Home Blog Page 24

Data costs keep FIXers awake at night as budgets tighten

Analysis of 50 decision makers attending the FIX EMEA conference in London on 6 March 2025 found that the decline of Europe and the UK’s capital markets was the single greatest concern across all demographics for equity market participants, but a near non-issue in fixed income markets where addressable liquidity saw more concern across different groups of market participants.

For equity market experts, between 20-25% of buy-side, sell-side, proprietary trading and tech vendor respondents cited the decline of Europe and UK vs the US and the rest of the world as keeping them up at night, making it the most consistent concern across all groups. This was even greater for consultants at nearly 33%.

Source: Global Trading & The DESK

For proprietary traders, the main fears were international uncertainty/geopolitics and the impact of AI, each at 33% of respondents, reflecting the challenge that unpredictable volatility can have upon more automated trading strategies, and potentially the ability of AI to replace traders – or create risks – for the same strategies.

For buy-side and sell-side equity market respondents, the largest single concern (for 35% and 25% respectively) was the cost of market data. This topic has been well flagged in a recent paper by consultancy Market Structure Partners and backed by industry groups including the European Fund and Asset Management Association (EFAMA), the Association of Financial Markets in Europe (AFME) and Plato Partnership [Buy side cries price gouging, exchanges say it’s a smokescreen – Global Trading], which claimed data providers were price gouging. In a low margin business such as equities, the pressure of operational costs are keenly felt.

Addressable liquidity was a concern for 15-16% of buy- and sell-side respondents, but greater for proprietary traders (22%).

In fixed income markets, ‘addressable liquidity’ was cited as the issue most likely to keep respondents up at night across all demographics, with 31% of buy-side and 21% of sell-side professionals survey making it their biggest concern.

Source: Global Trading & The DESK

Market data costs were also a challenge for buy-side firms (31%) who are tasked with aggregating prices on screen, and from dealer axes / dealer quotes in the absence of a consolidated tape in Europe, where there lack of primary venues – which are present in listed markets – removes a potential source of information.

Commenting on the results, Rudolf Siebel, managing director of the German Investment Funds Association (BVI) sounded an optimistic note for the future.

“Where, because of Brexit, we have separated transparency rules and in part created different pools of liquidity, we would hope that because of the new geopolitical situation, the UK and the EU are coming more together, and differences can be more easily overcome,” he said. “But right now it looks we will have two different deferral and bond consolidated tape regimes.”

Although ‘the decline of Europe and the UK vs the rest of the world’ was less of an issue for fixed income respondents than their equity peers, the division between European Union and UK markets itself was a contributor to the fragmentation of liquidity and data viability, and competition was likely to be an issue going forward, Siebel observed.

“The majority of investors in EU bonds are international investors, who can always go to the UK and more likely go to the UK first anyway,” he said. “But you can also access London liquidity as an EU-based investor. The larger issue are international investors investing in EU bonds, which is where we see also a lot of appetite for these to be issued as defence and infrastructure bonds.”

Source: Global Trading & The DESK

If spending is a proxy for the way businesses are seeking to tackle some of these challenges, then the respondents’ notes were telling. While 38% of sell-side survey participants said they had no budget to spend on anything at present, the 31% reported they were spending on innovation, creating a potential ‘haves and have nots’ scenario, noted Rebecca Healey, co-chair of the EMEA Regional Committee, speaking at the event.

“We are starting to see investment in technology as an asset in and of itself, rather than as a support function, when you see some of the innovations taking place notably in the ELP space, you have to ask who is prepared to put their hand in their pocket and spend their money and technology innovation?” she said.

Although a possible asset class bias was suggested by one attendee, with less innovation in equity discussed, this was discounted by a market participant who noted several examples of innovative equity tech innovation.

For the buy-side, trading automation was the biggest spend across the board, with 36% of respondents flagging it as a key investment. Given the concern across equity and fixed income participants around the cost of market data, it seems clear that the buy side will need increasingly better access to quality data in order to support more automated processes and to optimise fragmented liquidity.

©Markets Media Europe 2025

TOP OF PAGE

“Non-linear dynamical system” of interacting algos dooms DORA efforts

PJ Di Giammarino, CEO and founder, RegRisk Legal Solutions
PJ Di Giammarino, CEO and founder, RegRisk Legal Solutions

The interconnected nature of trading algorithms poses a significant threat to financial stability, speakers at this year’s FIX EMEA conference warned, with companies unable to rely solely on the resilience of their own systems.

