Good morning, everybody. Thank you for your participation. We are together once again to continue our meetings about B3. Today, we'll have two panels. The first one will be about new products led by Juca Andrade, our VP of Products and Clients, and Marcos Vanderlei, who is our Executive Director of Infrastructure for Financing. After the panel, we will have a panel with Mario Palhares and Rogério Santana, our Director of Corporate and Issuer Relations, to discuss potential regulatory changes that may impact our stock market. First, we'll have a presentation of about half an hour for this first panel, and then we will open for questions and answers. Those willing to submit your questions, please put your name in the chat.
You don't need to write the whole question, just your name, and then we will call you in the order the names appear. Right? Okay, thank you very much. Juca, the floor is yours.
Good morning, everybody. Thank you, Marcela. I hope you can hear me well. I think so. Let's start. Marcela introduced everybody. Me and Vanderlei, we will go to the next slide. Those are the pillars we have been working with in the product area for stock market, especially. Could you please go back? Yeah. We have listed products and over-the-counter products from the former BM&FBOVESPA. Over the counter is what we call TRM, former CETIP, over-the-counter products, fixed income, derivatives. I'll talk a little bit about energy, which is a new pillar under my responsibility, insurance, and data that permeates both areas. It's a cross-initiative here. Going to the list of products. Yeah. Specifically about 2021. I call your attention to the main points for 2021. We will start because of the relevance, very relevant.
The new charging fees for equities. As you remember, in the end of last year, in 2019, a little closer to the end of the year, we announced a new price list for equity fees. There were many changes in our prices. It was very old, the prices we had. We didn't change the price for 10- years. There were differences between types of investors. The incentives were kind of wrong. They were very little effective. We had a generalized discount over the volume traded. It was a little like throwing money from a helicopter because the small ones have more discount. There's more investors. It's not the best way to charge. This new list applies deeper discounts so we can apply lower fees to big investors. It may impact, in a positive way, the liquidity.
That's what we did with negotiation, the fees, individual investors, depositary. We made the lists to be equal. The changes were very big, and we expected to start now in August. We started talking about that, and maybe August would not be possible. We expected to apply this by the end of the year, this year, but the reality turned out to be different. We found difficulties. There are legacy systems. The company is not ready. The market is not ready. This is some learning we had. When we make those big changes, we find this slow pace to deliver. In this case, what we did was to make this into stages. What the low-hanging fruit, the faster changes that had less impact on systems, we applied.
As you might have seen last week, we communicated that we are going to implement in February a relevant part of the changes from the financial perspective, 2/3s of the benefits in February. It's not the final model, but we are creating day trade charging fees for individual investors. We have fees that we are creating, we are changing, and it's a way to anticipate our changes to the market. In 2021, in addition to this delivery, we will also deliver the final template. We don't have a date yet, but it depends on how fast we can deploy this. It can unlock volume. That's our view. We always look back. We have back tests, but we have the dynamic going forward. We understand that the change in the charging fees may change the volume of trade. The income will follow up.
We always say we need to share with the market our operational leveraging so we can give more discounts. This is about the fees, equities, and about RLP back in 2019, in August. We had mini contracts for 12- months. The update was renewed in August this year, and when CVM renewed it, they suggested we conducted tests in other products, and that's what we are doing now. We submitted to CVM, and we can expand now in some products. The RLP stocks for some papers, not all of them. Some of them are under test. Some futures, about 10 tickets, 12. There is some overlapping between futures and stocks. Micro agreements in S&P, we discussed with CME, who is our discussion in this agreement. We are evolving to futures of currencies.
We launched in 2019, futures of currencies against US dollar and not BRL, so we have liquidity and also ETF of fixed income. The goal here is to look at the markets that don't have so much volume and those that are not typically day trades and see how RLP impacts them. We are running tasks to be able to enhance and migrate to something that's more final. When it comes to stocks, in May 2021, the publicly traded stocks that will expire by May 2021, they are included in this convenience, including the change in the validity date. We'll have a calendar compatible with the international market and the automatic renewal, it was important for customers to avoid operational errors. This is a very well-structured process that affects X stocks.
When we talk about structure, we are talking about the interest curve that is focused mainly in pre-interest rates, creating a number of changes in the charging fees to be delivered with this strategy of EDS, UDS, so you can have trading in curve. For future contracts, there are many expiry dates. They go from January 2021 and up to January 2022. I don't remember when is the last contract, but it's 35 or something like that. It's over 10- years. If you want to operate part of the curve, if you want to have a spread in January 28, 2029, you have to pay full fee for the contract. We understand, this is not so good if you have a spread and you allow for the risk of the strategy, that's what we are targeting and it's going to be transforming the interest market.
We have a combination. You can trade points in the curve. This is the change. The interest rate structures. For exchange, we have changes including combined with US dollar. We had a debate long time ago. The central bank didn't want us to negotiate this on screen, and now we are aligned. The central bank wants it as well. You have the futures of US dollar for pricing in Brazil, and you would have a combined operation with combined and futures. We have spot exchange and future exchange and some modernization in the exchange. We are making changes in the exchange chamber. It's up to D2. We want to create a DN exchange and guarantee for principal. This locks up a little bit the exchange market. We deliver the currency, there are issues of volumes above $ 750, $1 million. We have limits of liquidity for the operation.
We want to ensure the price. If there is default from one of the parts, we will ensure the variation of prices, but not the delivery of the currency, because the central bank agrees with that. We will work with both of them. One does not replace the other, but it's a way to unlock higher volumes in the exchange market. As for assets, we launched this year a very well-structured project, a long-term project. It's part of the learnings we had about charging fees for equity, as I mentioned in the beginning. Borrowing of stocks, not only stocks, but mainly stocks, a way to liquidate this operation, to negotiate a single price, brokerage out of the price. Many changes in the market. We launched after some challenges, and in the end of October, it was launched. It's starting to be offered on screen, all the lending.
This is very important for liquidity for the market as a whole, so they can have long-short strategies. We are expanding this lending of products. We have those FII, FIP, fixed income ETF, and also the implementation of public bonds. This goes into this structure, including public securities. We have more liquidity for those bonds. There is the Basel issue. All the bonds, they can borrow in the long-short term with public bonds. This is a change we had on fixed income. Finally, as we mentioned, data. There are two lines of products that have been launched up to date. Data from the end of the day, updates from the market, and DATAWISE, that's more analytic to collect managerial information, mainly from brokers, but not only this, for the whole market.
Yesterday, for example, we launched the study on individual investors, as you might have seen, and there is a rationale behind this DATAWISE. What we have been doing is to develop these products. I'd like to call your attention to the fixed income market. It goes through the transparency of these markets, the ventures in our over-the-counter world. We have transparency of pricing. We launched the ventures, for instance, to use calculations for CRA. The ventures, you have a price. We are talking about transparency to offer some liquidity. We wanted to focus on this because it's important to foster this market. These are our main initiatives in the listed market. We go to the over-the-counter market.
Well, here we've been having a very favorable regulatory change in terms of registration of new products, especially when we're talking about credit. Here we're talking a little bit about the regulatory agenda of the central bank. In 2018, we had the credit fintechs, electronic CPR, which is not really a CPR at the moment, but you create a CPR that has an electronic record, but it still needs to be captured. You still need to capture the CPR itself. That still depends on different normalizations, and different regulatory actions from the central bank. We already launched the CPR. It's supposed to be for 2021. We evaluated the volumes. If I'm not mistaken, CPR is over BRL 1 million are going to be in January 2021. In January, they will have to be recorded. That is a very important change.
