state street industry dialogue
TRANSCRIPT
The Future of Trading
State Street Industry Dialogue
Foreword
The investment industry is experiencing
substantial changes. At State Street, we
have a panoramic view of market trends,
given our role serving institutional
clients of all regions, sizes and types.
The changing mindset in relation
to the front office is one such shift
we are watching closely. There is a
growing openness to re-thinking how
trading is handled. While some firms
have been evolving their models for
years, others are just beginning to
explore new options. The experience
of managing businesses through the
COVID-19 pandemic has been a catalyst
for many to engage in this process.
For others, international expansion
or regulatory challenges are key
drivers to finding new solutions
for execution and reporting.
We invited experts from three major
consultancies to join us in a discussion
about this transformation underway
in the front office. They offered their
knowledge gained from helping their
clients solve problems and lay a stronger
foundation for future business growth.
We are grateful for their insights and
hope that you find them helpful to
consider for your business as well.
2
3
Shane SwansonSenior Analyst,
Head of Equities Practice,
Market Structure and Technology,
Greenwich Associates
Jason MoorheadUK Asset and Wealth Management
Consulting Lead and Global Digital
Transformation Lead, PwC
Daniel MorganSenior Vice President,
Global Head of Portfolio Solutions,
State Street Global Markets
Moderator
Rian AkeyGlobal Head of Operational
Risk Solutions and Analytics,
Aon Hewitt
Speakers
Dan: Welcome to our panel discussion.
Let’s start by acknowledging that outsourced
trading can mean many different things.
Jason, how would you define it?
Jason: Yes, it can have several connotations.
Some of our asset owner clients are looking
for a partner who can handle what is a non-
core part of their business. For example, we’ve
seen this trend recently in the United Kingdom,
with local government pension schemes
expressing more interest in outsourced solutions.
In other cases, asset managers are
realizing that for certain asset classes or
geographic markets, the in-house resource
level or skill base for the trading operation
just isn’t there. A manager might be seeking
to increase foreign market exposure or
pursue a liability-driven investment strategy.
So, they will look often externally for
support in tackling a specific problem.
Shane: I agree with that, Jason. There is
a spectrum of definitions and motivations.
These arrangements can range from simple
execution (essentially a traditional broker
relationship) all the way to full enterprise,
where your entire front-to-back operations
are delegated to a partner that is fully
integrated with your own systems.
A lot of these deals have been driven by a
need to beef up business continuity. We’ve seen
over the past couple years how exogenous
events can exert a strain on systems throughout
our industry. So, having a trusted provider
to take on some of that burden can be a key
benefit of an outsourced trading relationship.
I’d also add that the regulatory aspect of
expanding international trading is a key
driver of outsourcing. We see this a lot in
our research, where firms are simply not as
competent or comfortable with the regulations
in a new market. So, rather than trying to
build out that capability themselves, they
rely on a trusted partner to handle that.
Rian: This dynamic is especially true for
smaller managers, where there may be more
resource constraints. There may be issues
ultimately with segregation of duties or
capabilities – just based on having a small
headcount. A firm may not have sufficient
volume to merit a dedicated trading desk.
Motivations and Governance
“ We often see outsourced trading implemented either opportunistically for a larger organization or holistically, for a smaller firm – approaching it not just as a cost savings but also as a risk management strategy.”
— RIAN AKEY
4
Dan: Rian, your firm performs diligence on
investment managers and their outsourced
vendors to inform your recommendations
to clients. Has your process changed at all
in response to the increased levels of
outsourcing in front office functions?
Rian: I see it more as an adaptation or
extension of what we have been doing.
In our industry, the outsourcing journey
started with support functions, such as IT
or compliance and then moved into
the back office, followed by the middle
office. We’re now seeing this accelerate
and extend to the front office.
The key for us is how to think about the
risk transfer aspect. As I mentioned,
we like outsourcing arrangements when
they solve concerns around segregation
of duties, governance or the capability
limitations of a smaller firm. But you have
to balance those benefits with some new
challenges related to hand-offs or what
happens when something does go wrong.
So there’s always a trade-off, I think and
that’s part of our assessment – what is the
net effect? It can’t be just about saving
money for the manager or the portfolio.
There must be a net improvement in the
operational quality or at least a neutral
outcome there to justify the decision.
