Home Blog Page 435

ICI supports FSB on CCP resolution

US buyside trade body the Investment Companies Institute (ICI) says it supports the Financial Stability Board’s (FSB’s) guidance on central counterparty (CCP) resolution.

CCPs became fundamental to derivatives trading after the 2008 global financial crisis (GFC); in 2009 at the Pittsburgh meeting of the G20, it was agreed that derivatives trades should be centrally cleared, along with other measures. CCP’s provide this clearing, by effectively becoming a counterparty to each firm in the bilateral trade, with enough capital stored in the CCP to weather the default of one of those firms. As a result they should prevent a default from knocking on to other firms and having a systemic effect. However, recently concerns have been raised that CCP funds are not sufficient to protect them from default and as a result may not provide the necessary level of protection.

  • The FSB consultation on how to provide resolution in the event of a CCP failure proposed that authorities should:
    • Identify hypothetical default and non-default loss scenarios (and a combination of them) that may lead to a resolution of a CCP;
    • Conduct a qualitative and quantitative evaluation of existing resources and tools available in the resolution of the CCP;
    • Assess potential resolution costs;
    • Compare existing resources and tools to resolution costs and identify any gaps; and
    • Evaluate the availability, costs and benefits of potential means of addressing any identified gaps.

In its letter responding to consultation on the guidance, the ICI noted the approach could “reduce uncertainty in the event of a CCP’s failure and assure market participants that they will receive fair treatment from resolution authorities.”

“We support the FSB’s proposed five-step process for assessing the adequacy of financial resources and tools available to support the resolution of a CCP,” the ICI wrote. “As we have set out previously, in developing its final guidance on the five-step process, the FSB should seek to strike a balance between providing certainty regarding the resolution process and allowing resolution authorities sufficient flexibility to respond to unanticipated circumstances.”

  • It also made several recommendations for changes to the FSB’s proposed guidance, with a view to enabling regulated funds, as customers of CCPs, fair treatment during a CCP’s resolution:
    • Transparency: at a minimum, the FSB should encourage authorities to communicate to clearing participants – clearing members (CMs) and customers – the tools and strategies they plan to use to resolve a failed CCP;
    • Certainty and consistency: the FSB should establish that a CCP enters resolution at the point when it has depleted its own recovery resources, the resources of CMs that are committed to the CCP’s recovery and, if applicable, credit facilities or capital injections that may be provided by a parent entity;
    • Fair Treatment: the FSB should support the use of resolution strategies that rely on the resources of the entities ultimately responsible for the failure of the CCP’s risk management function – the CCP itself, CMs and equity holders – rather than seizing resources from non-defaulting customers (NDCs) who are users of the CCP that play no meaningful role in, or control over, CCP risk management and have not contributed to the CCP’s distress; and
    • Aligned incentives: the FSB should not support the use of resolution tools such as variation margin gains haircutting and contract tear ups, which may discourage voluntary clearing, create moral hazard by incentivising CCPs and their CMs to take excessive risks, or destabilise markets by incentivising CMs and CCP customers to liquidate trades in anticipation of adverse outcomes in times of stress.

The ICI argued that these recommendations, will provide greater certainty to market participants; improve market confidence; and support the achievement of global post-crisis political commitments, including encouraging greater clearing of OTC derivatives.


The Financial Stability Board was established after the G20 London summit in April 2009 as a successor to the Financial Stability Forum (FSF). The Board includes all G20 major economies, FSF members, and the European Commission. Hosted and funded by the Bank for International Settlements, the board is based in Basel, Switzerland.


©BestExecution & The DESK 2020

[divider_to_top]

WFE calls for a considered approach to treatment of CCP equity in resolution

Nandini Sukumar, Chief Executive Officer, the WFE

The WFE is calling for a careful and considered approach in any change to resolution arrangements at CCPs, as upsetting the tried and tested balance of incentives could damage stability and increase systemic risk.

A core element of central clearing’s value is the predictability of the arrangements to address pre-specified contingencies, together with an incentive structure reinforced by these arrangements’ predictability, the WFE said, in response to the Financial Stability Board’s consultation on the treatment of CCP equity in resolution.

The other key issue in resolution planning concerns realism. While the WFE welcomes the FSB’s leadership on this issue, a significant constraint in considering the approach to resolution planning lies in finding a likely extreme scenario that is also plausible. Unfortunately, the FSB’s draft guidance appears to propose a set of scenarios for adjusting the treatment of CCP equity that is both extreme and implausible.