“[AI] technology is increasingly being integrated into solutions,” affirmed Marina Kudryavtseva, senior quality assurance manager at Exactpro Systems. “Cybersecurity remains a top concern as firms navigate technological and regulatory changes. Innovation and safety are more important than ever.”

Marina Kudryavtseva, senior quality assurance manager, Exactpro Systems
Marina Kudryavtseva, senior quality assurance manager, Exactpro .Systems

The EU’s Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) was put under the microscope at this year’s FIX EMEA conference. Introduced on 17 January, DORA is designed to improve the reliability and resiliency of financial market infrastructure.

Market participants may not be giving the act the scrutiny it needs, warned PJ Di Giammarino, CEO and founder of RegRisk Legal Solutions, after an audience poll revealed that paperwork and the effort of compliance were not an area of concern considering the new regulation.

“That just means that no one has actually read DORA, he said. “There’s a lot of paperwork. People don’t realise that some AI that has been used for 20 years or more is in scope. Firms need to do an archeology of their systems.”

There are also uncertainties around the exact definition of AI. The EU AI Act defines an AI system as: “a machine-based system that is designed to operate with varying levels of autonomy and that may exhibit adaptiveness after deployment, and that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers, from the input it receives, how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations, or decisions that can influence physical or virtual environments”. Within this remit, many solutions that are not actively marketed as AI or do not fall under the latest wave of generative AI, will be swept up into DORA.

Aside from paperwork, another DORA nightmare on the horizon for market participants is

PJ Di Giammarino, CEO and founder, RegRisk Legal Solutions
PJ Di Giammarino, CEO and founder, RegRisk Legal Solutions

cost. “The cost of a perfect infrastructure is infinite,” Di Giammarino stated. Christian Voigt, head of markets at Broadridge Trading and Connectivity Solutions, added that “the perfect system is an elusive concept. But you need to get as close as your budget allows you to.”

During a later panel, Nick Idelson, technical director of TraderServe and co-chair of the FIX algo trading workgroup, highlighted the importance of operational resilience around AI and algo trading. He mentioned the events of May 2022, where errors in Citigroup’s systems caused US$1.4 billion of equities to be erroneously sold in European markets, triggering a ‘flash crash’ in Nordic equities.

The US bank received a total £61.6 million in fines from UK regulators as a result.

“They had serious problems in almost all aspects of their testing and risk management, absolutely, but that wasn’t the problem across Europe”, Idelson said. “All the other folks who were doing proper testing, as they understood it, and didn’t have those sorts of flaws”.

“The problem was that this whole thing is a nonlinear, dynamic system, and when these elements all interact, things that seem to be sensibly tested given the interplay of these algorithms are also a problem.

“It’s an emergent behaviour, one that is very dangerous and very, very hard to control. At the end of the day, you can’t test to be sure what will happen when other people do bad things and the current cohort of algorithms rapidly interact. There’s no exhaustive test that’s perfect. The best you can do at present is to measure the contribution to market disorder in a Dynamic Test System (a realistic test ecosystem including bad agents), as recommended by the FCA.”

Other speakers concurred on the need for testing and simulation. “A reliable infrastructure is one that can recover from shocks,” said Kudryavtseva. “It can be achieved through a systematic approach.” Performance testing, simulations, using existing scenarios to improve systems before crises occur; all are vital.

“We have to consider the whole ecosystem, take all the dependencies and potential situations into consideration,” she added.

Christian Voigt, head of markets, Broadridge Trading and Connectivity Solutions
Christian Voigt, head of markets, Broadridge Trading and Connectivity Solutions

Voigt countered this cautiousness by urging a ‘move fast and break things’ approach to building operational resilience. “You need to be willing to break things, every year, in order to test, rebuild, and adjust. Challenge yourself; After all, the perfect system today isn’t the perfect system tomorrow. Who knows what the threats will be in three years, when AI has fully taken off?”

For now, DORA is the first step towards strengthening Europe’s digital operational resilience. “DORA doesn’t mean that you’re not going to hit bad weather,” Di Giammarino concluded, “but it means your whole fleet won’t sink when you do.”