Other than CPR, I'm going to talk a little bit more in the future about more information, but we have Block, which is a product which Marcos Vanderlei has been talking about that. He's been working on that a little bit more. That's the way that we're going to register the incorporators on the real estate market. Other than CPR and Block, which is real estate, we have the credit card receivable record. The Central Bank was going to launch this in November, but I believe it was postponed to January. We're also a part of that market. There are some things about interoperability of all the different operators, and we are part of that agenda, and also recording duplicates. When we have scripture duplicates, so you can already have this duplicate of record.
We have this product, but now it's going to be in a script which will make it even more trustworthy. Moving on to the next one. What we've been seeing here on the over-the-counter products. How do we look at the products that we're currently developing? On this order here, the duplicates, we already have the registration, as I said. We are creating a structural duplicate. We are participating with other registrars on this interoperability product and this whole project that we're doing with the Central Bank. We are currently waiting for the Central Bank to approve our part, and once they do approve our convention, we have six months to have the system up and running.
We believe that in one semester, we are probably already going to have, of course, assuming that the Central Bank will deliver this approval, the beginning of the year or maybe first trimester, second trimester. Six months from that date, we are going to have the system already up and going. That's a little bit of the duplicate scenario. CPR, we're talking about the scripture, as I said. We are waiting for the Central Bank. We're already doing the mandatory registration. We already have registrations on this electronic duplicate that we already do. It's something that we're already doing currently, and this is only going to help us in this sense. The goal here is to give a little bit more transparency, and this is the main goal for the project, which is going to roll out in July 2021.
What is going to happen in July? We're going to have publicity because the final goal of the Central Bank is to make sure that when we're giving credit to this product, we have the visibility of the size of CPRs that that producer has. This is a way of exposing their credit risk. We are also sending duplicates, CPRs, so you're able to control their total production if it is compatible with the number of CPRs that they're emitting, how much they can be leveraged. That's a way that we use to evaluate credit risk. Like we're doing a positive registration as well. We have a shadow banking, ever since the beginning of the agricultural world, because you don't have a total transparency of the agricultural producer. Possibly July 2021, this is going to become a reality. CCB, we're still waiting.
There's still a few points about the scripture because nowadays we already have the possibility of it being scriptured, the bank itself is going to create this. If you imagine a secondary market for this and eventually maybe a repurchasing, say, and selling, maybe the original bank that emitted this and then sold this, maybe we'll have less information of the history of that title because they already sold it. It's important to have an organ that can maybe control these scriptures. From the CCB point of view, that's another thing. We already have the registration. Last but not least, credit card. This is something that we're a little bit more on the sidelines. We're waiting. We already had a more developed market. Some competitors were more advanced than us. There was an important point here, which was the independence.
We were kind of called on that. Some of the registrars are actually linked to banks or other agencies, and the market is asking for institutions that are not linked. We were called to participate because of our infrastructure and our registration know-how. We are going into this market. The convention was already established. We already have the delivery date, as I said, in February 2021. We are also going into this market. I think that these are the main topics that we have on the off-the-counter products, banking registration, and derivatives. I think it's also worth mentioning here that I don't want to highlight one project. It's a very relevant activity for us, of course. We are currently doing a migration for development via agile methodology for the entire off-the-counter product.
It's something that we need to pay attention to and with more agility and delivery, in terms of backlog and what's on production, as well as launching new products. Marcos, now you have the floor, and I can come back later to talk a little bit more about energy.
Thank you, Juca. Good morning, everyone. I welcome you all to this second day that we have here. It is a pleasure to be here with you so that we can have this conversation. I would like to start talking about the real estate segment. B3 has been working on this segment for a while. Last year, with the acquisition of the Portal de Documentos company, which we actually talked about a lot, we were able to further accelerate our microservices within the real estate chain.
Today we're already working ever since real estate development, going to creating contracts and then management of accounts, account management. As Juca said, we have the Block, which is the receivable management. We're very advanced on this topic, where we already have a high volume of incorporators testing this platform. Here, basically, we're going to have the platform where we're going to be doing the entire scripture of receivables, the control of these receivables for incorporators, as well as banks, generating the entire payment control. Generating very important information which is automatic, like payment score for these enterprises. Generating as well, what we're calling here the impediment network, where the Block is now an account of these receivables, like a foundation for the credit that we see here in orange on the right-hand side, which is what Juca talked about.
Juca's team is now working on this process for these security products for the capital market, as well as over-the-counter products, which is going to generate this Block platform. You also have the entire process that we evaluated on the electronic record. Here we have a lot of documents and a series of operations that happen on financial institutions. Evaluation platform, which is the oldest product that we have here, ever since 2013. We've had kind of a rehab and a very important transformation for this platform. With the Central Bank resolution that was released in August of this year, allowing for this information to be digital and no longer for it to be paper in a mandatory way.
This is helping a lot on the message flow, reducing a lot of rework that we used to have for evaluators and financial institutions as well as incorporators. This platform kind of puts everything together between the incorporator, bank, and the evaluator, making everyone's life easier, generating more agility, safety, and transparency as well. Here, the electronic record that we see here is the electronic record of the real estate credit operation, which has been evolving a lot on the works that we've been doing with ADISP and also on IMK 5. We've been talking a lot about that with the ministry. Also this year, we are on the final phase of testing to go into the beginning of 2021, which is AVM, which is automated valuation model.
We built this in a very big important partnership, and the process is very robust with a lot of tests, with a lot of customers. Now at the beginning of the year, we can launch AVM. We also have this entire part of registration of financing contracts, 4088. We started this in 2018, and we expanded it a lot throughout these past two years. We have also worked a lot. We offered this market flag. It's something that we've been doing ever since 2019, and we have also evolved a lot on this process within our real estate account. We have this entire process of market flag for these warranties.
At the end, as I said, which Juca already talked about, these are the security products and other products that are going to come from this Block platform, which will make it possible for us to generate the secondary market. I don't know how far you know this, but today, this entrepreneurial plan is quite restrictive. If you could go to the next slide, please, because then we can talk a little bit more in detail of the Block. What is this Block platform going to be, and what are the problems that the resource managers have? They don't have a lot of transparency and very uneven information. On the other side, the problem is incorporators. They see a lot of bureaucracy and a very slow process to capture credit and also send it over. Much of the time, the processes are not together.
They need to be synchronized the moment that they need the money to be able to continue with the job and when they actually have to do the job. We have a different problem here. They don't have enough synchronicity, and that is necessary. As I said, we worked a lot together with ABRAINC, CBIC, Secovi, ABECIP, and here we already have the banks brought into this discussion where we were able to further build a product or a platform that will indeed help the financial system itself and the civil construction system, where they're going to be able to solve these problems in the market, and we are able to improve and give more transparency and safety to this entire segment. Next one, please. Okay, now you go, Juca.
Thank you, Marcos. Now I'm going to talk a little bit about the energy market. The market of selling electrical energy on the free market. Here we can see that the market has a very important potential of liquidity on the secondary market. Secondary market which is already pretty much active, and with some problems that we could identify on the Brazilian market dating back to the beginning of the '90s, which is when it was created, when we created CETIP and BM&F. CETIP is 85 and BM&F as well. We started developing the derivatives market and also risks of counterpart, everything else, we developed that and we have been developing for over 30- years. On this energy part, we can realize how these same things can happen. I think someone has their microphone open. Guys, can you please.
Thank you. Sorry? João, can you close your microphone? Can you close everyone's microphone?