Nandini Sukumar, Chief Executive Officer, the WFE said: “The current treatment of CCP equity has been carefully determined, consistent with international standards, to promote incentives for market participants to back the risks they bring to the CCP, and thereby support the stability of the broader financial system. An essential part of this consists of incentivising market participants’ effective participation in the default management and recovery processes. Creating potential rewards in resolution (eg, exposing all CCP equity as a first-loss resource) could undermine the CCP’s resilience or its ability to recover.’’

Please click here to read the WFE’s response to the Financial Stability Board consultation in full.

Coming soon: Lynn Strongin Dodds interviews Nandini Sukumar.

©BestExecution 2020

[divider_to_top]

The Covid-19 road to outsourcing

Handing over the trading desk looks more attractive in the post coronavirus world, but many firms are waiting before they sign on the dotted line. Lynn Strongin Dodds reports.

Outsourced trading is not a new phenomenon but one that is being hotly discussed in buyside circles as Covid-19 disrupts markets and office life. Historically, firms were reluctant to offload their trading activities to a third party but they are now mulling over their options. However, it still may take time before current conversations translate into future concrete transactions.

As Clare Vincent-Silk, partner at consultancy Sionic puts it, “We see Covid-19 creating increased interest in outsourcing trading desks and there are a lot of people talking about it, but so far few have put pen to paper. One reason is that everything has moved so fast and firms have had to cope with lockdown and working from home. This has meant new ways of working, and people have realised that they can function and execute orders from home. It has made it acceptable to have the dealing function remotely and this will help move outsourcing forward.”

There have been several studies showing that the intent is there. The most recent is from Northern Trust which recently published a White Paper – Driving Growth in Asset Management: Solutions for the Whole Office in 2020 and Beyond. It found that, 85% of the 300 global asset managers polled have either already outsourced their trading desk or are interested in doing so over the next two years.

In Europe specifically, a recent survey of 30 European investment managers conducted on behalf of BNP Paribas Securities Services showed that 20% of the firms canvassed had already hived off all or part of their dealing activities. A similar number – 21% – were considering this type of service in the next 18 to 24 months.

Cutting costs

Cost savings and the requisite investments in technology to build scale are always the top of the agenda when fund managers deliberate the outsourcing route. However, they came into sharper focus after markets plunged in the first quarter as the virus took hold, leading to spiralling trading costs. A study by Virtu Financial showed that in the US, they surged 42% compared to the same period last year, with March costs increasing to a high of 63.7 bps. In the UK, the figure was a staggering 76% increase during the period while in continental Europe it was 55.2% and 78% in Asia Pacific – excluding Japan.

“Covid has only accelerated a trend that was already happening,” says Thomas Castiel, head of dealing services within BNP Paribas Securities Services. “It created different market conditions with greater volatility, trading volumes and risk. Some firms found it difficult to cope with market conditions and some faced capacity issues to trade. Outsourcing is able to provide this additional capacity.”

Gary Paulin, global head of integrated trading solutions, Northern Trust Capital Markets, also believes that Covid-19 highlighted the need for different business continuity and disaster recovery plans because traditionally companies would decamp to a second location during a crisis.

“Working from home was ancillary but now companies are looking at how traders can best replicate their business,” he says. “Providing traders with three screens, a Bloomberg terminal and surveillance technology comes at a cost especially when the industry is also under severe margin pressure. However, even before Covid, firms were focused on operational resiliency especially with the UK’s Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SMCR). They were weighing the cost of retraining and hiring against outsourcing.”

SMCR which came into force late last year, is part of the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority’s push to raise standards and improve culture, governance and accountability within financial services firms. The regime shifts the responsibility of activities within a firm onto senior managers and brings into scope non-executive directors.

Most outsourced firms will perform roles set out in SMCR, but the jury is out though as to whether all outsourced firms can fully perform the role as set out in the SMCR, according to Brian Charlick, Principal Consultant at CGI. “Where the regulatory compliance of trading and reporting is concerned however, the established outsource providers are well equipped to manage because it is part of their core business,” he adds. “In fact, outsourcing can increase the compliance. It has yet to be seen, but I suspect in addition to being a core requirement, compliance has been maintained partly due to increased regulatory focus, but also partly through a desire to prove themselves to potential future clients.”

There have been other regulatory drivers, most notably MiFID II and its onus on fund managers to obtain best execution for their end investors, taking into account price, costs and speed. “The costs of trading have increased because the market has become more complex due to MiFID II,” says Michael Horan, head of trading at BNY Mellon’s Pershing. “There is a difference between executing an order and then having to be accountable and reporting under RTS 28 requirements. This is a burden, particularly today when many fund managers would rather spend their time managing money, gathering assets and attracting new clients.”

