banks more exposed than their European counterparts. It seems like we are on the cusp of weaker US dollar territory against the euro.” 

Astonishingly, in its delayed annual report, released on 14 March, Credit Suisse admitted “certain material weaknesses” in its internal control over financial reporting. This related to the “failure to design and maintain an effective risk assessment process to identify and analyse the risk of material misstatements in its financial statements” – an unexpected admission that highlights the crucial importance of robust financial reporting.  

Bond chaos 

But it’s the bond markets where the complexities of the Credit Suisse merger have really hit home – with the shock write-down of the bank’s AT1 bonds sending the market into an initial freefall.  

“It’s a nightmare for the bond markets as investor confidence is falling sharply,” said Demir. “It will be difficult for the investors to go in new deals until we see a proper solution for the banking crisis and/or rate cuts, and we expect it to begin in Q3 23. The only winner is gold just as like any other financial crisis, it tends to go higher.” 

AT1 bonds were introduced in Europe after the global financial crisis to serve as shock absorbers when banks start to fail. They are designed to impose permanent losses on bondholders or be converted into equity if a bank’s capital ratios fall below a predetermined level, effectively propping up its balance sheet and allowing it to stay in business. AT1 bonds have been very popular with qualified investors over the last decade, as they were paying fat coupons in a world of negative or zero interest rates. 

Read More – Lone CoCo bond escapes the Credit Suisse carnage 

But with reward comes risk. According to the Swiss bail-in regime, AT1 debt sits above equity in the loss absorption waterfall – but in a surprise emergency decree announced post-merger on 19 March, the government allowed FINMA special powers to circumvent this hierarchy in order to write the bonds down to zero (a value of around CHF17 billion) whilst still recompensing shareholders – a deeply unpopular decision that prompted outrage across some parts of the market and has sparked calls for litigation against both Credit Suisse, FINMA and the Swiss government.  

“This is an arresting development, given that even unsecured bondholders usually rank above equity holders in the capital structure. So for equity holders to get “something” and CoCo bond holders to get “nothing” raises serious questions about the real value of CoCo bonds,” said Noel.  

Future concerns 

The subsequent impact saw the value of Credit Suisse bonds collapse, and had a negative impact across the $250 billion European AT1 bond market, with prices being knocked in some cases up to 20-30bps.

“AT1s being marked to 0 was a shocker (bonds went through mid 20s on Sunday), but the market was reassured on Monday following the ECB statement saying we are not the Swiss and we will not behave in the way they have because AT1 is important to our market/sector,” said one senior fixed income trader, who asked to remain anonymous. “After that, the market turned from sellers to buyers, and continued to see better buying when the US got in. Prices were everywhere on Monday though, and screen prices in the AT1 space have been totally unreliable.”

The broader bond market is now on the road to recovery, but while the AT1 market has slid back up slightly (around 5%) on hopes of potential legal redress, the question now is what the longer-term impact might be.  

Read More – investors gear up for litigation over Credit Suisse writedown 

“There is now a risk for the entire CoCo bonds to face a crisis of confidence and be shunned by investors,” said Noel. “A collapse in demand for CoCo bonds would mean that banks would need to raise capital through other means.” 

This means that the whole future of bank funding in its current form could be at risk – with central banks needing to find an alternative product through which to raise capital. Another issue is that in the current state of uncertainty, the status of AT1 bonds remains in flux – and that makes pricing them almost impossible. “It’s just incredibly difficult to price these instruments right now, because no one knows where we are,” said Mark Leahy, chief business officer at LedgerEdge.  

“A certain type of capital, which has been very comfortable with these instruments for a long time, is now either less available, or only available at a higher price than it was a week ago. That means you’re going to see higher costs, and you’re going to see investors depart the market. It’s going to be very hard to replace that pool of capital overnight.” 

This means that not only could the bank funding structure transform, and liquidity temporarily dry up, but the whole investor profile of the segment could shift – away from the usual asset managers and private banks and towards those with a higher appetite for risk and a greater capacity for more sophisticated analysis.  

The Credit Suisse crisis might have been concluded with the UBS merger, but its long-term consequences look set to be far from over…

The post Credit Suisse: How it started, how it’s going… appeared first on The TRADE.

Efforts are gathering pace to challenge the decision by the Swiss regulators to pay Credit Suisse equity-holders CHF3 billion whilst writing down the value of AT1 debt-holders to zero. 