Juca, I muted everyone. I need you to unmute. Sorry.
Oh, no. Okay, thank you. I'm back. What I was mentioning is that this market is still in a stage that we were seeing in the beginning of the '90s, and obviously, we have a history here, so we're still learning. We don't have the perfect understanding of all the nuances that we are implementing on this free energy market. We have this whole knowledge of leveraging control, prices, negotiation. Everything that we're bringing from the financial market can obviously be applied here. We kind of felt like an obligation to be a part of this market. We have a lot to do here. We are being very well-received as consumers, sellers, and also energy generators. Here, we created a step-by-step.
That's why here we're saying that we're going to reach this part. I think it is the market's desire, and we can collaborate a lot, which is the collaboration with the stock exchange for this information. We have a lot of details there. We have development groups, and we'll go each stage individually. We can go to the next slide now. We start here in the over-the-counter world, operations among counterparts, not necessarily a typical environment of listed product. We start with leveraging credit risk we are launching now in January. We control the participants, the economic capacity of participants, the position capacity. It's not a rate, but if they are compliant according to the kind of information they provide, and then we compare based on all the operations by adherence. It's not regulatory. They will inform. We will have neutrality.
We will consolidate the information and present the risk of each counterpart, and if they are compliant or not with their financial capacity. You're talking about leveraging here. With the information, we can communicate price, so we'll have a reference for price. This provides transparency. The same price we use to mark market and look at the results of the counterparts. We incorporate this, and then we stress the portfolio to see the economic capacity in a stress scenario. Those are all tools we have for a long time, and we apply to the market. That's how we start. It is much more informative than our direct action. We can start with liquidation services because the agreements are liquidated out of CCEE. We can clearly facilitate the liquidation of those contracts in the physical market.
We can start incorporating guarantees because we know the risk under stress, so we can manage guarantees between parts. Following, we can start discussing the volumes of CCP. Registration, control of position, control of warranties, then go into CCP. It's like an over-the-counter product with CCP. Then we can use this for this market and for parallel market. Derivatives, we can combine things, control the whole exposition in spite of being two distinct markets. Possibly for risk management, it makes more sense to use derivatives, then we can eventually migrate these markets to the derivatives. Finally, the listing. We'll have many steps, exactly how we saw happening in our financial derivative. This is our role. That's how we are entering this market with the first MVP in the beginning of next year. Marcos, back to you.
Thank you, Juca. Before talking about insurance, I'd like to mention that last month, B3 was in the auction of concession at the Caixa Econômica, and we were awarded with the action. It was published officially last year. B3 is also operating 38 at Caixa Econômica from now on. About insurance. In this page, it's basically to show you how the ecosystem of insurance and reinsurance is restructured. Capitalization and life insurance, CRO, with the market registered at Susep, and we also launched this year the BNO platform combined with IRB to manage and liquidation of the insurances. I'm not going to go into details, but it's just to show you how the process is structured.
SRO at Susep on the right here, where the registrars are taking all the capturing processes, registering the policies, and interoperability process that we've been working with to build the process, considering nowadays some of the registrars are working with Susep. By the end of the year or in January, there will be a new public consultation considering that we started in November, Susep, with all the registrars in insurance and warranties. In the next years, Susep is thinking of working with three other lines along 2021, we have a great challenge. We are getting prepared to continue this SRO process. Now, about this platform we launched in partnership with IRB. In a nutshell, this is a platform that will, in an integrated manner, do all the bookkeeping process, liquidation of insurance and reinsurance.
In this graphic that you can see on the right, where all the process will occur within this platform, enabling here when it's mandatory to register the reinsurance in SRO, we'll be ready to conduct the process of registration. In this upper part here, as I mentioned, there is the part of negotiation of reinsurance. The process is manually done in a non-structured way, so it will become electronic with conciliation, generation of files, generation of information, and all the liquidation process will be conducted automatically. We are advanced in this development in partnership with our IRB. Now, still talking about insurance, we've been working a lot on the analytics, as Juca mentioned, about data and analytics. This permeates the structure of B3 as a whole. Juca works with a part and we with the other.
We are focusing a lot in analytics to generate and add value in segmentation process and risk management for insurance companies. We have segmentation here. A lot of work we've been doing about the profile of investors, score, probability to exchange assets, monitoring, evolution of their equity, liquidity of warranties, and also risk management, as you can see. All the risk of subscription, we've been working on all those tools for 2021. Here, still talking a little bit about data, about the credit cycle. We have many clients working with this, more specifically about charging, localization, segmentation, qualification, offer of negotiation, and the process to trigger. Also we could accelerate a lot on our side with the expertise B3 has, all the investments we made on working the data and the platform of the document, that's called Negocie Digital. It's implemented in many clients.
It's a marketplace for negotiation and charging in a digital manner using electronic tools, using signature in those digital negotiations, registering them, so they have legal effect. This was accelerated a lot during the pandemic since people needed to trade. The central bank postponed credit, extended credit, this tool is showing you that it's a tool to help our customers and final clients so we can accelerate, simplify, and offer security and transparency. The next, please. Here is a pipeline of data products that are under the management of infrastructure for Financing. On your left side, you can see a little bit of what we've been doing, in 2020. On the bottom, you can see how it is. We have worked a lot with credit, charging, capacity, fraud, PLD. PLD, we developed a platform called Info Defense.
It evolved a lot for tests in the capital market and the credit market. Here, you can also see the tools for market strategies, very mature, and we operate a lot with financial institutions and retail. For 2021, on your right side, it's how we are prepared and structured. We have an evolution, the paths we've worked on. There is important income, the middle blue, as you can see here. We can advance a lot from what we built with the infrastructure permeating just about all segments, as you can see on the table. I'm not going to get into details. This is a nutshell of all we did, and we are prepared for 2021, so we can serve the market better. The credit market, the charging market, capacity fraud, KSD, PLD, market strategies, and segmentation. I will finish my presentation.
I thank you, and I will change to Marcela so we can start the Q&A.
Thank you, Marcos and Juca. If you have questions, please put your name on the chat, and we will call you. There is the first question from Pedro Gonzaga. Pedro, would you like to appear?
Yeah. Thank you, Marcela. How are you? Yeah, first to Juca. In this proposition to expand RLP, it's reasonable to suppose all will be approved. CVM is working on a part just to align expectations. Something else about the energy market. How do you see B3's position to have more market shares, considering there is BBCE and the partners? Thank you.
About RLP, we have some advancements here for CVM, but it's worth noting we are still in a test stage. We are launching new products to keep testing products. Of course, we are doing well. It's positive.
We've had frequently with participants and with CVM, we are enhancing the product to become a final product. Things are going smoothly, but we should always remember there are improvements to make. Right? We are working with the regulatory agencies and the brokers. Approval, if I'm not mistaken. No, it's right. It's public. They announced this week the approval, now we are deciding how to implement and how to expand the products, then testing them so we can compare with one another. We have a lot of positive things so far, Pedro. What we see now is that, yeah, we do have BBCE, which is a negotiation exchange, this is a very important topic. It's negotiation of energy contracts, which is mainly composed by salesmen. The way that this is assembled today is the main function is negotiation.
We're not even going into a matching engine platform, like we call it, which is a negotiation platform. It's something that a negotiation platform already has. We can do it essentially. We already know that. It's something that until certain point, matching is like a commodity. However, the expertise on risk management and collateral management, calculation, risk limit, credit limit, that's when we work with, and we know that it can be quite complementary and relevant here. There isn't necessarily a competition. There is more of a complementary potential here. We are working on it, and the perception is that as we're implementing that and we are launching the product, now we are going to see how market adhesion is going to be.