In general, we do see some latency in how
investment managers handle their overall
vendor selection and monitoring processes.
Historically, this is an area that was deemed
lower risk and may not have received much
attention. This is changing now. It’s important
to be able to articulate why you selected one
provider over another. And again, it can’t be
about cost only. We’re looking for credible
policies and procedures that are guiding not
just your selection of that provider but also
ongoing monitoring to make sure that the
market is not moving on you, to make sure that
your service levels and your key performance
indicators are being met over the long term.
Dan: That’s a critical point. The responsibility
overall can’t be outsourced, even though the
function itself may be.
Rian: Right. Also, people shouldn’t
underestimate the expertise required to provide
effective oversight of outsourcing relationships.
For example, sometimes we see firms outsource
their technology to a vendor but the day-to-day
interaction is supervised by someone with no
background or experience in it. This makes it
difficult to know whether the vendor is steering
you on the right path. This is relevant for trading
too. It’s important to have the right expertise
to properly manage outcomes and understand
the nuances, especially if it’s a relatively
sophisticated kind of outsourcing framework.
5
Dan: Certainly, and the extent of challenge
will differ by firm size. A large asset manager
or asset owner may have a whole team to help
provide oversight, but if you’re a small firm,
you have to think carefully about how this
will be handled.
Rian: Yes, absolutely. You may want people
with a background in trading to oversee that
relationship and be able to approach it in a
more strategic way instead of a tactical one.
Shane: You made an important point,
which is that you have to establish clear
parameters on the front end. What is the
relationship? What are you going to
monitor? What are you going to manage?
How are you going to document it? Who is
responsible for review and what steps will
be taken afterwards?
I’m a recovering lawyer and throughout
my career I’ve always believed you have
to tell people exactly what you’re going to
do. You have to do it. You have to prove that
you did it. And you have to document all
of that. It may sound excessive, but if you
don’t set it up correctly as you go into the
relationship and instead try to address gaps
on the back end, you’ve already lost. You must
approach the initiative thoughtfully up front,
so you have the opportunity to do it well.
Jason: It’s essential to retain competence
within the organization to be able to
undertake this process and document
exactly what’s happening and what checks
you’re doing. If you look at the first
generation of outsourcing, it was a frequent
criticism that in-house teams were just
re-doing what the external vendor had done,
so outsourcing acquired a bad name. It’s a
fine art to make sure that what you’re doing is
appropriate but not an unnecessary duplication.
As outsourcing evolves and becomes even
more prevalent, knowing how to strike this
balance will be a key competitive differentiator.
“It’s important to have the right expertise to properly manage outcomes and understand the nuances, especially if it’s a relatively sophisticated kind of outsourcing framework.”
— RIAN AKEY
6
Dan: Shane, your firm provides valuable
research on the state of the industry and
frequently polls the community around
the topic. Can you comment on what your
latest research has shown in terms of how
the investment community is viewing
outsourced trading?
Shane: Absolutely. Over the last couple
of years, we’ve interviewed nearly 200 asset
owners and asset managers ranging from
under US$5 billion to over US$50 billion
in assets. We’ve asked them an array of
questions around outsourced trading to
get a view of how opinions are trending.
We’ve seen some interesting changes since
2019. When we ask ‘does outsourced trading
only apply to small or new funds,’ the
percentage who agree has shrunk massively
from 2019 to 2020. In 2019, forty five percent
thought it was only for small or new funds
and it has dwindled to 29 percent in 2020.
And when we look at this again in 2021,
we expect that might go down even more.
The other interesting result was when we
asked if outsourced trading is a good fit for
buy side firms to help manage their volume
and meet best execution. The positive
response to that actually grew significantly
from 20 percent in 2019 to 32 percent in
2020. So, those two trends make sense to
us as outsourced trading becomes better
understood. Obviously, 2020 was enormous
for growth as firms’ systems were stressed
to the limit. Outsourced trading was a
natural fit to alleviate this pressure.
However, understanding is not yet universal.
Another finding, which we were somewhat
befuddled by, is that around 10 percent of
respondents in both 2019 and 2020 responded
that they were unaware of outsourced trading.
They did not know what it was. And our sample
was large, spanning managers of all sizes.