The write-down, announced the evening of 19 March before markets opened on Monday morning, has decimated the $250 billion AT1 bond market in Europe, with a cataclysmic impact on both market pricing and market liquidity. But with these instruments being held not only by hedge funds and institutional investors, but also distributed to smaller and retail investors, both Swiss and overseas, many players are now calling for urgent redress. 

Over 600 people joined a webinar on Wednesday hosted by Quinn Emanuel, “the most feared law firm in the world” (and one with a history of litigation against Credit Suisse), to explore their options with regards to litigation claims against both the bank as an issuer, and Switzerland as the enactor, of the recent AT1 bond write-down. 

Changing lanes 

The crux of the challenge would appear to be the special ordinance passed by the Swiss government on 16 March, prior to the merger being made official and without any announcement to investors or the public, which gave FINMA the authority to ignore the established enforcement of loss hierarchy in the event of a write-down.  

The emergency decree created a new law to enable the terms of the merger transaction (including the waiving of shareholder approval and the decision to place equity obligations above the rights of junior creditors) because under the existing ‘too big to fail’ Swiss legislation, it appears the deal in its current form may not have been possible.  

Article 19 of the Swiss Capital Adequacy Ordinance states that: “Common Equity Tier 1 capital shall absorb losses before the Additional Tier 1 capital,” and that: “Additional Tier 1 capital shall absorb losses before Tier 2 capital.” It also clarifies that: “Should individual instruments of the same capital component (outside CET1) absorb losses differently, the bank must specify this in its articles of incorporation or at issue of the instrument.

The new ordinance allowing FINMA to sidestep the established loss hierarchy is believed to have been adopted partly on 16 March and partly on 19 March, but was only made public on 19 March – crucially, after the merger was announced, and after the bond write-down was confirmed, the timing of which could become a key element in any court case.  

In addition, in the AT1 documentation for the bonds themselves, the law firm suggested that the definition of a ‘write-down’ event could also be challenged: as the requirements would seem to indicate that the bank had to be in danger of insolvency in order to trigger a write-down to zero (along with other factors).  

The fact that other regulators, including the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of England, immediately distanced themselves from the Swiss decision and reaffirmed their commitment to the standard hierarchy for bank funding also indicates, said Quin Emanuel, that there could be international support for a challenge to Swiss law. So what avenues are available to investors?  

What can be done? 

One possibility mooted in the Quinn Emanuel webinar could be a legal challenge brought in Switzerland against the issuer (Credit Suisse) for mis-selling. Based on the bank’s fixed income investor presentation of 14 March 2023 in which it stated that its capital adequacy situation was sound and that liquidity issues had been addressed. Given that the bank did not disclose any issues that could have warned the market about adverse conditions, there could, suggested the firm, be a case to argue that any bonds traded/purchased in the period between 14 March and 19 March were based on inaccurate statements by Credit Suisse. The key point here would be the issue of market expectations regarding the terms of the prospectus versus the risk of ad hoc legislation: did Credit Suisse know about the new ordinance on 16 March and if so, were they under an obligation to inform their investors/bondholders of the possibility?  

Another avenue could be a claim against Switzerland itself – either the government and/or the regulatory agencies, notably FINMA. Any challenge to FINMA’s decision would need to be addressed in court within 30 days of the FINMA order, with Quin Emanuel suggesting that a challenge could be made on the basis of a violation of property rights and arbitrary exercise of discretion. 

The constitutionality of the 16 March special ordinance could also be challenged – and here, it would seem that the wheels may already in motion. The Swiss Parliament is apparently (said Quinn Emanuel) convening an extraordinary assembly, beginning 12 April, after Swiss government representatives demanded to discuss the emergency decree.  

“Apparently the government can’t just introduce new laws,” said one lawyer. “There is uproar in Switzerland right now, with people asking why they had a superb ‘too big to fail’ regulation for 10 years that everyone planned against, which was thrown away overnight to be replaced by a new regulation that took away rights and breached standard hierarchy. There is a lot of potential here for litigation, but there is also the option for political redress.”  

Other options are to take action against Switzerland in other countries, potentially based on bilateral investment treaties (BITs) – of which Switzerland has many, designed to protect the rights of foreign investments in the host country. Non-Swiss AT1 bondholders could plausibly base action on these, although they would have to be based in jurisdictions with Swiss BITs: such as Singapore, Hong Kong, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.  