We already have a group that has helped us assemble this, and they should be on relevant companies, and they end up attracting this thing because if you have the B3 label, this is something very important, and at the end, I think that people are going to end up joining, without a regulatory strength necessary. To sum up, we have the incentive of this transparency seal and the exemption and not our capacity that is going to actually give more confidence to the prices and also characteristics of complementary items that are also related to that. Okay. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Juca.
Hi. Thanks very much for the presentation, and thanks for taking my questions. I just had two, please. First of all, on the cash equity segment, you started the presentation saying that you thought that the price reduction could lead to an increase in volumes. Could you just help us understand the quantity or the size of that increase, please, given this price reduction? Any help you can give us there would be appreciated. My second question is just about the energy market. Sorry if I missed any of the details in the presentation, but can you talk me through what the incentives are for OTC market participants in the energy sector to adopt central clearing?
Is there any regulatory incentive, for example, that would mean they would be more likely to switch to a centrally cleared offering rather than a bilaterally cleared offering, which I'm assuming how the market works today? Similarly, what regulatory incentives might exist for them to adopt an exchange-traded environment rather than the OTC market? Those are my two questions, please.
2.2.1 basis points. That was not a big, let's say, incentive, especially for the heavy users, and not a great incentive for the not-so-heavy or light users as well. It's kind of giving money away without creating the exact benefits, right? The way that we are structuring the new trading pricing, not only trading but also post-trading and including depositary fees, is in order to make that discount much greater. Instead of giving discount to everybody, we will start with three basis points, and then we're going to apply discounts based on your volumes, both on the outright trades and day trading. On the day trading side, we can go as deep as, depending on the volumes that you trade, might be above BRL 1 billion or BRL 2 billion ADTV or average daily trading, which it happens.
There are participants that have those type of volumes. For those, we can go as low as one basis point or even lower. You see the difference. We're making a huge discount, but it's more oriented, let's say, to the heavy users. We believe that by doing that, we might unlock some volumes that maybe the fees are kind of taking away a lot of the P&L that we can make. We can bring more day trading for those heavy users. That's the concept, right? We believe that might be a big impact. We don't make projections, and it's hard to make that projection, you can imagine, right, because we don't have. It's like you're changing the parameters, but you cannot simulate what will be the reaction. You have to go to production to see exactly how people react. Right? That's the first point.
On the energy side, as you mentioned, there were problems recently, I'd say at least maybe for the last few years, for the counterparty risk on the current environment of the trading of energy. In reality, to move to a CCP, I think it's a further step. It's positive because it's easier when you have a CCP to have the price discovery because you don't have to take into consideration the credit risk between the counterparties, right? If you don't have a CCP, you might have changes in price because of the quality of the counterparty, and it's embedded in the price. It's better to have price discovery when you have the CCP, as we know. Right? That's something very clear. That's a further step.
Before going there, we have transparency and control of exposures of leverage of the players and the capability of them of assuming those type of exposures. That's what we're going to control. We're going to have the price, we're going to calculate the risk, and we're going to provide if the participant is compliant or not. The incentive between them is that as long as you have someone neutral as B3 controlling those exposures and telling to the other participants that you're compliant or not compliant. If you have the compliance, let's say, stamp, the probability of you trading more, it grows. The probability of you not trading if you don't have a compliance stamp, it's greater as well. It's kind of the adoption would be as an incentive for the others to trade with you.
The more that you are a participant and you're compliant, the more you're going to attract counterparties to trade with you. That's the attraction that we believe. Then we can develop from there. That's the concept.
Very clear. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you, Juca. Thank you, Ian. Next question is from Marcelo Mizrahi. Marcelo?
[Non-English content] ?
[Non-English content].
[Non-English content] ?
[Non-English content] .
[Non-English content] Susep, Juca. [Non-English content] .
The insurance platform. How are you talking about that? You're talking about IRB, but we are talking to other players as well. I think that for Susep, I think that would be really great if it was negotiated related to stock exchange, especially about what you mentioned in terms of documentation, registry, liquidity and all that. Is there a possibility of risk here or no? Marcos? You're on mute.
Sorry guys, speaking on mute. Thank you so much for your question. Susep is actively participating on the discussions that are being done for the building of this platform along with IRB. It's been participating on talks, meetings, and the entire structure process. They are very close to this discussion for sure. I don't know if that was your question.
Do you have any other player other than IRB testing the platform?
Actually, IRB is together with us, but we are bringing all the other insurance companies. IRB is also building the platform, but we are bringing insurance companies as well as other insurance companies to be a part of this ecosystem. That's the goal. The conversations have been quite evolved with the other players. The thing is, IRB has been kind of ahead of others because they wanted to be our partner in building the platform. We have a series of other partners in the market in terms of reinsurance companies or insurance companies that are a part of the development of the project, including Susep .
Yeah, my question is more like if the platform is just for reinsurance companies or just insurance companies. It will be also for insurance companies. We started with the project. If you look at the graph that I showed on the presentation, you have the insertion of insurance companies, because, right off the bat, when the insurance company goes to maybe send it to the reinsurance company, they're going to be on that platform already. That's the goal.
Because today, an insurance company, when we go to create an insurance, they usually divide that insurance in more than one company. It's a very complex process today that needs to be done. The goal is that this insurance company, when they go ahead to send that to the other companies, this is already done within this platform for those who do choose to enter this project.
Okay. Do you think that like another year or something to be able to evolve on this discussion?
Talking about 2022 with this working or Well, the goal is for us to start leading this on the last semester of this year, so that in 2022, we are actually having this in production already. That is our main goal, and that was our aim in the project that we're developing. We start kind of doing this on the second semester so that we can go into production on 2022.
Okay, thank you so much.
Thank you, Marcelo.
Thank you, Marcos. Next question is Nishu.
[Non-English content] , Juca, Marcela, Marcos. Hello. Good morning, everyone. Good morning, Juca, Marcela, Marcos. [Non-English content] um follow-up [Non-English content] Pedro Gonzaga. It's just a follow-up. [Non-English content] . RLP. If it's going to be on the first trimester when we already implement this RLP. [Non-English content] The evolutions, as you said, are quite positive. [Non-English content] The regulator are allowing to test and everything. [Non-English content] Is there any technical problem in implementing RLP in less liquid stocks? [Non-English content] If you have any projection in terms of timeline as well for RLP and the entire market for cash equities. [Non-English content] In case the tests are positive.
Okay, thank you for your question. Nishu. Sorry, I didn't hear your name. Nishu. Okay. Sorry about that.
Our system is ready for us to get bigger and move on to other markets. We don't have any restriction in terms of product. The college decision was released this Tuesday, so we were aware of the approval on Tuesday, and now we need to build with SMI the details on what they are approving. We don't have any major significant change, but we still have to vote with them and things that we're going to do right after this. It's going to be very fresh news for us to be able to see how we're going to continue with implementation. As soon as we have more details with CVM itself and the market, we can come back. For now, the products are approved and it doesn't have any significant changes at the moment.
That's the scenario that we're at, and we hope to have the implementation to be done fairly quickly. I don't want to say anything about dates, but I think that the first trimester is desirable on our side. I can't make a commitment with the date, but that's what we're aiming for. Even because you already have this already working for RLP, so we're creating new products, and it's important to have a little bit of an overlap. What is approved.
