We of course continue to collaborate with them

Donald f. Donahue leads the US House clearing and settlement DTCC, which provides for a near-monopoly on equity markets in the United States and has a subsidiary in London, EuroCCP.

What are your ambitions in Europe

Our European branch, EuroCCP, was able to impose in practicing successfully competitive rates. We expect well to continue to grow our business on European soil, as long as inbranch infrastructure open to competition and allow the development of interoperability. We will push the European regulators to go that route.

What should be done to achieve this goal

Need to create the legal conditions for the development of interoperability. The MIF markets of financial instruments, Editor's note directive made possible competition between market operators but was spared the infrastructure of compensation. Today, the costs are still too high. The clearing Germany and France houses are part of the more expensive. Growth potentials are enormous in terms of liquidity. In Europe, it posts an average daily volume of about 6 million transactions for markets "cash", while we now have a daily volume of about 80 million transactions in the United States.

Do you impose your business model through your European subsidiary

In the United States, we see ourselves as a neutral operator market. We offer a public service to ensure greater confidence, security and reliability in financial markets. We operate "at cost" the full potential benefits is distributed to users-shareholders, Editor's note and we support that it is the best possible model. Interoperability would trigger a decrease in costs and, no doubt, would make possible the consolidations. Financial trade between America and Europe is more and more numerous and dense, it seems natural that we can play a role in the transatlantic orders compensation.

This ambition could go forward with the purchase of the Franco-British Chamber of compensation CHL.Clearnet. Can you explain the reasons for the failure of your offer

The transaction could take place because the Board of Directors of LCH.Clearnet decided to withdraw. The same Council was yet decided for the operation in October 2008. This u-turn much surprised us. However, European regulators were not hostile to the merger. The FSA the British regulator, Editor's note, and the AMF authority of financial markets, Editor's note seemed to be ready to accept it. There was some obvious concerns in February, is a few months after the demise of Lehman and two months after the Madoff case, but we thought that they had dissipated. We continued to believe in the interest of the merger and economies that it could bring to the industry, and we thought that nothing could prevent the transaction to be completed. In particular, we had reassured the French regulator by him promising to not drop our model of risk management or impose our technology from the United States. The French industry would have continued to be directed by the French.

The operation was also in the interest large banks, present on both sides of the Atlantic and sit on your Board...

Banks originally provided broad support to the project. Where our amazement when we found is that many of them were among the members of the Lily Group which had submitted a concurrent offering of DTCC, Editor's note. My wife is psychiatrist, perhaps you should ask the question (laughter). Rumors say that it is their specialized branches of derivatives that are committed against the supply of their parent. As you know, a large part of the activity of LCH.Clearnet is the compensation rate swaps...

Have you abandoned the idea of a reconciliation

I have great respect for the leaders of LCH.Clearnet. We of course continue to collaborate with them. In our view, as one of our main users, Nyse Euronext, operates on two continents, the need for interoperability between our two clearing houses will be sooner or later feel. We do not exclude that we can term resume our discussions.

Do you think that the OTC derivatives must all go through a clearing house

It seems fairly clear that there is a post-AIG bequest to manage. A large majority of type CDS credit derivatives may no doubt be compensated. But there will be always exchange of over-the-counter CDS, since many of them are totally unique or designed custom. For actions OTC derivatives, I am not sure whether standardization is sufficient to be able all to go through a centralized clearing house. Industry representatives believe that total approximately 20 of OTC transactions will remain likely not subject to a centralized compensation system.

You have a data center for all OTC derivatives trade in which you want to expand the use...

It is the only centre of data that exists in the world to this day. It covers customers in 52 countries, 2.4 million transactions, 25,000 billion in notional value. Its use will be Cardinal to better prevent from systemic risk to the trading of OTC derivatives. It is a great mistake to reject it and replicate it in multiple places.

Find the whole of this interview on