©Markets Media Europe 2025

TOP OF PAGE

Exasperation with UK-EU split breaks out at FIX EMEA conference

Carsten Ostermann, head of the markets and digital innovation department, ESMA
Carsten Ostermann, head of the markets and digital innovation department, ESMA

Audiences met the suggestion that EU and UK regulators should align their CTP selection processes with applause at the FIX EMEA conference in London.

However, regulators on the panel were less enthusiastic about the prospect. “It would be great to have a dual product, with economy of scale and user ease benefits,” the head of markets at one regulator agreed. “But as much as we would like them to align, policy-wise they both need to work.”

Following up on the panel, ESMA told Global Trading: “Since the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, running a joint selection process for CTPs is all but impossible.”

Jamie Whitehorn, head of trading venues at the FCA, agreed that discussions on how the tapes can work together will be helpful – but added that these will not be able to take place until providers have been chosen by both jurisdictions.

Jamie Whitehorn, head of trading venues, FCA
Jamie Whitehorn, head of trading venues, FCA

“These processes have to be independent and fair,” he noted.

From the other side of the channel, Carsten Ostermann, head of the markets and digital innovation department at ESMA, confirmed: “Due to the strict rules that we have to adhere

Carsten Ostermann, head of the markets and digital innovation department, ESMA
Carsten Ostermann, head of the markets and digital innovation department, ESMA

to I cannot call the FCA to check whether they are going to choose the same provider.”

He added that the slight delay between the EU and UK tape selections would also pose a problem in a shared approach.

ESMA confirmed to Global Trading: “[We] maintain a regular dialogue with the FCA on topics of mutual interests, and we indeed have been sharing learnings on market transparency in general, and on the consolidated tapes in particular. It however remains difficult to explore deeper collaboration avenues given the institutional set-up at this stage.”

Eglantine Desautel, EuroCTP
Eglantine Desautel, EuroCTP.

From a provider perspective, Eglantine Desautel, CEO of EuroCTP, told Global Trading: “Parallel CT discussions may lead to divergences between EU and UK regimes. At this stage, any provider seeking to deliver a tape in both jurisdictions would need to develop two distinct offerings.”

“The FCA will determine the best approach and guidelines for the UK. EuroCTP is focused on providing a robust and compliant real-time consolidated tape for shares and ETFs in Europe. If EuroCTP is selected, and if there is an opportunity to collaborate and closer regulatory alignment, our team will be ready to provide expertise and work with the future UK equities tape to facilitate users’ lives.”

Later in the conference, a regulatory executive at a prominent market maker commented on the wider benefits a strong CT would bring to Europe: “The consolidated tape is about how we market ourselves and start to look at ourselves as a region to bring more growth in the market. 

“If our decision makers, and there is a real political will for this, decide to create the perfect framework for innovation, for people to take up business, then there will be more IPOs, people will be excited about going to the exchange, raising money, hiring people and so on. I think this dynamic has started and it’s going to keep on growing.”

The CTP selection process for bonds is currently underway in both the EU and UK, with go-live expectations set for 2026. The FCA is now engaging with the market on potential designs for the equity tape, with a consultation paper set for publication later in the year. The selection tape for the European equities CT will begin in June this year.

There is still uncertainty around the details of the tapes in both jurisdictions. CTP bidders have access to ESMA’s initial guidance, but legal measures have not yet been adopted.

While the European Commission would not be quoted on the issue, a source familiar with its thinking advised: “Stakeholders should be working with the drafts as they come out. There is no legal certainty, but it’s a good basis to start from. Otherwise, there will be no tape.”

Preparing the equity tape will be “one hell of a task”, they added, drawing particular attention to pre-trade transparency requirements.

The new transparency regime is scheduled to be adopted in May or June 2025, before heading to the EU Parliament and Member States for consultation – a three month process. “[The EC is] looking to align the application dates for all the Level 2 measures so there is a single starting point,” the source said. “That will be early next year, we think. If all goes well, legal certainty should be released in September or October.”

“There will be time, although not a lot of time, for the industry to adjust to the new regime before the first tape goes live, which the EC expects to be in March or April.

©Markets Media Europe 2025

TOP OF PAGE

Location will determine bid-ask spreads for European bond traders

Vincent Grandjean
Vincent Grandjean.

Where European bond traders and their counterparties are sat could affect the size of bid-ask spreads they are shown, thanks to a split in disclosure regimes between the United Kingdom (UK) and the European Union (EU), attendees at the FIX EMEA conference heard in London on 6 March.