And even though bigger managers showed
higher levels of awareness than smaller firms,
plenty of them were still unaware of outsourced
trading as a possibility for them. So, this is
good news for providers of outsourced trading
services as there’s untapped demand out there.
Dan: It’s a good reminder for the industry
that the educational component of this issue
is certainly not over. There’s more work to be
done in building awareness of the solutions
available. Did anything else interesting
emerge from your research?
Shane: We saw that international trading
was by far the biggest area where firms
were focused on using outsourced trading,
followed by expansion into different asset
classes and building capacity to supplement
the work of their own trading desks.
Industry Shifts in Perception and Organizational Structures
7
Jason: Right now, achieving greater efficiency
is the major objective we hear from clients.
Over the last few years, the conversation
around trade execution has evolved significantly.
It began with people recognizing that trading
wasn’t necessarily a core competency for
their organization, and they were weighing
the expense and difficulty of maintaining it.
Some firms started off by centralizing their
trading activities in expensive financial centers
like London or New York, but started to
reassess whether this truly offers a competitive
advantage. They began to weigh the options
of transferring the function to a lower cost
location or taking the outsourcing route. In other
cases, particularly in Europe with its regulatory
mandates around best execution, we’ve seen
examples where people have not been able to
prove best execution in the way they had hoped,
so that sparked an exploration of outsourcing.
Overall, we’re seeing a real shift in mindset here.
The acceptance of outsourcing execution has
been growing. It’s often strongest with people
who are evaluating their wider operating model
anyway and want to see what else they might be
able to achieve up and down the value chain.
Dan: Building on the idea of industry
shifts, we’re also observing a change
in the organizational structures.
Traditionally, the execution or dealing
desk was part of the chief investment
officer hierarchy. However, we’re seeing
more instances now where that function
actually reports into the chief operating
officer. What do you make of this?
Jason: Yes, it’s a notable shift. There’s a
growing realization that the skill of portfolio
management and strategy is distinct from
the operational element of placing the order
for execution. There is a greater openness to
re-examining how trade execution is handled.
Rian: We frequently hear this explanation
that flow trading belongs within the
operational function and I’d offer a challenge
to that. My biggest concern ties back to the
classic segregation of duties conundrum,
looking at what happens when there’s a
problem or error. If someone on the trading
desk makes an honest mistake, the first
check to that mistake should be operations.
And now potentially, that could be reporting
into the same functional lead. So both people
are now going to the same person to escalate
that problem, which is not ideal. So, we worry
less about the issue of where the function
should sit within an organization and more
about whether there are appropriate checks
and balances in place for these situations.
“ Over the last few years, the conversation around trade execution has evolved significantly.”
— JASON MOORHEAD
8
There’s another layer to this for smaller
firms. Often, you’ll see a trading-focused
person with a dual role. She’s also the
chief compliance officer because they
don’t have scope for a dedicated one.
So, now you have a single person in charge.
Generally, we look at three key functions of
an investment management firm. You’ve got
your risk-taking functions or the front office.
Then, there’s your initial check on the front
office, which is operations and your other
support functions. Finally, you have your control
functions like risk management, compliance
and audit. So now, you have the potential
ability of one person who has oversight of all
three of those functional areas of the firm.
That’s a problem. We would be highly
critical of that from a segregation of duties
or governance standpoint, even if it’s just
trade execution. And that’s because, possibly
99 percent of the time there’s not a problem,
but for that 1 percent when something needs
to escalate, now you’ve got one person with
a potentially massive conflict of interest.
Jason: That’s a very interesting point and
I agree with your view that a pure efficiency
lens isn’t always the best way to do things,
given there are certain controls that need
to be in place. Firms need to look at this
holistically, with a solid risk and compliance
framework underpinning the decision.
“ The acceptance of outsourcing execution has been growing.”
— JASON MOORHEAD
9
Partner Selection
Dan: What are the most important
considerations when looking for
the right partner for outsourcing,
particularly on the execution side?
Shane: First, you have to identify your
needs and map them to vendors’ capabilities.
It’s important to get very detailed in the due
diligence process to understand exactly
how the reporting works, how outcomes
are measured, how feedback is collected
and actioned and crucially, how your needs
will be handled during a crisis. In other
words, will you have a dedicated contact
to speak with when you need to reach
someone urgently? Those are some key
issues you need to understand thoroughly
as you evaluate potential partners.