What is already coming. What they need to live with. It's bad to have a scenario where one stops, you have the other. If it's the case of having to get the other one as well, that's fine, but it's important that they work together so you can have more options, and you can look at the product dynamics as a whole and not just parts of the markets. The idea is we can keep testing, we're expanding to new markets so that we can improve this product to expand it. The intention in the end, it's to expand it. If the product does show that, if it's a great success and we have the environment on the regulatory point of view and the broker's point of view working well, we do want to make it wider.
I can't say anything now, but that's the intention. That's what we want to do, but we're still on a phase of almost like sandbox. It's not sandbox because we're following the entire regulatory process, but we are running tests with the goal of widening.
Is there any technical challenge for not so liquid stocks?
No. The point is because those stocks have less liquidity for brokers, it might not be so simple. Liquidity is important as the market characteristic, but ideally, we'll have sellers and buyers who have actual spread. If the market goes more to one side or to the other, there are difficulties. Thinking of RLP as a market former, if it's not so liquid, there are more challenges. Not based on the technology, but on the execution perspective, because sometimes it's kind of more difficult. This is the experience we have in all markets we operate. We always want to bring volume to it.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Juca. Next question from Henrique Navarro from Santander. Good morning, Henrique.
Good morning, Marcela. Good morning, people. Thank you for the opportunity for asking question. When you talk about the new initiatives and the new products, can you give us an idea of the magnitude? How much are we speaking of potential increment when we look at the income from B3 in the future? Maybe if you could make it more clear, each of them and the real estate market, what are we talking about, 1%, 2%? Can it be material in terms of income in the future? Even about the price list, you said those are new initiatives.
At first, these would be negative, about BRL 250 million-BRL 400 million, the negative impact. If there is more volume, it can become something positive in the future. If you could mention or comment on that, please, how do you imagine, when is it we are going to have a break-even from this negative impact on the price list?
Henrique, I will skip here in the answer so we can be consistent with what we share with the market. Those new B3 initiatives, in our opinion, have a great potential. We believe in them. That's why we are investing time and resources to make them go to the market. We don't believe there is a silver bullet. There is no such a thing as one individual thing having a great impact, significant impact. We have an approach on the portfolio.
We are looking at different markets, different products, and we believe some of them will really be successful. They will surpass our expectations. Some of them will be according to our expectations, and some of them will fail. Having all this happening at the same time, we expect to have a contribution to the growth of the income from those new products. Individually speaking, and even to the portfolio as a whole, it's really hard to talk about figures on how they will contribute to the income, because we are at a very early stage of implementation in these projects. Regarding the price list, Juca, you can add to what I'm saying if you want to. We will have an initial impact, probably to be negative regarding the drop in the average price, and this will vary a lot.
Just to remind you, we had a back test. There is a certain level of volume, and the final result observed may vary according to the volumes, real volumes. I think, yes, we expect to have a negative impact on prices in the beginning, but our expectation is with the higher volume due to the elasticity of response to prices from customers, it will offset the price in the long term.
It's very clear, Marcela. Thank you for your answer.
If I could add to what you said. Yes, Marcela. We are constantly talking during product development. We have this impression that we are planting the seeds, many seeds, but it's hard to see immediate fruit growing. We plant the seeds, some of them will turn out into big trees, and one is important to the other. There is a collaboration, this ecosystem, because one tree supports and helps the other. It may happen that none of them will prosper, thrive. We need to kind of remove them. Comparing to the ecological cycle, that's how we assess the portfolio.
Perfect. Juca, just a reminder, in the next panel, we'll talk a little bit more about RLP, the discussions we've been having with CVM. I guess some of your questions may be addressed in the next panel, too. Okay? Next question I have is from Luis Azevedo from Safra. Luis.
Good morning, everybody. I'd like to ask a little bit about income from data. Yesterday, I guess Gilson mentioned that B3 model will be based a lot on charging fees, the traditional trading model. I guess this line is growing well. I'd like to know from you if you think that this income from data and analytics will grow two digits for some time. Is this going to drive B3 outcome? A little bit about data product, you said we should look at the credit cycle and offer charging products. Will these chargings be warranted? I suppose, as you mentioned, do you plan to expand this from the credit analysis perspective? Would it make sense to B3? Those are my questions. Thank you.
I will start, and then Marcela can add to what I said. I wouldn't say it would be a credit bureau, but we offer in the market solutions to support the credit analysis. We have many banks that consume those products as scores, behavioral scores. We build this. We work a lot on this.
We've been doing that since 2018, developing customized solutions using the data B3 has. Customers' data, we developed this, and we deploy an API with the customized model for the specific institution. We've been doing this since 2018 in the credit cycle. The same thing we've been doing to prevent fraud. As I've mentioned, the Portal de Documentos has a large process of notifying about lawsuits to financial institutions and the platform of Negocie Digital they developed that is operating with some customers today. We use that to charge. We use these models and the platform not only to recover credit from warranted operations, but also current accounts, credit cards, and so on and so forth.
Perfect. About the income from data, do you think there is potential to grow two digits for some time? Can this leverage the results? Because we observe this has been happening.
Marcela, this is to you.
Luis, we use a smaller base of data income comparing to the capital market and data for analytics and credit. I think that naturally, when you have a smaller base, the growth rate will be higher. As we showed, we have been investing a lot in developing new products and offering new solutions to the market. We expect this line will have good performance in the future. Of course, I cannot tell for sure if it will be double digit or single digit, but our expectations are that as the Brazilian market gets more sophisticated and we structure more solutions to add values on the capital market side and on the credit and analytics side, we'll be able to develop this line gradually.
Different from other stock markets that had more income from data income in a very significant way through acquisitions, we expect to grow them gradually through organic initiatives and developing new products. Also the adherence of new customers as we launch new products.
Thank you.
You bet. We have a last question here, Pedro Gonzaga. After the question, we will wrap up, okay, guys?
Thank you, Marcela. The question is to Marcos. If you could compare B3 at the real estate segment with what I stand did abroad compared to what you're doing versus what they are doing and the potential of the market? Thank you.
There is no question. There are many similarities of what we've been doing. Just to remind you that the real estate market in Brazil has suffered some waves of growth, and then there was a drop, and so we did not develop so much. What we are seeking with the partnerships and acquisition of Portal de Documentos is to accelerate those development projects, and we chose to do that through the creation of microservices. This is a reality now. We've been working, we have customers who are working with us using this platform I call end to end.
From the moment the bank approves the credit, this goes into our pipeline and we work on the management to work with the customer through WhatsApp, email, or digital platform. We also provide services for customers, all the documentation, the certificates they need to accelerate the process and monitor the customer and the bank about the information to have what we call a digital file, so we can complete the electronic registration of the document at the official institutions. We do this, it goes through the warranty platform, as I mentioned, because the financial institution starts the assessment project. We have messaging. This is all automated through geolocation, which is the engineer that's closer to the financial institution. We enable this through messaging. They also work electronically.
They upload the report, and we do this in a very short time span, in a very transparent and secure way. Very similar to what's going on abroad. We are trying to accelerate the process of the real estate negotiations flow. This is a very nice moment in the market to do this.
Thank you.
Everyone, I think now we're going to the end of the first panel. I would like to thank Juca and Marcos for being here today, and for being available to talk to us and chatting a little bit about B3's initiatives. Marcos, Juca, thank you so much. Guys, now we are going to continue with our next panel, which is going to talk about regulatory changes on the stock segment. I'm going to now give the floor to Mario. Sorry, we start with Rogério. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, Rogério, good morning.