This has taken on new meaning in the post‑Covid world with temperamental market spikes and interest rates cut to the bone by many central bankers across the world. Generating returns has become that much harder and as Castiel says, “increasingly, what we are seeing is that investors want their portfolio managers to focus on the investment decision making and to outsource the post trade as well as the execution.”

Variations on a theme

As with any investment solution, size does matter and the behemoth players typically have well-resourced internal teams while the small to mid-sized firms with shallower pockets will look more carefully at outsourcing solutions.

However, as Andrew Walton, head of European business at Tourmaline Partners points out, the decision also depends on the size of the funds, turnover, strategy, whether they need a specialist execution firm and how much they cut their broker list in the post MiFID II world. “The question that fund managers have to ask is what is the impact and cost of my trading and do I have the right tools,” he says. “What Covid did is expose those managers who were not able to access the liquidity they needed.”

Not surprisingly, given the diverse nature of the asset management landscape, there is no one-size-fits-all solution although they all claim to feature the best-in-breed technologies and do not hold any proprietary positions. At one end of the spectrum is the comprehensive full-service desk option, which offers all the connectivity, management and regulatory services of an internal desk. These firms often trade in their own name, providing an additional level of anonymity for the buyside firm but they can also trade in the asset manager’s moniker.

At the other end is the hybrid or component model where fund managers select the types of services they want. The hybrid model is gaining traction for asset managers who want to venture into a new asset class or geography but do not want to spend the time or money to set it up internally, according to Felipe Oliveira, global head of sales & marketing at financial markets software firm genesis.

“What we are seeing is some asset managers are using internal teams, for example, to trade liquid large caps because it is not expensive, but that would not be the case if they wanted to start trading in Asia or emerging markets,” he adds. “Outsourcing would be more cost effective and the time to market would be much faster because the technology and workflows are already in place.”

Looking ahead, the space is likely to become more crowded with providers jockeying for position. For buyside firms thinking about making the move, they need to be sure that outsourcing will add value not only in terms of cost but also quality of execution, risk management, regulatory obligations and level of service.

©BestExecution 2020

[divider_to_top]

Appital deploys desktop application on OpenFin 

Mark Badyra, CEO, Appital
Mark Badyra, CEO, Appital
Mark Badyra, CEO and co-founder, Appital

Equity book-building platform, Appital, has built and deployed its desktop application on OpenFin, the interoperability operating system.

Appital is designed to support equity capital markets (ECM) by allowing buy side firms to get greater exposure to deal flow opportunities they might not have been able to access before, helping portfolio managers and heads of trading build a comprehensive picture of liquidity, including illiquid, small and mid-cap stocks.

The Appital platform also intends to provide deal originators with the opportunity to execute large volumes with minimal market impact or risk of price erosion. It offers an allocation methodology that is contrasted with existing legacy practices that are mainly driven by phone interactions in the ECM space, lacking fully automated audit trails.

By making the Appital platform available on OpenFin, the firm believes deal originators will benefit from a real-time view of the book building activity and platform interactions directly on their desktop. At the same time, deal participants will receive notifications from their Appital desktop application, should a deal be of relevance to them.

Mark Badyra, CEO and co-founder of Appital, said, “Outdated legacy practices and a lack of innovation in equity capital markets have restricted the ability for buy side firms to access small and mid-cap or highly illiquid instruments for too long. We believe technology has a key role to play in transforming ECM, much as OpenFin has changed the landscape for capital markets desktops.”

Building on OpenFin supports application interoperability with third-party applications already built on OpenFin, making workflows for asset managers and hedge funds participating in book building processes more automated and efficient.

OpenFin currently claims to deploy over 1,200 applications across more than 225,000 desktops at 1,500 institutions, in more than 60 countries. Interoperability comes as standard for all applications built on OpenFin OS, allowing them to share information, context and intent with third party apps in a permissioned manner.

©BestExecution 2020

[divider_to_top]

 

Emerging Markets Investor Sentiment

Dr. Murat Ulgen, Global Head of Emerging Markets Research at HSBC, discusses HSBC’s newly launched EM Sentiment Survey with GlobalTrading Editor Terry Flanagan.  

EC suspends best execution reporting which is “not read at all”

Valdis Dombrovskis, executive vice-president in charge of financial policy, European Commission.