The UK and EU are each developing consolidated tapes of bond pricing, but they have different period of disclosure for trades of different sizes, meaning a trade might be published on one tape before it is published on another.

Vincent Grandjean
Vincent Grandjean.

At the FIX EMEA conference, Matt Coupe, co-chair of EMEA Regional Committee, FIX Trading Community, and Vincent Grandjean, founder and CEO of analytics platform, Propellant.digital, presented multiple examples of imbalanced disclosure between the two regimes.

Angela Lobo, head of electronic trading sales EMEA at Jefferies, noted that bond traders should be increasingly aware of the differing impacts of transparency regulations across UK and EU markets.

She explained, “Traders should be aware that bond pricing could vary significantly based on disclosure profiles in the UK versus the EU,” and emphasised that “this bifurcation creates nuanced liquidity challenges.”

Mike Poole
Mike Poole.

Mike Poole, head of trading at Jupiter Asset Management, also highlighted that varying transparency requirements have significantly altered liquidity landscapes, “Firms should adapt their trading strategies to reflect varying transparency requirements.”

“It will be important for traders to understand where they are located and their counterparty is located and the implications for the timing of price and volume publication,” said Lobo. “For a high yield bond, looking at the data [presented by Matt Coupe and Propellant] it suggests that a €4.5 million high yield bond trade will be printed on the tape in 15 minutes if it is in Europe, and in two weeks if it is in the UK. And potentially if it is a US counterparty the price will get published in 15 minutes and then the volume will be published in six months. That is going to impact the price.”

Angela Lobo
Angela Lobo.

As risk-taking market makers need time to trade out of positions they have taken on for clients, they typically prefer longer disclosure times and the increased risk of early disclosure typically requires them to increase the bid-ask spread they offer to buy-side bond traders, in order to increase the margin that might cover that risk.

Poole also noted that the separation of price and size in itself created problems.

“If you have a high yield bond trading and you can see the price, but you don’t know if it is for a trade sized at €200,000 or at €20 million, that is going to freeze up the market. More transparency is generally good, but if transparency leads to ambiguity, and that leads to freezing up risk provision, then it is bad, and that’s where the UK’s FCA has listened to the buy side and the sell side, and produced a transparency ratio to benefit the market in the near term, and allow for further discussion.”

Matt Coupe
Matt Coupe.

Traders also need to consider the structure of a counterparty, Coupe said, as know the difference between being established in one jurisdiction to having a branch in that jurisdiction makes a difference to where they are required to report the trade.

“A really important point is ‘know your counterparty’ because if you are trading with a [European] dealer who is branched in the UK, that trade’s print is going to hit Europe under its transparency regime,” he warned.

Propellant, whose analytics platform had enabled much of the debate through real-world examples flagged this a live issue.

“At the moment about 10-15% of activity is reported on both sides,” said Grandjean.

©Markets Media Europe 2025 (this article was first published in our sister publication, The DESK

TOP OF PAGE

Blackrock, State Street securities lending revenue declined in 2024

Eric Aboaf
Eric Aboaf

The two asset management giants earned US$1.05 billion from securities lending during the year, with US$611 million coming from equities.

Both firms reported stagnant to lower securities financing revenues compared with 2023, based on Global Trading analysis of 10‑K and quarterly 10‑Q filings.even as client and loan balances reached new highs. This apparent disconnect, set against record or near‑record equity markets, was largely attributed to “muted specials” activity, as described by State Street management.

Securities financing fees per quarter
Securities financing fees per quarter

In securities lending, “specials” refer to those hard‑to‑borrow stocks that command higher lending fees. State Street noted in multiple earnings calls and disclosures that, despite robust volumes and elevated on‑loan balances, the scarcity premium on certain in‑demand stocks remained subdued for much of 2024. As a result, while the absolute notional of equities on loan climbed steadily for both firms, the actual revenue generated from those loans did not keep pace.