Swiss treaties – including BITs – usually contain requirements that any expropriation, nationalisation or “measures tantamount to expropriation” cannot be effected without compensation. The devaluation of AT1 bonds could potentially be viewed as a government measure of expropriation, suggested Quinn Emanuel, thus triggering an obligation to compensate bondholders. BITs require “fair and equitable” treatment of foreign investors, and also usually include a requirement to provide procedural fairness and transparency, which could be argued to include the honouring of legitimate expectations about the state’s laws that an investor reasonably had when making the investment. The emergency law passed to legalise the write-down could potentially, the law firm noted, be seen as a breach of that fair and equitable treatment standard: a challenge that could stand independently or in conjunction with an expropriation claim.  

There is some potential to make a claim in the US under either Federal or state securities law (such as California’s popular ‘blue-sky’ law). However, this would be more difficult – first, the Credit Suisse AT1 bonds were predominantly sold to US investors using the 144A exemption, meaning that they are exempt from registration with the SEC. That doesn’t mean the seller is immune to liability – claims can be brought under Rule 10b-5 if the plaintiff can prove that the seller knowingly made a misrepresentation that cause economic loss – but Credit Suisse would almost certainly argue that they didn’t know at the time of sale and therefore could not be liable for fraud. So although it would potentially be possible to bring a challenge in the US, in Quinn Emanuel’s opinion “these claims would face very serious challenges”.  

Urgent action, swift recovery 

Either way, the clock is ticking and investors will have to make some quick decisions on which path they choose to take. “We essentially have a 30-day window,” concluded a Quinn Emanuel lawyer. “There is a strong argument to get arguments together and get letters out quickly.”  

With multiple law firms currently pitching for work in the litigation stakes, it’s therefore likely that we could see some rapid movement – and this hope of redress has already worked some magic in the trading stakes. 

 “After an initial selloff, the AT1 bond market has recovered somewhat from the shock of the Credit Suisse write-down,” said Paul Summer, head of structured notes and financials trading at fixed income investment bank KNG Securities. “The affected Credit Suisse AT1 bonds are now trading at around 5% of notional value, as some investors see hope of a legal challenge.” 

Notably the Credit Suisse Tier 2 bond 6.5% 08/08/23 (which was not written down even though it included bail-in language) dropped to 60% but is now trading above 90%. 

Read More – Lone CoCo bond escapes the Credit Suisse carnage 

 “Investors in other AT1 bonds were comforted by comments from the EU and UK authorities that they would expect common equity instruments to absorb losses before AT1 is written down,” added Summer.  

“However, in our view, this will permanently affect the AT1 market, with investors having to pay much more attention to the terms and conditions of future new issues, and consequently demanding a higher interest premium.” 

The ripple effect 

And at the risk of being pessimistic, it’s not just the bond write-down that could cause a legal headache in the coming months.  

“When deposits are volatile and market confidence is uncertain, focus increases on banks’ tightening liquidity.  When liquidity tightens, we can expect to see an uptick in claims between banks and their customers and counterparties,” warned Charlotte Henschen, a partner in the commercial and banking litigation team at international law firm RPC.  

After the global financial crisis, for example, banks faced a tidal wave of litigation for mistreating customers. When times get tough, banks tend to get tougher – which can, suggested Henschel, result in actions which amount to a breach of their agreements with their clients as they seek to protect their own interests.  

“Litigation could arise from disputed margin calls, where customers consider that a margin call was invalid or unjustified, the parties dispute the valuation of the collateral posted,” she noted.  

“Banks may also be taking a close look at their exposure to customers and the adequacy of the security which they have in place. This may result in litigation where the parties disagree as to the valuation of such security, with arguments as to whether such valuations were previously inflated artificially.” 

The post Investors gear up for litigation over Credit Suisse write-down appeared first on The TRADE.

Bank of England

The European Central Bank (ECB), Bank of England, Federal Reserve and others yesterday announced a coordinated action to enhance the provision of liquidity via standing US dollar liquidity swap line arrangements; in a bid to ease pressure on the funding market amid the current banking turmoil.  