Valdis Dombrovskis, Executive vice-president, European Commission

The European Commission (EC) has adopted a Capital Markets Recovery Package, as part of the Commission’s overall coronavirus recovery strategy which includes increased leniency around the 2018 Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) requirements, including suspension of best execution reports.

Valdis Dombrovskis, EC executive vice-president responsible for an Economy that Works for People, said, “Capital markets are vital to the recovery, because public financing alone will not be enough to get our economies back on track. We will present a wider Capital Markets Union Action Plan in September.”

The EC has made the changes in order “to reduce some of the administrative burdens that experienced investors face in their business-to-business relationships.”

MiFID II and its associated regulation MiFIR have long faced criticism for increasing the level of reporting and data collection without improving investment outcomes or execution quality.

The amendments put in place refer to requirements that the EC had already identified during the recent MiFID/MiFIR public consultation as being “overly burdensome or hindering the development of European markets.”

Best execution reports for trading are mandated under Article 27(3) of MiFID II for each trading venue, systematic internaliser for financial instruments subject to the trading obligation and each execution venue for other financial instruments.

They have to make available to the public data relating to the quality of execution of transactions on venues with reports detailing about price, costs, speed and likelihood of execution for individual instruments, which are further described in RTS 27.

The EC noted that, “Stakeholders indicate that the reports are rarely read by investors, evidenced by very low numbers of downloads from their website. It is therefore assumed that investors cannot or do not make any meaningful comparisons between firms on the basis of this data. Buyside firms informed us furthermore that they receive all the relevant information on best execution through other means (e.g., via brokerage meetings).”

According to the Commission, the Covid-19 crisis has increased the urgency in addressing problems with regard to the “costly production” of the best execution reports.

The requirement to publish the best execution reports has therefore been suspended to free up resources currently used for production of the report, without requiring firms and venues to invest in costly implementation.

The EC noted that this will not lead to a decrease of investor protection since investors currently do not read the reports at all and buy-side firms receive the relevant information through other means. In the context of the full review of MiFID II in 2021, the Commission will assess whether the requirement to publish the report should be deleted permanently, or if the reports need to be reintroduced in a revised manner.

In a statement the EC said, “The current crisis makes it even more important to alleviate unnecessary burdens and provide opportunities to nascent markets. The Commission therefore proposes to recalibrate requirements to ensure that there is a high level of transparency towards the client, while also ensuring the highest standards of protection and acceptable compliance costs for European firms.

In parallel, the Commission has today opened a public consultation on amendments to the MiFID II delegated directive to increase the research coverage regime for small and mid-cap issuers and for bonds. In particular, small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs) need a good level of investment research to give them enough visibility to attract new investors.”

©BestExecution 2020

[divider_to_top]

ESG reporting is becoming mainstream but more progress is needed

Peter Paul van de Wijs, Global Reporting Initiative’s (GRI)

Although there is no standard and uniform environmental, social and governance criteria, they are becoming a crucial aspect of corporate transparency in order to provide investors with quality company data, according to fifth edition of Carrots & Sticks (C&S) database.

The report, which covers 614 reporting requirements and resources, found that alignment in the sustainability reporting field is still falling short, with greater collaboration needed between standard setters, reporters, information users, regulators and policymakers, to streamline requirements and improve the quality of disclosure.

In addition, the agreement on the preferred disclosure venue or format such as having an agreed template for reporting is still lacking.

To date, the report said that the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are becoming more commonplace across all sustainability reporting policies. However, SDG 12, 6 and 8 which touch on- responsible business, employment and accountable institutions respectively, are the most widespread although public health and education (SDGs 3 and 4)  are expected to grow in use following the coronavirus pandemic.

On a geographical basis, Europe continues to drive the ESG disclosure agenda, accounting for 245 reporting instruments, while the Asian markets (174) are increasingly active. By contrast, North America has a low number of reporting provisions (47), partly reflecting the lower number of national jurisdictions in the region.

“As the pandemic focuses the attention of policymakers on how to achieve resilient and climate-friendly economies, the importance of measuring the impacts of companies and encouraging sustainable practices increases,” says Global Reporting Initiative’s (GRI) chief external affairs officer, Peter Paul van de Wijs said. “It is positive therefore that both the range and depth of ESG reporting provisions around the world has grown substantially.”

Cornis van der Lugt, University of Stellenbosch Business School (USB)

Cornis van der Lugt, Senior Lecturer Extraordinaire, University of Stellenbosch Business School (USB), added, “Stock exchanges and central banks are becoming more active in pursuing non-financial reporting requirements. This shows how the economic and market implications of diverse ESG topics are becoming more evident.