For BlackRock, 2024’s annual securities lending revenue was reported at Us$615 million across all asset classes, of which about $335 (estimates were made based on share of equities in fees and securities financing revenues) was linked to equities. The company’s total equity AUM finished the year at approximately US$6.31 trillion, up from around US$5.3 trillion at the end of 2023. Nonetheless, the portion of based fees derived from lending was down about 9% reflecting narrower spreads.
For State Street, the story was similar. The firm’s full‑year securities finance revenue was US$438 million, with roughly US$279 million attributable to equities (estimated based on share of equities in its AUM). In contrast, the notional amount of indemnified equities on loan peaked at US$360 billion or more during third quarter of the year. While volumes of securities lent were at or near record levels, the average fee rate contracted.
This was echoed in State Street’s Q2 2024 investor meeting, where Eric Aboaf, vice chairman and chief financial officer said : “Our US specials activity was subdued in the quarter, which impacted margins and contributed to the year on year  decline in securities finance revenues.”

A recurring theme across both companies’ filings was the divergence between the quantity of assets on loan and the yield on those loans. BlackRock, for instance, highlighted its robust ETF inflows and the consequent expansion of lendable securities. State Street similarly reported strong inflows into its SPDR ETF line-up and other institutional equity index strategies. Yet, with fewer “special” securities commanding premium fees, the incremental revenue gain from these higher balances was not as large as one might expect in a rising‑market environment.
In its annual and monthly report, for December 2024, IHS Markit noted of the US equity financing market that it was down month on month 14% and year on year 15% to US$283.3 million while revenues from specials for the full year declined to US$191.5 million compared to US$230.8 million the previous year.

BlackRock and State Street together pulled in over US$1 billion from securities lending in 2024, but with flat to declining yields on each dollar of securities loaned. Both firms point to subdued specials as the key factor limiting revenue growth.

Both firms declined to comment.

 

©Markets Media Europe 2025

TOP OF PAGE

SIX uses MiFID to muscle into Euronext clearing

Laura Bayley, head of clearing services, SIX
Laura Bayley, head of clearing services, SIX

The Swiss exchange is exploiting a regulatory requirement to join Cboe as a preferred CCP alongside Euronext’s in-house option.

Euronext market participants can now use SIX’s x-clear as an alternative clearinghouse to the group’s proprietary Euronext Clearing service.

Euronext Clearing remains the default central counterparty clearinghouse (CCP) for the exchange, but if selected by both counterparties x-clear can now be used to clear trades across Euronext markets. Amsterdam, Brussels, Lisbon, Dublin and Milan are being onboarded initially, with Euronext Italy included by Q2.

Under MiFID and MiFIR, trading venues must take a non-discriminatory approach to CCP access. As such, Euronext is obligated to accept requests for CCPs to clear in its markets.

Cboe Clear is also a preferred CCP for the Euronext, covering cash equity and ETF trades.

Through the arrangement, SIX aims to improve market interoperability and competition, it said. Laura Bayley, head of clearing services at SIX, commented: “We are pleased to further demonstrate our commitment to enhancing efficiency and creating value for our members. By offering an additional choice of CCP, we are confident that this will boost transparency, sustainability, and resilience within the financial sector.”

Euronext reported €144.3 million in revenue from clearing services in 2024, up 19% year-on-year.

Evolved from the acquisition of CC&G in 2021, Euronext Clearing is one of the largest clearing houses in Europe. The group migrated its cash markets from LCH SA to Euronext Clearing in November 2023, facilitating the clearing of cash equities, ETFs, structured products, warrants and bonds across six Euronext markets.

©Markets Media Europe 2025

TOP OF PAGE

Llewellyn-Jones to lead Trading Technologies

Justin Llewellyn-Jones, incoming CEO, Trading Technologies
Justin Llewellyn-Jones, incoming CEO, Trading Technologies

Justin Llewellyn-Jones has been named CEO of Trading Technologies, effective 31 March. He replaces Keith Todd, who will become deputy chairman of the board.

The company provides multi-asset end-to-end trading operations technology, and currently has a partnership with Euronext.

Llewellyn-Jones has more than 30 years of industry experience, and has been chief operating officer at the firm since January 2024. Prior to this, he spent four years at Broadridge as North American head of capital markets and chief product officer for capital markets.

The majority of his career was spent at Fidessa, with senior roles including chief operating officer for the Americas and global head of derivatives.

On the appointment, Todd said: “We’ve doubled the size of the business in just three years and, as we are setting off on our new five-year plan, it is appropriate to hand over the CEO role to Justin, whose deep industry experience and professionalism make him the ideal and natural successor.”