Good morning, Marcela, Ciro, Mario. Good morning, everyone. It's very nice to see you again virtually. It's nostalgic for me to be here today. This material that Mario and I are going to share with you is quite short. I think we're going to use 20-30 minutes to talk about it.
Part of the discussions that we have here were already dealt with or maybe discussed on yesterday's and today's Q&A. We're going to try not to be very much repetitive, and we're going to leave room for questions and answers. This first slide here tries to create a connection between three topics that were very much discussed, and I'm sure you guys are following. The public hearing on the reform regarding the organized market rule, which is now known as the 461 public hearing, which was in December 2019, and it ended in June 2020. It was a very long process where CVM maybe reached the record of receiving manifestations or maybe close to it. I think it was around 50 manifestations because the audience was quite important and very broad as well.
This hearing was talking about the functioning of organized markets. Of course, we think stock market, but not only stock market. On the Brazilian regulation, we have the structure of over the counter products market for this rule, which is Instruction 461. It was talking about the better execution rule, which was on Instruction CVM 505. It was also talking about some older Instruction CVM 168, which defines negotiation rules on the stock market, negotiation of self-regulation of organized markets, and a possible creation of these unified self-regulation markets. It was a very broad audience, and here we selected two main topics so that we could maybe talk a little bit about the initial proposal on CVM and what was B3's definition on that.
Here we're talking about Block trading, so big batches and renegotiation rules for the Brazilian market, and I'm going to talk about that in the next few slides. Right after the end of this hearing, and as I said, it happened in June 2020. At the end of August, so around two months after the hearing, they released a statement and one of the Economy Ministry secretaries, they talked about a specific topic on some manifestations that were sent to CVM and made a position on the competition point of view, which is very important to say, not the point of view of regulation or market organization, but about from the competition and productivity point of view. What was their vision on internalizing orders? Where does internalizing orders go on the 461 discussion?
It wasn't quite clear, and it wasn't held within the topics that CVM would like to discuss on a public hearing, but there was a topic that was approaching this discussion, which was, in the negotiation of big batches. One of the possible models that CVM was proposing was the possibility of having big batches to be negotiated over the counter in a very bilateral way between the customer and the intermediary, which would go to the internalization concept. Here, some market participants understood that it would make sense here to take this opportunity and have a more profound discussion on order internalization as a whole.
If you guys don't know much about the subject, this basically means that we are going to allow for intermediaries, so brokers, to be able to match the purchasing and sale orders from their customers internally without having to send this on the central book, and consequently, without allowing for any interference or without respecting price and time priority. Price priority, yes, time priority of the orders that are in the book, they don't have to be respected. I have a discussion that the ministry brought through this statement, understanding that it would make sense for CVM to manifest in advance on this discussion, and then Mario is going to talk about this in more detail.
RLP, that was already mentioned here as well, which is a product or a functionality that we have developed, a little over a year ago, that has had a lot of positive efforts for liquidity of many contracts, as Juca mentioned, and which also allows for the brokers to be able to better explore or better develop customer flow and product liquidity, the products that they're offering to these customers. Mario will also talk about this in more detail because it was something very much discussed yesterday and today, where we're going to try to bring more detail and some updates. You can go ahead to the next slide, Ciro, please.
Here, when we're starting on the audience of Instruction 461, as I was saying, the first item that we're going to discuss here is the negotiation of big batches, and this slide is organized on the left side with the main topics on the proposal of CVM. I think someone has their microphone open. Thank you. The main topics of the proposal are on the left side and the positioning of B3 on the right side. Why is the negotiation of big batches a relevant topic? Here, this is a great topic, especially for bigger investors, so they have higher inputs or maybe the ones that are using less liquidity. The market impact that this can generate is for sure not even a fundamental topic on the decision-making of investing or not investing on a specific stock like you guys well know.
The Brazilian regulation today doesn't have a specific rule for the negotiation of these big batches. We have parameters that can lead a business to an auction, which is defined on the stock regulation, but we don't have functionalities, arrangements, rules, which are specific, like other markets have developed throughout the last few years, implemented on the Brazilian market. This is a discussion that has been happening for a long time, and CVM is addressing it in a very opportune way. On the CVM's point of view on the initial proposal that we saw on this Instrução CVM, we saw that stock markets, as well as the environments that had organized over-the-counter, could create special procedures or segments for the negotiation of these big batches. They don't go into detail as to how these mechanisms would work, how these environments or segments would work.
This would be a discussion that would take place later, where each one of the stock exchange or over-the-counter products market could have this difference, and the regulator could approve it or not after evaluation. CVM also says that this segment would have to respect a unique batch and undividable batch concept. Here we can see this one of two ways. Either purchasing or selling should be represented exclusively by one investor. It should be one person buying, one person selling, or at least one of the sides here. The side that originated that batch should be undividable. It should be only one person selling, if it was a selling order that originated this Block, this segment. Here, the rule doesn't make it really clear if it can be undivided for both sides or only one side.
It also doesn't go into too much detail as to the demands of a CCP, but our interpretation was that in case that we had operations on the over-the-counter market that were organized with specific characteristics, existing like a central counterpart, that wouldn't be really a requirement. Which is something that would significantly change the process of negotiation and risk management on the stock market in Brazil. What was B3's positioning on that? First, we think it's very important to discuss the possibility of negotiating big batches and creating mechanisms and specific segments for this. This is a discussion that we have with our customers and with the regulatory agents. We've been having that for a long time, but we thought that all problems and needs can be better serviced on a special specific segment using specific procedures within the stock exchange market. Why?
Well, because you would have a significant gain when you're using all processes, connections, relationships, registrations that are already established. We have a very great synergy with what we already have today. This is the most appropriate way of making sure we are going to have autonomy and equity of access for all customers. You're still in a centralized environment where all intermediary and all investors that are operating through these intermediaries could access. Also, it wouldn't be necessary to have a complex tax discussion because especially in the case of investors that are foreign negotiation on over-the-counter market. In both cases, we can have a different tax treatment as to capital gains and the exemptions that we have for foreign investors. This loss or gain of capital doesn't apply for the over-the-counter products. More regulatory matters that would in fact affect these local investors.
We have some sector rules, which today are having some restrictions to negotiate on over-the-counter businesses. A very important point as well for B3, this is something that was verified on the manifestation of some participants, is how important it is to preserve the quality of the price formation process. This process happens on a centralized book for one stock exchange or several stock exchanges. This is a very important point because even though you have more than one stock exchange and the fact that all of them are promoting transparency pre-negotiation, the liquidity pool is just one liquidity pool. This is very different when you start offering solutions that don't offer transparency for the negotiation or that don't respect the priority of time and leading the orders.
These are two characteristics, the lack of transparency for the negotiation, which is time priority, and this is going to make a centralized book so important. Also, in case these characteristics don't exist, you can have a more frail process of generating prices. On our point of view, any functionality here, including functionality to negotiate big batches, direct orders, RLP, all of them should not represent a relevant part of the liquidity of the market and the liquidity of each asset. That is done to make sure that the biggest part of the volume is being negotiated on the centralized book, and the centralized book is still attractive so that investors can keep sending their orders and consequently that there is the best price formation process as possible.
We can talk about this on the Q&A and the parameters that we suggested for the regulator was maximum 15% of the volume, which could happen without a specific competitive interaction with the central book. Definition of the size of this batch is also something that CVM didn't talk about on the public hearing. The suggestion was that this was a responsibility for the unique self-regulator, and on B3's opinion, it should be the responsibility of the regulator itself. CVM should define the threshold that is going to make a big batch. We think that that is the best way, as other markets have solved this issue. Finally, I think that one of the most important topics here is that all operations, regardless of the environment that they're working on, are going to have a central counterpart.