C&S is an initiative of GRI and USB with contributions by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). Last November, C&S struck a partnership with the Reporting Exchange of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development to improve user access to reporting information by aligning their taxonomies.

©BestExecution 2020
[divider_to_top]

ICE Aims To Expand ETF Hub Internationally

Peter Borstelmann, head of ICE ETF Hub, said the platform is aiming to expand coverage to international equity exchange-traded funds listed in the US and ETFs listed in Europe, Middle East and Africa.

Borstelmann told Markets Media: “We are looking to expand coverage to include international equity and EMEA-listed ETFs in response to market demand.”

The platform currently supports US-listed domestic equity and fixed income ETFs.

Intercontinental Exchange began talking to a wide range of ETF market participants two years ago. These conversations showed there was a need for transparent and consistent standards to simplify ETF creation and redemption trading.

“It is part of ICE’s DNA to leverage our strength in technology to bring innovative solutions to drive efficiencies and solve some of the markets’ most complex challenges,” said Borstelmann.

He joined ICE in 2014 as head of corporate development for the exchange’s clearinghouse for credit default swaps ICE Clear Credit, which increased clearing volumes of single name CDS instruments.

ETF creation and redemption

Creating and redeeming ETFs  requires the negotiation of large baskets of securities between issuers, authorized participants and market makers. However, each firm sends data in its own format and the need for manual copying and pasting leads to errors and the process taking much longer than it should.

“The existing process for custom negotiations is extremely manual with market participants using a combination of phone, email, chat or spreadsheets to agree to baskets,” said Borstelmann.

The ETF Hub streamlines this process through its centralized portal and FIX APIs, reduce the time and manual steps involved. FIX messaging is a standard for the financial industry.

Borstelmann explained that all the participants in the ecosystem will benefit from the transparency and scalability created by the ICE ETF Hub, which launched in October last year after being developed in less than a year.

“The order entry functionality was launched first last October, with our community members seeing turnaround time for orders being less than 10 seconds,” Borstelmann added.

He continued that Hub is an industry-wide, open architecture platform with standardized APIs that will allow external parties to establish connectivity as the ETF Hub community grows.

“With the passage of 6c-11, the US Securities and Exchange Commission has allowed a broader range of institutions to assemble baskets,” added Borstelmann. “The ETF Hub enables issuers to offer a solution in a more efficient and expeditious way.”

After launching the order functionality, ICE is allowing market participants to screen, communicate and assemble custom baskets with issuers electronically. The exchange launched a pilot program so market makers can experience the custom basket negotiation functionality in a live production environment. Several market makers, including Jane Street, Old Mission and CTC, have joined the program according to ICE and additional firms are expected to enrol in the coming months.

Growth areas

Last month both Credit Suisse and Wells Fargo joined the ICE ETF Hub as Authorized Participants, tanking the number of APs to seven.

Today ICE announced that JP Morgan Asset Management has joined the ICE ETF Hub advisory committee as a development partner for the platform.

Joanna Gallegos, global head of ETF strategy at J.P. Morgan Asset Management, said in a statement: “As an issuer serving fast-growing ETF markets, we’re aware of the critical need for a robust infrastructure for the primary market that can support our customers’ needs for both investment returns and innovation.”

ICE ETF Hub reported that it processed record notional volume of $148bn (€126bn) in the second quarter of this year, an increase of 9% from the first three months of 202.

Borstelmann highlighted that the two current hot areas of growth right are in fixed income and active non-transparent ETFs.

ICE is launching connectivity between ICE ETF Hub and ICE FI Select, enabling a trader involved in a custom basket request to send a bond or list of bonds to secondary market liquidity with a click of a button. ICE Select provides connectivity to the entire ICE fixed income ecosystem, including all the ICE Bonds execution platforms and ICE Data Services evaluated pricing and analytics.

ETF flows

ETFs and ETPs listed in US had net inflows of $189bn in the first half of this year, 63% higher than the $116bn net inflows gathered a year ago according to ETFGI, an independent research and consultancy firm. Assets of $4.3 trillion invested in ETFs/ETPs listed in US at the end of June are the third highest on record.

Fixed income ETFs/ETPs listed in US had net inflows of $83.6bn in the first half of this year, 28% more than the $65.5bn in net inflows in the first six months of 2019.

In comparison, equity ETFs/ETPs listed in US attracted lower net inflows of $39.9bn over the same time period, which was also less than the $41.43bn in net inflows for the corresponding period to June 2019.