Carsten Kengeter, chairman of Trading Technologies and CEO of parent company 7RIDGE, added: “Since 2022, TT has solidified its leadership in listed derivatives, established a footprint across additional asset classes, acquired and integrated four complementary companies, and launched six lines of business to further diversify and fuel growth. I expect TT’s record-breaking growth will continue as Justin and Keith perform their new roles.”

©Markets Media Europe 2025

TOP OF PAGE

Australia’s liquidity drought

Australian liquidity

Liquidity struggles are a global problem, but in the Australian equity market the issue is even more acute. A small investable universe, increasing fragmentation and the worldwide lean into shorter settlement cycles are only adding more pressure, squeezing at-touch liquidity to a concerning degree.

“Australia is one of the most fragmented markets in Asia,” observes Dylan Kluth, head of equities trading for APAC at Macquarie Asset Management. The rise of alternative trading venues and strategies is chipping away at at-touch liquidity, dark pools, algorithmic products and more weakening what is already a small market.

Like a snake eating its own tail, the more these services are embraced the more liquidity shrinks – and the more attractive non-traditional routes become. “It’s probably accelerated that block component; if you actually want to do something, you need to engage a broker and have a conversation around where you’re positioned and what you’re interested in,” Dion Cooney, APAC head of trading at AllianceBernstein, explains.

Dylan Kluth

Going global

“The investable universe is really quite small; there’s an ASX 300 index, but really you’re investing in 200 or less. The bottom tier, by market cap, is hard for a global manager to get down to. That’s where some of the liquidity concerns come from,” Cooney says.

Banks and resources take up most of the market, with other sectors taking a back seat. The region also lacks the technology appeal that so many investors are seeking, with super funds – Australian employer-sponsored pension schemes – pushing investment out to the US rather than funding domestic companies.

Domestically, “the bulk of the market is made up of institutional money”, says Cooney. “The big players are now super funds. They were previously externally managed, but the majority of them have brought money in house. Then you’ve got the passives, actives, domestics, and international players.”

“20 years ago you would have seen Aussie super funds investing in Aussie markets. Now, that pool has gotten larger, there’s a lot more offshore investment from them,” says Cooney. In spite of growing interest, though, the market is limited.

A changing landscape

Over the last 10 years, the Australian market has changed dramatically. “Average trade sizes have increased over the past decade,” Kate Weidenhofer, head of Australia at Liquidnet, says, “driven by the rise of block trades and the standardisation of minimum execution quantities. These are designed to counteract high-frequency trading and minimise signalling risks.”

The rise of block trades, as illustrated by the increased market share of off-book/on-exchange or off-book large in scale/negotiated trades, has led to a new kind of desk in the region, Cooney notes.“A raft of brokers have formed what they call high-touch block desks – building on fragmentation even further. Traditional high-touch orders are still being serviced by a high-touch trader, but if it goes over a certain size it’s sent to a group within the broker firm that only trades block-type orders.” In 2024, off-book on-exchange market share has repeatedly exceeded that of lit/auction trading, according to data from Big xyt (see Fig 1).

Big xyt chart

Some of the largest of these desks are run by UBS, JP Morgan and boutique investment bank Barrenjoey, all of which were unwilling to speak to Global Trading about the impact their strategies are having on liquidity.

“The buy-side is navigating Australia’s fragmented and concentrated equities market with a multi-faceted approach,” Weidenhofer says. “There’s a growing emphasis on leveraging committed Indications of Interest (IOIs). At the same time, aggregators have become essential tools for consolidating liquidity across the fragmented landscape.”

Kate Weidenhofer

As traders try to avoid information leakage and frontrunning and access hidden liquidity, dark pools have become an increasingly popular approach. From concerns about predatory behaviour in execution to the growth of algorithmic products, a greater number of traders are opting to avoid the lit market.

“Dark pools now account for over 26% of value traded as of Q3 2024, reflecting their growing role in the ecosystem,” Weidenhofer observes, citing Liquidnet data. ASX Centre Point and Cboe run the most popular of these venues in the region. The anonymous trading of large blocks, matching traders with counterparties while minimising market impact, is an appealing prospect. However, it is slowly drawing flow away from lit markets.