This is one of the main characteristics on the Brazilian market, and it's one of the main topics that explain how the Brazilian market has gone through so many crises, and we didn't have any disruptive event and any traumatic event. Here for sure, the entire strength of the financial market in Brazil is very important. Also having a central counterpart for the operation that is being done in the stock exchange was a very important factor in this process. Giving that up doesn't seem to make sense to us, and actually it would go against what other markets are doing.
Here in the second slide, the second point I highlight is about the rule of best execution defined in 505 instruction at CVM. It offers flexibility for intermediaries to define the consensus of best execution according to certain principles and parameters along with their customers. What CVM is proposing, in case of qualified investors, this rule will basically be kept in a very similar way as today, but for retail or non-qualified investors, there will be a more straightforward rule, exclusively based on the total value of the operation, considering the explicit cost, the negotiation fees, and post-negotiation fees of the stocks, and implicit cost that would be bid-ask spread expressed on the screen of each of the platforms. Where it's possible to get the lower cost would be the best execution for our customers.
Here, from our point of view, this rule, although intuitively it makes a lot of sense, it not necessarily delivers the best solution for non-qualified investors. Here are some examples. If in the future we have an environment where there is competition between two stock markets and retail investors with a day trading posture, but in one stock market, in a clearing and in another one, they won't have a day trade. From the point of view of the value, it will be a best execution, but they need to have capital because they need to have stocks to deliver and money to liquidate the operations. Another example about the fee rules. In our new price list, we considered progressive discounts, meaning the more customers operate, the more they have discounts, and removing part of their volume because for that operation, it wouldn't have any B3 operation.
There will be negative impacts in the price list as a whole. We could explore further examples, but it seems to us that it makes more sense to broaden this best execution rule, allowing for customers along with their brokers to define the best execution. This distinction between qualified investors and non-qualified investors will bring complexity between these two worlds. Our position is to keep a similar rule as we currently have. It seems to work very well. CVM questioned if it's important to have a NOPR, order protection rule. It's a specific rule that exists in the U.S., but not in Europe, not in Asia. We don't think it makes sense for the Brazilian market. It has been questioned from many participants in the American market. The public hearing at CVM does not require all to be connected to the same stock market.
It seems to us it's a right decision. They should consider the costs involved, the strategy, the profile of their customers. Another important thing to wrap up is that we understand any rebate mechanism to buy order flow for any stock market, including B3, can be damaging for the market. Although it was not in the scope of CVM discussion in explicit way, from our point of view, we should make it clear that incentive models that pay for the purchase of order flow should not be allowed in the Brazilian market. Mario, the floor is yours now.
Rogério and Marcela, thank you. Good morning, everybody. I guess Rogério has already mentioned about the opinion from the Secretary of Competition in the Ministry of Finance. We were aware of this report, this opinion in the end of August, addressing questions, issues related to competition.
As a reflection of some of the comments in the public hearing, 461, it's the role of the secretary. The goal is to foster competition, it apparently makes sense. They are asking CVM to have a position about a topic that should be discussed according to their understanding, to see if there will be better competition in the Brazilian market. This topic somehow goes with a discussion that we've been having the market and CVM about the minimum size of direct orders in the brokers aligned with B3, looking at the market, allowing for the market development, allowing for the emergence of solutions. This has been the way we've been addressing the 461 rule.
I guess the only relevant point here, Rogério mentioned that, it's always important to reinforce that, is that innovations and enhancements in a competitive model, they should not be built without concerns involving the integrity of the market. There are some values when you are discussing internalization and 461, we've been addressing this, they are especially related to pricing because if you don't use the book, there is impact on pricing, it's hard to discuss if you're providing or not the best execution for your customers. There is the second topic I think is very important, market transparency and the access to information so everybody can understand the dynamics of trade and make better choices. I guess a very important topic here is economic access.
All investors have access to the pool of liquidity, so they have peace of mind to trade and make business. Rogério mentioned something that's very important. Yes, there should be room for you to preserve pricing and preserve transparency. You have the most part of liquidity in a central book of offers or in multilateral models, templates, which all investors can have access to. I guess the great concern here, and we're trying to preserve this under the perspective of investors, is that, in fact, we should avoid poor pricing and we should avoid difficulty to access liquidity, and ultimately, this may generate higher costs of transactions for investors. Pricing and access to liquidity maybe are the two major components of total cost of transaction for any investors in any market, domestically or abroad. This is the perspective we are trying to apply.
Of course, we encourage competition. Ciro, I guess we could move to the next slide here and talk a little bit about RLP. I guess many of those aspects were covered by Juca. It's important to have a flashback of where we are and how we got here. RLP was implemented in August 2019. At the moment, we had a pilot with CVM for 12- months. It would expire now in August 2020. Our assessment of the first year, as Juca mentioned, was very positive when we look under all points of view. Under the perspective of the broker, it is a product that allows brokers to generate value from part of their retail customers.
More than that, we were able to create a mechanism to generate values to all brokers combining, doing this directly or operating the flow through another broker or someone else they hire to do the service. We have about 15 - 20 broker agencies doing that and capturing value. From the operation of the market perspective, we are going to show the data. We had a big expansion in the number of contracts traded, an expansion in the quantity available at the first year of price, and better spread. We have about 95%, 98% of time with a closed spread. The difference between the possible price of purchase and price of selling. This talks a lot about the quality in the market. For investors, generally speaking, in retail, the product ensures the best execution. You're always executing the best price of buying, the best price of selling.
Customers access a liquidity pool is larger. They have access to the private booking of brokers. All the operations are being liquidated through our clearing, and we have a monitored, regulated environment to execute the operations. Here, it's worth pointing out that for the other customers, they also benefited from that. When you have a cap in RLP, it generates higher flow, and all investors have access to it. Reminding you that the retail flow generated by broker, they can trade for a part of the audience when they have a cap of 15%, and then it overflows to the book, what explains the growth we had in mini index, mini dollar. Now we can start seeing new profiles of investors operating in this. Under the regulator point of view, there is a single environment that's easier to monitor and control, with no additional cost for the market.
In August 2020, we renewed mini programs. Program for one more year, up to August 2021. At that time, CVM challenged us, asking if in the spirit of a regulatory sandbox, we shouldn't reassess the introduction of new assets in this program. We worked along with the regulator, with the market, to try to understand what kind of new assets we should introduce. The proportion Juca showed you, we have a pilot program with the quantity of reduced stocks, with different levels of liquidity. To address a question that was asked, we want to experience RLP in stocks, but also measure the benefits of its impact in different levels of liquidity we have. We are getting into stock futures with tickets between futures and stocks. We are also discussing receivables. We need to assess this discussion, fixed income ETF and some of the currency futures.
As Juca also mentioned, we had on Tuesday, a positive signaling from CVM. We are still seeking access to the full content of what was approved by CVM. They had a positive opinion on CVM. To try to understand the content of the approval, from this point on, we'll see if we need to adapt the model somehow, we'll be ready to launch new products. Ciro, if you can please go on one slide. Here, we have a little bit of data. Here, we're actually adjusting the size of minis to the size of our standard contracts. We started in January of 2019 with more or less one million mini contracts being negotiated, so 600 mini dollar contracts. Today, we're around three million at one million contracts.