Dan: On this point of coverage, if you’re
a smaller manager looking to outsource,
naturally you are expecting a better outcome
by being able to leverage the size and scale
of that external service provider. And to
some degree, this end of the market has
been underserved, when we consider the
post-crisis trend of large, sell-side banks
essentially prioritizing only the biggest,
most profitable clients. This has created
something of a void for small- to mid-
sized institutions seeking services.
Jason: For me, the most important factor
is the approach to the relationship from
both the client and provider – it must be a
true partnership to achieve optimal results.
There needs to be a mutual understanding
and both sides must continue to do the
ongoing work of communication, particularly
as it relates to the strategic vision and
not just the day-to-day operational needs.
This will allow better decision-making
that supports long-term objectives.
Rian: Yes, and this ties back to Shane’s
earlier point on crisis scenario planning.
There are two big categories of crisis that
we think about – the kind that is unique
to your firm and the kind that affects the
broader market. The latter is a much thornier
situation because you might find that your
firm is competing against the outsourcing
“ The most important factor is the approach to the relationship from both the client and provider – it must be a true partnership to achieve optimal results.”
— JASON MOORHEAD
10
provider’s other clients for support. It must
be evident in the diligence process that the
service provider has thought through a variety
of outlier scenarios and has detailed plans
and controls for maintaining service. Again,
most of the time everything is going to go
well. But adverse events certainly happen
and can cluster together. We urge our clients
to always consider these possibilities as
part of their business continuity planning.
Jason: I fully agree. But even the best
laid plans can be disrupted by unforeseen
circumstances or regulatory actions.
I’ve certainly seen this during my career,
such as when I helped to wind down
Lehman Brothers’ European prime brokerage
and private client business. In that situation,
the assets were ultimately subject to UK
trust asset law and some parties didn’t
fully understand the implications of that or
even the underlying nuances of their prime
brokerage or lending agreements. So, a
strong element of pragmatism or flexibility is
important to maintain when events like that
unfold, layered on top of that foundation of the
strong relationship and detailed planning.
Dan: Certainly, and I think as the industry
has matured, the hiring of external providers
has become much more sophisticated.
This helps clients to gain clear answers to
the sort of questions that the three of you
have raised around governance, infrastructure
and capabilities. What is your view of the
different service models available now in
the market? Providers vary widely by size
and profile, ranging from small specialists
to large, diversified banks. How do you help
your clients navigate all these options?
Rian: There are trade-offs in considering
different provider types. For example, you
may have a small, nimble provider who can
be opportunistic and agile but they don’t have
a credible cyber security policy or a solid
control framework in place. We also look
at the ancillary services that go along with
trading. Some providers that are better equipped
to support downstream workflows will be
more attractive to clients. I tend to think about
control, repetition, scalability as the most
important factors – all attributes you would
ordinarily associate with a larger organization.
Shane: The client’s individual needs dictate much
of the selection process. For example, if a firm
is looking to get a foothold in a new market but
has no international experience whatsoever,
that issue will guide the partner selection.
Expertise is paramount. Process is important
but that part is easier to engineer if you have
the right kind of expertise as a starting point.
“ Expertise is paramount. Process is important but that part is easier to engineer if you have the right kind of expertise as a starting point.”
— SHANE SWANSON
11
Dan: Right. When you think about understanding
United States’ equity market structure – that
alone is a full-time job! You need to keep
track of order types, venues, exchanges and
so forth. The complexity skyrockets when
you go global and it can be overwhelming
for a firm without that inherent expertise.
Jason: Some clients care deeply about the
‘brand name’ of a provider, as they perceive
that as a marker of safety. However,
when we help them start digging into the
fundamentals, we often see that another
provider who has a lesser known brand
may in fact be the better option, given their
areas of specialty. So, we encourage people
to have an open mind on this issue.
Dan: Over the past five to seven years,
I’ve witnessed an interesting trajectory
of talent in our industry. Essentially, we’ve
seen the shrinkage of the of the buy side
trading desk, due to a host of structural
factors. The steady electronification of
trading has meant that a lower level headcount
is now needed to look after those asset
classes. That, combined with a long period of
low turnover and the overall market stability
associated with quantitative easing – even
interrupted as it was by the spike in volatility
with COVID-19 in the first quarter of 2020–
has resulted in a certain displacement of
industry trading talent. We on the provider
side have benefited from that, as individuals
with deep buy-side experience have sought
new positions with firms like ours.
