#valueatrisk

SEALSQ Corp. News

Quantum computing might undermine the global financial system due to its rapid development. Swiss financial institutions who adopt these breakthrough technologies early would gain strategically, according to post-quantum technology leader SEALSQ Corp.

This development shows Switzerland's commitment to financial innovation, especially through its partnership with Wecan, a secure digital infrastructure provider. The alliance intends to improve Swiss banks' and insurers' accuracy and security by integrating quantum-ready technologies into their fundamental business operations.

Quantum algorithms are expected to boost processing speed and analytical capacity exponentially as computational systems struggle with complicated financial tasks including risk modelling, option pricing, and fraud detection. Due to their high international standards, Swiss institutions are well-positioned to capitalise on these improvements in the post-quantum future, maintaining their competitive edge and strengthening their basic principles of privacy, trust, and compliance.

Speeding Up Complex Financial Calculations Chaos simulation is a fascinating quantum computing financial application. Valuation at risk (VaR), derivative pricing, and liquidity forecasts depend on this region, which requires a lot of computing capacity, especially when uncertainty is high.

Quantum Monte Carlo and quantum amplitude estimation optimisation can speed up these calculations. These methods aim to give financial businesses faster and more accurate insights into risks and market dynamics to enable more flexible and informed decision-making.

Addressing Financial Fraud Changes At the same time as risk management improves, fraud is becoming more adaptable and dynamic across enormous transaction networks in the financial sector. These attacks are more sophisticated than fraud detection algorithms. Quantum machine learning offers a groundbreaking solution.

These methods project transaction data into high-dimensional regions to find anomalies that conventional systems miss. This improved analytical power will help Swiss financial institutions detect and prevent fraud, protecting their assets and clients.

Building Quantum-Ready Cybersecurity Foundation Cybersecurity that can survive quantum computer threats is needed to migrate to a quantum-enabled financial environment. In response, SEALSQ is collaborating with Wecan to provide quantum-ready, regulatory-compliant cybersecurity solutions for critical infrastructure. Leading post-quantum technology hardware and software developer SEALSQ focusses on advanced quantum-resistant semiconductors and encryption.

Over 100 financial institutions trust Wecan's secure communication and compliance systems, which are combined with post-quantum cryptography processors. Wecan's integration of quantum-resilient security needs into its business processes is laying the groundwork for a secure quantum transition.

Wecan Token: Online Security Plus Wecan's Wecan Token advances tokenised compliance frameworks as part of this groundbreaking endeavour. Decentralised credential system Wecan Token simplifies auditability, authorisation, and identity in complex financial environments.

“The Wecan Token is our response to the financial industry’s need for secure, programmable compliance,” SEALSQ CEO Carlos Moreira said of this breakthrough. The collaboration is moulding financial institutions' future by optimising KYC and KYB compliance processes with SEALSQ post-quantum security standards. This strategic partnership gives the banking sector and beyond next-generation digital trust.

Leaders' Quantum Future Views Management of both organisations stressed the strategic relevance of this adjustment. Carlos Moreira, SEALSQ CEO, said quantum technologies will help Swiss banks and insurers meet worldwide requirements. Partnership with Wecan strengthens privacy, trust, and compliance in the post-quantum era.

Wecan CEO Vince Pignon said, “Quantum is a near-future infrastructure opportunity, not a far-off concept.” He said, “By investing now, Swiss institutions can secure first-mover advantages, redefine how risk is managed, and enhance their cyber-resilience in the face of increasingly complex threats.”

About Pioneers SEALSQ Corp focusses on semiconductors, PKI, and post-quantum hardware and software development. The company's technology seamlessly integrates PKI, Provisioning Services, and Semiconductors to build cutting-edge Quantum Resistant Cryptography and Semiconductors to meet quantum computing's pressing security challenges. Quantum computers have made RSA and ECC more vulnerable.

SEALSQ is developing Post-Quantum Semiconductors for advanced data security in Multi-Factor Authentication tokens, Smart Energy, Medical and Healthcare Systems, Defence, IT Network Infrastructure, Automotive, and Industrial Automation and Control Systems.

Swiss technology company Wecan offers data exchange, encrypted messaging, and compliance solutions. In Switzerland and Europe, trustees, independent asset managers, and private banks use its technology to provide digital trust in highly regulated industries. Wecan's secure communication and compliance technologies reassure over 100 financial institutions.

The FT carried an article by Steven Johnson on 10/13 with the incendiary title “VaR calculation a ‘time’ bomb.” (http://on.ft.com/1903tmq) While the article is about the evils of VaR – and I will have a few things to say about what is said – what the article tells us is that ignorance about VaR is vast, and this ignorance is not confined to the general public.

Mr. Johnson quotes liberally from a certain Jeremy Monk, at a Czech investment house. Mr. Monk seems confused between the implications of (A) use of VaR for risk measurement and (B) use of VaR limits. According to Mr. Monk, VaR limits (the term is used interchangeably with VaR measurement in Mr. Johnson’s account) are just like portfolio insurance, because they both “force selling when markets drop.”

By analogy then, any strategy that imposes selling when the market drops is also “portfolio insurance by a different name.” If this statement applies to any strategy with this property, what does this have to do with VaR specifically?

If there were no VaR limits, would portfolio managers and their managers sit idly by as their long positions dropped in value in a market rout? No. Then I don’t understand how this argument is a VaR (limit) specific problem.

According to Mr. Johnson, Mr. Monk claims that under Ucits rules “equity funds would have been forced sellers of equities at the bottom of the 2008-2009 bear market.” The claim is unverifiable.

More important than the fact that Mr. Monk’s statement is pure hyperbole (which Mr. Johnson chose to take at face value), Ucits rules don’t require establishment of VaR limits – they do require that funds report their VaR, but don’t require funds use VaR in any way as an integral part of their risk management discipline.

Let me tie up a loose end or two. It is not necessarily true that VaR limits “force” selling when the market drops, and certainly not "at the bottom". The argument, if you are not familiar with it, is that as market volatility increases, as it most always does when the market drops suddenly, the VaR for a given portfolio rises. If the higher VaR were to push the given portfolio risk beyond its VaR limit (assuming the manager has a VaR limit), then the portfolio manager may be forced to reduce positions to get the risk back below the limit.

This effect would of course be mitigated by prudent risk reduction by the portfolio manager, unrelated to either the VaR limit or the portfolio VaR. It would also be mitigated by forbearance by senior management.

It is certainly possible to construct a scenario in which forced selling resulting from VaR limits being breached not only results in realized losses, but also precipitates a market crash. Of course, it is possible to construct other scenarios unrelated to VaR or VaR limits in which this happens as well. The interesting question is whether and under what assumptions the widespread use of VaR limits could reliably be shown to result in different behavior than would have been observed in their absence. (And there has been some academic work on this.)