MAS Transaction Reporting

Understand, validate and oversee MAS derivatives reporting with confidence

Singapore’s OTC derivatives reporting regime is designed to improve transparency, support supervisory oversight and strengthen the resilience of the derivatives market. The regime is set out in Part 6A of the Securities and Futures Act 2001 and the Securities and Futures (Reporting of Derivatives Contracts) Regulations 2013, with a major harmonisation rewrite taking effect on 21 October 2024.

For firms in scope, the challenge is no longer just submitting reports. It is demonstrating that reporting is complete, accurate, timely and backed by a control framework that can stand up to regulatory scrutiny.

What is MAS Reporting?

MAS reporting requires certain firms and other in-scope persons to report details of eligible OTC derivatives contracts to a licensed trade repository or licensed foreign trade repository. The Singapore regime was introduced as part of the post-crisis G20 reporting reforms and has since been updated in phases, including the 2024 rewrite to modernise the reportable data set and reporting framework.

The current framework covers interest rate, credit, foreign exchange, commodity and equity derivatives contracts that are traded in Singapore or booked in Singapore.

Who is required to report under MAS?

MAS reporting applies to specified persons and significant derivatives holders. In practical terms, that includes regulated Singapore financial institutions and certain other in-scope entities, as well as Singapore-resident persons whose derivatives activity exceeds the relevant reporting threshold and is booked or traded in Singapore.

The regime is therefore relevant not only to banks and licensed firms, but also to firms with sufficiently large derivatives activity that may be caught as significant derivatives holders.

Scope and Singapore nexus

The MAS regime focuses on specified derivatives contracts that are traded in Singapore and/or booked in Singapore. That Singapore nexus is central to scope analysis and makes source-system lineage, booking model and entity mapping especially important for firms operating cross-border or through multiple branches, desks or delegated arrangements.

For significant derivatives holders, the statutory trigger is tied to Singapore residency and the aggregate gross notional amount of specified derivatives contracts that are booked or traded in Singapore.

What must be reported?

MAS reporting requires firms to report the prescribed data for in-scope OTC derivatives contracts, together with all relevant lifecycle events, valuation  and collateral information. Following the 2024 rewrite, the framework was updated to align more closely with global harmonisation standards and richer reportable data requirements.

In practice, firms need to control not just static transaction details, but also subsequent changes to reportable data, lifecycle events and the consistency of the report as a whole.

Reporting deadlines

MAS reporting is generally subject to a T+2 timeline, with specified derivatives contracts and subsequent changes needing to be reported within two business days of execution, termination or the relevant reportable change, subject to the detailed timing rules in the regulations.

That means firms need a reporting process that is not only accurate, but also operationally robust enough to identify and correct issues quickly.

Is MAS reporting single-sided, dual-sided or delegated?

Where both counterparties are in scope as reporting entities, the MAS regime operates in practice as a dual-sided reporting framework, because each in-scope reporting entity has its own reporting obligation. That said, firms often rely on third-party operational models, and responsibility for compliance still sits with the reporting entity. This is an inference from the statutory structure rather than a label MAS uses as a formal shorthand.

For firms using service providers, delegated arrangements or internal booking hubs, oversight remains critical because reporting accountability does not disappear simply because the operational process sits elsewhere.

Are there MAS reporting exemptions or reliefs?

The MAS rules include limited deferred reporting provisions, including under regulations 11, 11A, 11B and 11C. The framework also recognises certain circumstances involving restrictions on the reporting of counterparty information under the laws of specified jurisdictions.

The practical point is that firms should not assume that operational complexity, cross-border data restrictions or third-party reporting models remove their regulatory exposure. Scope, relief and reporting treatment all need to be assessed carefully.

Consequences of non-compliance

MAS reporting failures can create regulatory, operational and reputational risk, particularly where firms cannot demonstrate control over eligibility, source data quality, lifecycle reporting or delegated oversight. The Singapore framework is built around formal reporting obligations under the Securities and Futures Act and the Reporting Regulations, so firms should treat data quality and control evidence as core compliance issues rather than operational hygiene alone.

For firms in scope, the expectation is clear: reporting must be accurate, timely and supported by an auditable control framework.

How En:ACT helps with MAS reporting oversight

En:ACT helps firms strengthen control over their MAS reporting obligations by ingesting raw transaction data from any source system, performing books and records reconciliation, and assessing 100% of transactions and fields against the applicable MAS reporting rules.

Using transparent, regulator-linked logic, the platform identifies:

• eligibility issues

• field-level errors

• cross-field inconsistencies

• missing identifiers

• lifecycle reporting gaps

• reporting anomalies

Each identified issue is linked directly to the specific MAS rule breached, giving firms a clear view of what is wrong, why it matters and where remediation is required.

En:ACT also ensures rules are kept up to date to reflect developments across:

• regulatory text

• regulator guidance

• consultation papers

• relevant industry papers

For MAS specifically, that means firms benefit from rule coverage that is maintained in line with the Singapore reporting framework and its evolving interpretation.

Specialist MAS expertise from the Novatus Intelligence team

Our MAS capability is supported by specialists within the Novatus Intelligence team, including SMEs with backgrounds across:

• banking

• asset management

• product

• regulation

For each regime, we align subject matter expertise to the specific rule set. In the case of MAS, that means access to specialists who understand the Singapore OTC derivatives reporting framework, the impact of the 2024 rewrite, and the practical control challenges firms face in maintaining reporting quality over time.

This combination of regulatory interpretation and operational experience helps clients move beyond basic compliance and build a reporting framework that is accurate, scalable and defensible.

‍

Common MAS reporting challenges

Some of the most common MAS reporting issues include:

• incorrect scope or nexus assessment

• incomplete or inconsistent source data

• weak control over booking and branch logic

• lifecycle reporting gaps

• field-level errors that only become visible when tested against related data

• poor visibility over third-party or delegated reporting performance

In many cases, the problem is not a single bad field. It is a mismatch between the transaction as booked, the transaction as reported and the reporting logic applied across the full record.

‍

Why firms choose En:ACT for MAS reporting oversight

Firms use En:ACT because it gives them more than a validation tool. It provides a control framework around MAS reporting.

With En:ACT, firms can:

• test reporting quality against transparent rule logic

• reconcile source data to reported data

• identify issues before they become regulatory problems

• evidence oversight of service-provider or delegated reporting models

• benchmark reporting quality over time

• prepare for regulatory change before go-live

The result is stronger reporting assurance, better governance and a clearer line of sight from raw transaction data to regulatory submission quality.

‍