Back to the point Rian made on ancillary
services, which of these do you feel
are most important for firms to offer
as part of their suite of solutions?
Jason: It’s a bit difficult to generalize because
there is such a wide spectrum of needs and
interests. We work with some clients who are
seeking a full front-to-back capability and the
conversation around outsourced trading will
arise in the course of that wider exploration.
Others are acutely focused on the quality of
regulatory reporting, given the challenges they
have faced in that area and the existence of an
immediate gap to fill. And for a separate group
of firms – they’re not concerned with any specific
service today but are pursuing a long-term
vision and building the organizational capacity
for where they want to go. This is where that
concept of forging a strategic partnership with
your outsourcing provider is especially critical.
Shane: Due to my equity background, I always
start from a best execution perspective.
When looking at providers, we like to gauge
how sophisticated they are on the execution
analysis, spanning pre- to post-trade.
Dan: It’s a good point, and in fact, much of our
industry itself has grown up in equity space.
And of course, trading there is the easiest to
outsource because it’s so electronic and
mature from a market structure perspective.
But I see our industry adapting beyond equities,
with fixed income catching up rapidly.
12
Dan: Looking at the future of our industry,
how far do you think outsourced trading
will go? How quickly do you see the industry
moving toward maturity and how will it
be impacted by the disruption of the
COVID-19 experience?
Shane: The pandemic was a major catalyst
for change. Firms realized they could operate
with some or all of their staff remotely.
And it drove major adoption of cloud-based
technologies, ushering in all kinds of governance
and maintenance issues. But paired with
that was a realization that there are service
providers who are well suited to handle this
excess demand. They have capacity and can
provide it across a swathe of operations.
This experience has prompted people to start
exploring possible new areas that outside
partners can handle for them. So, I think it’s a
growth area and will accelerate even more over
the next three to five years, in asset classes
beyond equities and in markets beyond the US.
Rian: My view is more mixed. You’re always
going to have certain types of portfolio
managers or asset management groups for
whom outsourced trading is not going to be
a fit. To me, there’s something of an alpha/beta
divide there, with the differences in mentality
between flow trading and prop trading.
I think you’ll see more adoption though if
firms see a clear link between outsourced
trading and a quicker reaction time to new
regulations. How quickly can providers
onboard downstream capabilities that
accommodate those needs? If they can find
a way to help managers more nimbly adapt
when a new regulation or requirement
comes out, that will be a great selling
point for outsourced trading.
Jason: From a European and UK perspective,
I think that efficiency play of people looking
at trade execution will be where you’ll see the
most movement in the in the foreseeable future.
But equally, there is still that education process
to go through for front-office outsourcing.
And it will take time – possibly five years–
before more people get comfortable with
the concept, especially for asset managers
who have strongly-held beliefs around how
trading is done. So, it may take time but I
think eventually it will become as common
as middle-office outsourcing is today.
Dan: That’s interesting. It does
takes time. This is not a typical broker
onboarding – it’s more than that. And it
takes time, diligence and governance.
Shane: We’re in a transitional phase for
outsourced trading. It’s advanced beyond
infancy into a mid-maturity phase right now.
We’ll see some stumbling blocks, as always.
But hopefully, if people learn from prior
experience and undertake the right level
of due diligence, it will be possible to
avoid major missteps.
Dan: Very true. I’d like to thank each of you for
a very productive and insightful conversation.
Looking Ahead
13
Transition Management and Brokerage Marketing Materials Disclaimer – North America and APAC
State Street Global Markets® is the business name and a registered trademark of State Street Corporation® used for its financial markets businesses and that of its affiliates. This document is for marketing and/or informational purposes only, it does not take into account any investor’s particular investment objectives, strategies or tax and legal status, it does not purport to be comprehensive nor is it intended to replace the exercise of an investors own careful independent judgement regarding any corresponding investment decision. This document and the information herein does not constitute investment, legal, or tax advice and is not a solicitation to buy or sell securities or other investments, to participate in any trading strategy, and does not constitute investment research. It is not intended to constitute any binding contractual arrangement or commitment by State Street Bank and Trust company or any of its affiliates to provide any products or services.
