Speaker 1 [00:00:04] So 21 is relatively new. Right. It's it's it's something that's kind of only really been established or been presented to the market in the last six months or so. It's it's an S.E.C. regulation and it's to do with securities lending. So we already have securities lending regulation by ESMA for SFR, which was came into force a couple of years ago dealing with securities lending repos, stock bar, etc., etc.. It's an end of day regime and a very sorry obligation looking at all that data kind of broadly aligned with G20, but not not obviously not at sea. Now 20 dash one is a similar beast, but for US markets currently anything you do on us is not relevant to Europe for ESMA. So this is a broadly similar regulation. It has some differences. It's not as complicated with a number of fields, but it also has some interesting points around it. It's single sided. Unlike SFR, it again, it's the first time that it's the first time that the US markets will have to get this data and present it to a regulator. In this format, at least the single sided nature of it is is very different to what most of G20 is in fact, or the US regimes tend to be. So North American regimes are only one party reports as opposed to both sides, so that that kind of reconciliation between the two parties is less important. But it also adds complexity in that, you know, you have to report your opponents, your counterparties data and make sure you have all that data in a considered fashion. So there's no control points around that. But what's also interesting is that it has a very tight SLA. So there are essentially three parts to Kensi dash one. One is the transactional data, which has to be done within 15 minutes. And there's a couple of end of day points around volumes and other things which we shall there's more detail about that necessary. But that 15 minute SLA is challenging because the regulations say that's from the point of booking. Okay. Which is very similar to the SLA as you have on CFTC. So the moment that it's booked, essentially captured, you have the clock starts ticking until you have to get it to the regulator. Now, however, the industry considers booking to be at the point of settlement under the as your agreement with MSL. So there's already a discrepancy between when the industry thinks they're ready to kind of populate that data or publish that data and when the regulator wants it. So that's going to be a challenge. How is that going to work? Does that mean there's differences in booking models? When do you when do you have the veracity of those points? If you don't have them in 15 minutes, what are you going to do? So there's there's already debate and consultation about what those delays mean. Another very interesting point about Tennessee Dash one is that they have different UTR requirements, so utilize unique transaction identifier. It's a it's a global standard that is actually being harmonized and even more standardized. By keeping my ASCO and technical standards published about who generates this, how you get this information, how you share it. But for tenancy dash one, that's still has to be generated by FINRA and they have different criteria to what SFR does. So if you are in a situation where for SFR, you have a, you know, a bilateral agreement to say party A will always generate duties when we are trading. That may not be how FINRA said so when you have a global standard which immediately is in does not correlate with a tenancy, that's one standard. Again, there's questions about that. How is that going to work? Will we need separate bilateral agreements to be able to handle that, that difference from the global standard that that's forthcoming?