If we go back on this graph a few years, then we would be talking adjusted to the standard, maybe both combined would be something smaller than 100,000 contracts. As I said, when we're looking at the ADV point of view, but when we look at the investor base and the amount on the top and the spread, it seems like this product brought very positive benefits to all the market agents. Ciro, I think we can move on to the last slide. Here. Yeah, this one here. Regarding the tests that we are doing, on this new pilot that we are now proposing, we are currently choosing products that don't necessarily have the same flow symmetry, which we usually have on minis. Looking at products that have very initial liquidity. We're looking at products that have a smaller day trader participation.
This is a little bit of the scope on the pilot that we want to do. Ciro and Marcela , I think that's it. Rogério, I think that was it. We can move on to questions- and- answers.
Thank you, Mario. Thank you, Rogério. Guys, if you have any questions, please write your name on the chat and we are going to call you one at a time.
Hi, Marcela. Hi, everyone. Thanks, Mario. Thanks, Rogério. Good to see you again. Thanks for all the color there. Just earlier this year, there was a lot more talks about potential competition on the clearing side. Just wanted to get your thoughts on there. We've spoken on that before, and given just efficiency doesn't always make sense. Given that it's been talked about, and I know some market participants have looked into that. Just curious, your thoughts on the potential of that happening, how you think the regulator would think about that. Any color you can provide would be helpful. Thank you. You too, Rogério.
The two clearing houses operating in the same market. First of all, on a standalone basis, the clearing business is much more complex from a technology point of view, from a risk management point of view, and from an operational point of view than when you compare it to potentially having a competing trading business. On a standalone basis, it's a much more complex business to put together. Second, you have to have very clear rules on interoperability, which is something that happens in markets which have more than one clearing house, namely in Europe. Otherwise, you will cause a lot of capital inefficiency in the market, right? Because you have to deposit margins in different clearing houses.
For clearance to interoperate, it becomes also a matter of how you manage the systemic risk and how you put very clear rules in terms of the requirements you have for those clearing houses in order to avoid a race for the bottom in terms of this clearing having the wrong incentives, in terms of capital margin requirements and risk management procedures so that you don't increase the overall market risk by having more than one clearing house that potentially could also contaminate the risk of the other clearing house. It's something that it's possible, but it's definitely not as straightforward as establishing another trading venue. I don't know, Mario, Rogério, if you want to complement that.
Sure. Maybe I can add, Marcela and Mario could be great to bring your view and your background in operations. Sometimes it's not clear, Tito, to understand what means this complexity, right? We've heard about potential competition in the Brazilian equity market for years now. Sometimes the noise is higher, sometimes the noise is lower. In fact, nothing happens, although the regulation has no restriction that would impede any kind of competition in our markets. This year, we had two examples that bring some color on what means this complexity, this operational complex of adapting B3 systems, broker systems, custodian systems, the buy side systems, and so on and so forth.
Juca mentioned in his presentation that we announced a new pricing table in January 2020 for cash equities that would give very clear benefits for the entire market in terms of price reduction and incentives. One year later, we've not been able to implement that. Now we are simplifying that and phasing it in different stages to make it easier to the entire market to adapt to it and get the benefits of that. Here we are talking about specifically of adding discounts for a specific kind of product in cash equities markets. Here you can see the complexity of doing systemic chains when you need to align the entire markets, all the brokers, all the custodians, and all the other stakeholders in the chain, including vendors and so on and so forth, to be ready to play once it's implemented.
Recently, we concluded after many years, one very important change to bring securities lending to the screen and bringing more transparency and changing the dynamic of these markets. It definitely was not easy to align or redefine all the process, all the rules, and making sure that the markets would be ready for that. We are still improving the process because it is still very complex, but it took years. Again, we are talking about one single product that would have a different trading dynamic. I think this would help you to understand why although we have noises, we have potential players, it had not happened yet.
Rogério, if I may add something here. I think on the B3 side, although with all the complexities that you and Marcela mentioned, competition is possible. It is allowed by regulation. There is, I think, a role on the B3 side, and we have been paying a lot of attention to that, which is listening to the clients, understand what they expect from us on the trading and on the post-trading environment, and being able to develop services and products that to some extent fulfill the needs of those clients. When we're looking to competition, trying to either anticipate or react properly to the demands of the clients is something that we have been focusing a lot as well.
Great. Thank you.
Very good to see you, Tito.
You too. Take care.
Renato Antunes. Renato?
[Non-English content] , Mario. [Non-English content].
Good morning, Rogério. Good morning, Mario. Good morning, Marcela. Thank you. A quick question here. You guys were talking about that study of individual investors on the market. It's like 10,000 people have two-thirds of day trade, I believe. Can you give us an idea of how this data is on minis? In dollar and mini contracts, if it's an even distribution or if it's more uniform distribution. No, sorry, Mario. On the slide when we're talking about benefits, I think RLP benefit, that's clear. If I'm not mistaken, in the past, there was an idea where we could attract the customer to having index and dollar day trade would be one step for them to come to the stock exchange with more investments and everything else. When I'm thinking about benefits, I don't really see that point of view anymore.
If you could let us know if that has been happening or not. I understand the benefit of RLP once they want to do day trade, but to think of the counter factor, if this is actually generating an attraction of investors to other markets and stocks. Thank you.
Well, Renato, I'm going to start here and then, Marcela and Rogério, you guys, please, you're welcome to complement. Maybe here I can give you an order of greatness of these numbers, because maybe I don't have the precision of numbers about migration from day traders to new products. Just to give you a number of people who are operating minis. The November number, we had more or less 100,000 individual investors operating day trade and mini contracts.
In this base, we've seen a great evolution and growth in a way that has been kind of constant on the past few months. A lot here as a reaction of the effort that brokers have been doing to further develop this market. Related to the second question, we do see minis as an entryway to the B3 market. Right now, I don't think I'm going to remember exactly, but I think approximately, and Marcela, you can correct me if I'm wrong. I think it's more or less 50% of people that are operating minis, they started on minis, if I'm not mistaken. Something around half of these who started on minis after one year are operating new products on the B3 environment. Again, here, the order of greatness as I mentioned.
We believe that minis have this, somehow they contribute to the investor to understand the negotiation dynamic, and from that understanding, what are the more adequate products for them to invest on or operate. We have two things here that are very important, Renato, when we're talking about this day trade and this investor profile, which is education and information are essential. It's very important for the user to be educated and informed about the products that they're operating. Here we find that this is a regulatory challenge, for B3 and brokers as well, in the sense of guiding investors, mainly from broker side, who know the customer in more detail, and eventually knowing what is the investment profile for each investor. Education and guidance and information would be the keywords for this discussion.
For minis, as well as the migration products, migrating to new products. I don't know if you guys want to complement that. From my side, I think that was it. Thank you, Renato.
Yeah, perfect. Thank you, guys.
Guys, I don't think we have any more questions, apparently. Our time is also running out, so I would like to thank you all again. Thank you again, Rogério, Mario, for being here. Thank you for participating on B3 Day. It was an amazing session that really helped clear up some topics and brought a lot of great information for all of us. Thank you so much. Thank you to everyone who could be a part of this and listen to presentations. Soon, we should send you a quick research to know what your impression was on this year's event.
If you can answer, we appreciate it to try to make an even better event next year. Thank you all so much, and I hope you have great holidays at the end of 2020, and I hope 2021 is a quieter year than 2020. Have a nice new year. Thank you so much, and have a nice day. Thank you, guys. Thank you all. Bye.