Read More – LIVE updates from the UBS takeover of Credit Suisse and market implications 

The Bank of Canada, the Bank of Japan and the Swiss National Bank also joined in a bid to improve the swap lines’ effectiveness in providing US dollar funding by increasing the frequency of 7-day maturity operations from weekly to daily. 

Daily operations commence on Monday, 20 March 2023, and will continue at least until the end of April. 

“The network of swap lines among these central banks is a set of available standing facilities and serves as an important liquidity backstop to ease strains in global funding markets, thereby helping to mitigate the effects of such strains on the supply of credit to households and businesses,” said the ECB in a statement.  

The Bank of England’s first daily 7-day maturity repo operation ran at 08:15 on Monday 20 March, with bids closing at 08.45. Results of the day’s US dollar repo operations are due to be announced at 10:00 AM daily, or as soon as possible thereafter. The funds will be offered at the US overnight rate plus 25bps.  

The current standing arrangements were put in place in October 2013, following a conversion by the group of central banks of their temporary bilateral liquidity swap arrangements to a permanent agreement. Daily dollar auctions across time zones were last put in place as a liquidity measure during the Covid crisis in 2020.  

“The standing arrangements will continue to serve as a prudent liquidity backstop,” said the Federal Reserve.  

The increased access to US dollar liquidity comes in response to the current market turmoil as multiple bank crises hit the industry, including the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and the fire-sale of Credit Suisse to UBS on 19 March. Funding markets are expected to experience severe stress this week, especially given the decision to write down the entirety of Credit Suisse’s AT1 debt – to the tune of around CHF16 billion ($17.2 billion).  

The post Central banks take action to enhance US dollar liquidity amid market turmoil appeared first on The TRADE.

The US Federal Reserve raised rates by 75bps in its June meeting, less than the 100bps some were expecting, but enough to signal that it was willing to do whatever it takes to get spiralling inflation under control. The UK also hiked rates for the fifth time in a row to hit 1.25%, a 13-year high, whilst in a surprise move the Swiss central bank also jumped in with its first increase in 15 years, hiking 50bps to move from –0.75% to –0.25%.

And there are more to come. The European Central Bank (ECB) has indicated plans to raise rates by a quarter point next month, and possibly a bigger jump in September, while the Fed is expected to continue its aggressive policy for the rest of the year with another jump in July.

Bonds battered 

The moves, while not unexpected, still had a significant impact on the markets – particularly on the fixed income side, where bond traders were battered by bouncing volatility and investors yanked billions from corporate bond funds as prices plummeted.  

“The Fed rate hike was largely anticipated, but did little to calm markets, as sentiment changed from fearing the Fed was moving too slowly to address soaring inflation, to fearing that this and the future rate moves would tip the US economy into recession,” said Dom Holland, US business development at blockchain bond platform LedgerEdge, speaking to The TRADE.  

“As market participants scrambled to re-position, they found that buying appetite across asset classes was limited and prices were marked down sharply with little trading happening at each price point.” 

This was particularly pronounced in the corporate bond market, where the risk transfer model was already challenged, which not only had to reprice to reflect the new yield levels of the underlying US Treasuries, but also to add in additional spread to reflect the new perception of recession and the effect that would have on the creditworthiness of corporate bond issuers. 

“We saw significant outflows from corporate bond funds last week that compounded the move lower,” said Holland. “All corporate bond indices are fast approaching levels last reached at the start of the pandemic and the dramatic re-pricing has been on limited volume as liquidity has been poor.” 

Equities impact 

The equity markets also had a bad week, with global stocks seeing their worst slide since 2020. The S&P Europe 350, reflecting European equity performance, also saw substantial outflows, losing 4.6% over the week ending 17 June and down 8.93% June to date.  

Interestingly, it was the second-largest largest US dollar shorting week on record, according to Goldman Sachs Prime (only behind the week ending 12 June 2008), as managers increased micro and macro hedges amid the sharp market drawdown.  

“What does it mean for global equity markets? It becomes clear that the Fed will do whatever it takes to get inflation under control even if it implies slowing the economy meaningfully and/or lead to further market downside. In other words, there is no Fed put anymore which means that there is no cushion on the downside for investors,” Syz Group head of trading Valérie Noël told The TRADE.  

However, it’s not all negative.  

“One positive development last week came from the ECB Emergency meeting, which led to two decisions: one) The ECB triggered flexible PEPP reinvestments; and two) ECB internal committees were tasked with accelerating the completion of a new anti-fragmentation tool,” revealed Noël.  