Another way to improve the matching process is through conditional orders, whereby traders can post an indication of interest across multiple venues at once. The introduction of these order types has been a significant development in Australia and the wider APAC region, Cooney says. With this approach, traders are able to rest full orders in multiple venues and firm-up requests once a match is found. This allows larger trades to be completed with minimal information leakage, and removes the need to split orders. Being able to access numerous venues at once improves liquidity access in fragmented markets, and cuts down how long it takes to complete a trade. Along with dark pools, these tools open the door to hidden natural liquidity and enable trades to take place with minimal market impact.

One such platform is Cboe BIDS, which was launched in Australia last year following a successful rollout in Europe, the US and Canada. “Getting that universe of investors up so you have more matches is a major development,” Cooney states. “[Cboe BIDS] does have some different functionality to other electronic block matching, where you’re only allowed to execute in their pool with their broker. This is broker-agnostic, so you can choose your own executing counterparty. That benefits the buy side.”

However, slowly drawing flow away from lit markets is doing nothing to help dwindling visible liquidity, which is essential for price formation. “That [algorithmic] flow feeds on itself,” Cooney notes. Despite the benefits, more trading in the dark means more opaque markets – something regulators and market participants alike want to avoid.

Dion Cooney

An open and shut case?

As has been seen in the US and Europe, liquidity is increasingly moving towards the close as passive investing and ETFs gain popularity. “A decade, maybe 15 years ago, that liquidity would have been nearer 5-10% at the open and probably 10-15% at the close. It’s now less than 5% at the open and nearer 25-30% to close,” Cooney observed of Australian markets.

This shift is in part due to geography. “There are a lot of developed Asian markets open at the end of the day, so there’s more opportunity to generate trading ideas and liquidity at that time,” Cooney explains. “It makes sense that it would be backloaded.” The same thing is happening in Europe as it adjusts to suit US market hours. “It’s something that local traders and buy-side investors have had to get used to,” he says.

In April of this year, ASX published plans to remove staggered opening times for cash products. This was broadly supported by an industry already accustomed to a single opening time, Australia being the last exchange to operate an opening stagger, and keen to align with global exchanges, simplify the open and reduce the window of volatility. As part of mandatory changes, this capability is live in the ASX’s Customer Development Environments (CDE+) for testing.

However, with the role of the opening auction diminishing each year, “we anticipate there will be little impact to the open besides bringing the exchange in line with global peers,” Weidenhofer says. Rather than innovative, this late market structure amendment is unlikely to make a difference this late in the day.

Kluth suggested that the inclusion of a trade at last session, which is also live in CDE+, could be more helpful in boosting liquidity. Taking place after the closing auction, this would allow traders to fill orders that were not matched earlier in the day.

T+1

Timing issues have only been exacerbated by the introduction of T+1 in Canada, the US, India and more over recent years. “The influence of the US’s move on funding trades, around the globe and within Australia, is going to be a hurdle that funds look to navigate more in 2025. While you may be able to trade, you may not be able to get money in place because of custodians or down-the-chain events that don’t allow you to take advantage of some trading opportunities that may develop. Workflows become more important,” Cooney says.

Given the country’s isolation from other jurisdictions, a consultation paper earlier this year noted that moving to T+1 is a market priority. However, the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) is already grappling with a long drawn-out settlement project: replacing its CHESS system, which recently entered its second phase after an embarrassing US$170 million failure in 2022. The same consultation paper warned against embarking on the two initiatives in tandem, with CHESS replacement the more urgent matter.

“There’s potential for a change in settlement in Australia, but that’s going to be a while out,” Cooney comments. “Not because it can’t be done technically, but I don’t think all of the steps in the chain have evolved fast enough.”

Getting moving

Kluth is quick to point out the importance of keeping up to date with emerging technology in equities markets. From transaction cost analysis to new algorithms and different applications of automation, “we continually analyse our methods for trading to identify any opportunities for improvement”, he says. In a competitive environment, and one in which liquidity can be difficult to source, this is essential.

This can include an element of trading alpha for buy side trading desks. “More and more, we are building ways to be liquidity providers instead of liquidity takers,” Kluth observes. “Our role as conduit to the market for our clients and stakeholders continues to build on the requirements of our role. That includes working with our brokers to incorporate the latest algorithmic developments into our wheel, finding more automated ways to consume our brokers indications of interest, and incorporating the full life cycle of a trade from idea to implementation.”