You should make your own assessment and evaluation of the communication in the light of your needs and circumstances. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. There are risks trading foreign exchange, equities, fixed income or derivative instruments or in investments in non-liquid or emerging markets. Derivatives generally involve leverage and are therefore more volatile than their underlying cash investments.
Any information provided has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable at the time of publication, nonetheless, we cannot guarantee nor do we make any representation or warranty as to their accuracy and you should not place any reliance on such information. State Street Global Markets hereby disclaims all liability, whether arising in contract, tort or otherwise, for any losses, liabilities, damages, expenses or costs arising, either direct or consequential, from or in connection with the use of or any reliance placed upon the information herein.
The communication and information or any portion thereof may not be reprinted, sold or redistributed without the prior written consent of State Street Global Markets. This communication is not intended for retail clients, nor for distribution to, and may not be relied upon by, any person or entity in any jurisdiction or country where such distribution or use would be contrary to applicable law or regulation.
United States. This communication is being distributed in the United States by State Street Bank and Trust Company, authorized and regulated by the Federal Reserve Board and /or State Street Global Markets, LLC, which is regulated by the SEC and a member of FINRA, the NYSE, NFA, MSRB and SIPC. Transition Management Services are offered through State Street Bank and Trust Company; securities products and services are offered through SSGM, LLC.
Canada. This communication, when made available in certain provinces and territories of Canada, is made available by State Street Global Markets Canada, Inc. a member of the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada.
APACSingapore. This communication is being disseminated by State Street Bank and Trust Company, Singapore Branch (“SSBTS”), which holds a wholesale bank license by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. In Singapore, this communication is only distributed to accredited, institutional investors as defined in the Singapore Financial Advisers Act (“FAA”). Note that SSBTS is exempt from Sections 27 and 36 of the FAA. When this communication is distributed to overseas investors as defined in the FAA, note that SSBTS is exempt from Sections 26, 27, 29 and 36 of the FAA. This advertisement has not been reviewed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore.
14
State Street CorporationOne Lincoln Street, Boston, MA 02111
www.statestreet.com
©2021 State Street Corporation and/or its applicable third party licensor
All Rights Reserved
3617988.1.1.GBL. Expiration date: 6/30/2022
South Korea/Taiwan. The activities that are being discussed are carried out from off-shore; State Street is not licensed to carry on this business within South Korea/Taiwan. Any of the services discussed in these materials are undertaken by State Street Bank and Trust Company in an offshore capacity and are not provided within South Korea/Taiwan.
Japan. This communication is being distributed in Japan by State Street Trust and Banking Co., Ltd. (“SSTB”). SSTB is regulated by the Financial Services Agency of Japan (“FSA”). SSTB is licensed under Article 4 of Banking Act and is registered as Registered Financial Institution with the FSA as Kanto Zaimu-kyokucho (Tokin) No. 648 under Article 33-2 of Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, and also is a member firm of Japan Securities Dealers Association and Japan Investment Advisers Association.
Peoples Republic of China (“PRC”). State Street Bank and Trust Company is not licensed or carrying on business in the PRC in respect of any activities described herein and any such activities it does carry out are conducted outside of the PRC. These written materials do not constitute, and should not be construed as constituting: 1) an offer or invitation to subscribe for or purchase securities or futures in PRC or the making available of securities or futures for purchase or subscription in PRC; 2) the provision of investment advice concerning securities or futures; or 3) an undertaking by State Street Bank and Trust Company to manage the portfolio of securities or futures contracts on behalf of other persons.
Australia. This communication is made available in Australia by State Street Bank and Trust Company ABN 70 062 819 630, AFSL 239679 and is intended only for wholesale clients, as defined in the Corporations Act 2001.
SSGM LLC has an exemption from the requirement to hold an Australian financial services licence under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in respect of the financial services it provides to wholesale clients in Australia. SSGM LLC is regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States under US laws and regulations, which differ from those in Australia.
Please read our Privacy Statement at https://www.statestreet.com/utility/australia/privacy-statement.html. Our Privacy Statement provides important information about how we manage personal information.
Please contact your State Street representative for further information. PS TMBR NA A 2021-01
To learn how State Street looks after your personal data, visit: http://www.statestreet.com/utility/data-processing-and-privacy-notice.html.