“Immediately after the news, Italy, Spain and Portugal spread vs. Bund tightened meaningfully. This is a positive development for EU banks and periphery markets and thus a relief for EU equities.”  

The post Rate hikes send markets spinning as recession looms appeared first on The TRADE.

Under the MOU, the two regulators will consult and cooperate on information connected to the oversight of security-based swap dealers and participants that are registered with the SEC and supervised by the ECB.

Signed on 16 August, it is the first MOU to be signed by the pair, who said it would facilitate the US watchdog’s oversight of its registered security-based swap entities in EU member states participating in the single supervisory mechanism (SSM), the banking supervision system in the EU.

It will also give the SEC greater oversight over its substituted compliance orders issued for security-based swap entities in France and Germany and future substituted compliance orders for firms in the other EU Member States that are participating in the supervision system.

Substituted compliance allows a security-based swap entity to comply with US requirements under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform.

In the US, the Dodd-Frank Act divided regulatory oversight of derivatives between the SEC for security-based swaps and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) for other swaps.

Under the regime, firms are required to report swap transactions that reference a single security or loan, or credit default swaps that reference a narrow-based index, to the US watchdog via regulated data repositories.

In May, the SEC awarded the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) regulatory approval to offer security-based data reporting services in the US ahead of the new rules.

The post SEC and ECB agree to share regulatory information on security-based swaps appeared first on The TRADE.

Research from the International Capital Markets Association (ICMA) found that while demand for repo increased significantly as brokers sought to gain access to cash and high-grade collateral, dealers’ capacity to intermediate that demand was constrained and limited access to many firms that needed it.

It also found that larger-sized banks increased their balances during the crisis, but many smaller banks reduced their repo footprint, in some cases dramatically.

“In the exceptionally stressed conditions experienced in February and March this year the repo market continued to perform relatively well, while showing some signs of strain in the face of greatly increased client demand,” said Gareth Allen, chair of ICMA’s European Repo and Collateral Council (ERCC).

Its sample data showed an overall increase of repo outstandings of about 8% from December 2019, but a median adjustment of -4% across the sample.

At the height of the crisis, firms were particularly challenged with meeting increased margin calls as asset prices plummeted and markets became increasingly volatile, putting huge pressures to find and post acceptable collateral.

Earlier this week, the European Central Bank (ECB) adopted temporary measures, including the acceptance of junk bonds as collateral, to mitigate the effect of the economic crisis on collateral availability due to possible rating downgrades. The measures come amid fears that a sudden wave of credit downgrades of securities and bonds as a result of the crisis would cause a shortage of acceptable collateral.

During the height of the crisis in mid-March, the New York Federal Reserve made available up to $1 trillion of loans in the repo market for a week.

The post Investors struggled to access repo market at height of COVID- 19 crisis appeared first on The TRADE.

Bayle de Jesse replaces David Puth, who stepped down from the settlement infrastructure in September 2018 after six years.

CLS chairman, Kenneth Harvey, has been serving as interim CEO since September and will continue to do so until Bayle de Jesse takes up the role on 2 December.

Bayle de Jesse joined the ECB in 1997 and has held a number of senior positions including chairman of the European System of Central Banks Market Infrastructure and Payments Committee, and member of the BIS Committee for Payments and Market Infrastructure.

His time at the ECB coincided with one of its largest market infrastructure projects in T2S, a pan-European settlement system aimed at harmonising the continent’s securities settlement process.

Bayle de Jesse contributed significantly to the development of regulations and international standards for financial market infrastructures during his tenure at the ECB, addressing the challenges digitalisation, cyber threats and globalisation pose to the market infrastructure and payments sector.

Prior to the ECB, he was senior advisor in the General Secretariat at Sicovam SA, the French central securities depository – now part of the Euroclear Group – which manages the French securities settlement system.

“Having spent 22 years at the ECB, Marc has played a central role in revolutionising Europe’s settlement infrastructure,” said Harvey.

“I believe he is extremely well placed to lead CLS and maintain and grow our unique position at the centre of the FX market. His extensive experience with central banks and market participants will help ensure we continue to respond to the needs of the industry, enhancing and developing our risk mitigation solutions.”

The post CLS appoints new chief executive from European Central Bank appeared first on The TRADE.