While the Australian market may not be the most cutting-edge, it is slowly catching up with the rest of the world and introducing its own solutions. As global markets continue to make big changes, technology development accelerates and investor demands evolve, it is not enough to lag behind global leaders. Australian equity markets need to forge their own way to remain competitive and ensure that liquidity is accessible, however the landscape continues to develop.

©Markets Media Europe 2024

TOP OF PAGE

 

Integrated value chain performs for LSEG

David Schwimmer
David Schwimmer

On 27 February, London Stock Exchange Group plc presented its 2024 preliminary results, with total income reaching £8.5 billion.

LSEG reported total income, excluding recoveries, of approximately £8.5 billion in 2024. Reported growth was 6.1%, while organic growth on a constant‐currency basis was 7.7%. Adjusted EBITDA increased by 9.1%, with the EBITDA margin rising by 160 basis points to 48.8%, and the group generated equity free cash flow of £2.2 billion. CEO David Schwimmer stated, “We have delivered on our strategy in 2024. LSEG has achieved a strong performance across the Group.”

Management at LSEG view the business through a value chain lens going from capital formation to post trade processing.

In Data & Analytics, revenue was about £4 billion, which grew by 2.0% on a reported basis, driven by improvements in workflow solutions and the broader availability of data via cloud platforms like Snowflake.

The FTSE Russell division, in charge of indexes, generated £918 million in revenue, growing by 8.8% on a reported basis from both subscription and asset‐based fees.

Risk Intelligence revenue reached £531 million, reflecting a reported growth of 7.9% driven by increased demand for screening and compliance services.

Capital Markets posted total revenue of £1.8 billion, with reported growth of 18.2%. Within this segment, equities revenue was £236 million – up 4.6% on a constant‐currency basis – while Tradeweb, which is 50.8% owned by LSEG and fully consolidated into its results, recorded a 25.2% increase in revenue year-on-year and a 36.7% growth in average daily volume in Q4.

The Post Trade segment recorded revenue of £1.2 billion, growing by 5.7% on a reported basis, and provided clearing, settlement and post‐trade analytics services.

Looking ahead, LSEG expects organic, constant‐currency income growth of 6.5–7.5% in 2025, with EBITDA margins improving by 50–100 basis points and capital expenditure of roughly 10% of total income (excluding recoveries). Equity free cash flow is forecast to reach at least £2.4 billion, with an underlying effective tax rate projected between 24–25%.

 

©Markets Media Europe 2025

TOP OF PAGE

JP Morgan, BofA, Morgan Stanley lost $473m on six trading days in Q4

US banking giants reported four breaches of value-at-risk limits and near-breaches on two more days during the last three months of 2024, according to Global Trading analysis of Federal Reserve filings.

Chasing near-record trading revenues, the biggest US banks are increasing their risk exposures – and taking occasional hits to show for it. The worst losses were experienced by JP Morgan, which has also lagged its peers in trading revenue growth. The bank breached its regulatory VaR limit twice during Q4, with one-day trading losses of $164 million and $67 million respectively, resulting in a total trading loss of $231 million on these two days. Despite the losses, the bank reported overall trading revenues of $5 billion across equities and fixed income during the same quarter.

CFO Jeremy Barnum told analysts, ” Equities was up 22% on elevated client activity and derivatives amid increased volatility and higher trading volumes”.

Bank of America experienced a single VaR exception, which resulted in a $82 million loss according Global Trading analysis of the bank’s Federal Reserve filings. Morgan Stanley, which operates with a lower VaR limit than the other banks, also reported a single VaR breach, the result of a $55 million one day trading loss. However, the bank came within a hair’s breadth of breaching the same limit on two other days during Q4. Taken together, the bank’s total loss was $161 million over these three days.

Taken together, the losses are small compared with the $687 million trading losses suffered by Goldman Sachs on two days during the previous quarter, which reflects Goldman’s far larger risk exposures.

Goldman lost $687m on two days during August turmoil – Global Trading

At the end of 2024, Goldman’s regulatory VaR was $168 million, compared with $64 million for JP Morgan and Bank of America, and $54 million for Morgan Stanley. Trading assets for the six largest US banks totalled $2.5 trillion in December, led by JP Morgan with $637 billion and Goldman with $579 billion.

A spokesman for JP Morgan declined to comment on the losses. A spokeswoman for Morgan Stanley also declined comment. Bank of America did not respond to a request for comment.