ETFGI also reported that assets invested in actively managed ETFs/ETPs finished June at a new record of $182.7bn.

In Uncertain Times, Corporate Bond Traders Seek Certainty of Execution

Traders want the best price — but they also want their trades to execute.

The necessity of each came into focus in 2020, with credit markets episodically turbulent and traders working from home amid COVID-19. Given the extraordinary uncertainty and volatility, the need to trade larger and more specific risk profiles has gone up, particularly for clients who are benchmarked and face significantly higher risk of tracking error. In this environment, corporate bond traders who need to add or reduce risk are more inclined to concede a basis point or two off a trade, if it increases their certainty that either the risk can be transferred, or a more precise risk profile can be moved.

Enter portfolio trading, which enables an institutional firm to buy or sell up to hundreds of individual bonds in one shot, using the latest electronic trading tools, including a common interface and AI pricing capabilities. Barely a couple years old, electronic portfolio trading has rapidly gained traction to the point that some buy-side firms project that one-quarter of their corporate bond volume will be transacting this way by year-end.

Chris Bruner, Tradeweb

Chris Bruner, Head of U.S. Credit Product at Tradeweb, noted that as market volatility spiked late in the first quarter, so did the prioritization of execution certainty. Markets have since settled, but certainty of execution remains front-center, if in a less acute way.

“In March it was just, ‘Can I trade this or not?’ Our customers were purely focused on certainty of execution,” Bruner told Markets Media. “Now, this has expanded to include certainty as well as customization of risk. Certainty of execution is still paramount and we see clients achieving a very high hit rate, but it’s also about, ‘Can I choose any custom risk profile, and can it execute within an hour?’ It’s an expanded mandate, but it’s no less important.  We have clients telling us they’d like to do at least 25% of their overall execution via portfolio trades.”

Tradeweb launched portfolio trading for corporate bonds in early 2019, one of a series of credit-market innovations that also include auto-execution, net spotting, and streaming liquidity. The platform operator facilitated $43 billion of portfolio trades last year, with single in comp trades as large as $1 billion, non-comp trades up to $2.3 billion in notional value, and has so far traded more than $60bn in the first six months of 2020.

That type of volume wouldn’t happen if pricing wasn’t competitive compared to trades executed via the incumbent Request for Quote (RFQ) protocol. “We typically see very strong pricing” with portfolio trading, Bruner said. “Clients expect good prices. Once you have it, then it becomes a big benefit to increase certainty of execution, and increase the ability to customize your risk profile.”

Portfolio trading was borne out of buy-side demand to trade risk faster, more efficiently with less market ‘footprint’, and at a lower cost. That’s according to Robert Simnick, Credit Portfolio Specialist at Invesco.

Robert Simnick, Invesco

“In investment grade, high yield and emerging markets, we can trade hundreds of CUSIPs in an hour, as opposed to sometimes panning it out over months and only being able to find 50% of it,” Simnick said at the Fixed Income Leaders’ Summit in late June. “The key is being able to analyze the pricing that you’re getting and understanding where the bid-asks should be.”

Simnick said deciding whether to engage in portfolio trading entails using data to assess the probability and cost of getting a desired risk transfer done via piecemeal trades, and comparing that with the specs for a portfolio trade.

The latter protocol has a speed advantage, which means less market impact. “If you’re trading 100 bonds, you’re not front-running yourself on the 99th and 100th bonds,” Simnick said. “You’re in and out as fast as possible.”

As far as certainty of execution, Simnick said of about 130 portfolio trades he has worked on, his firm walked away from only two, one of which happened in March, when some dealers pulled back from pricing risk during the height of the market volatility.

Simnick said the protocol has an expansive future, especially as institutions and trading platforms build and upgrade supporting infrastructure.

“From an execution standpoint — time, profile, pricing —  it has a lot of superiority to doing things the old-fashioned way,” he said.

Essentia Analytics Data Shows Where Alpha Is Lost And Found

Research by Essentia Analytics, which provides behavioral data analytics and consulting for professional investors, identified how managers could have saved an average of 94 basis points of performance per year by selling stocks earlier.

Clare Flynn Levy, Essentia Analytics

Clare Flynn Levy, founder and chief executive of Essentia Analytics, told Markets Media: “Firms need to have the right data to determine the factors that create alpha as each portfolio, and each manager, is different. The dataset should include all their deals over at least five years as well as the relevant market data.”

Over three months Essentia’s research team analyzed 60 portfolios over 14 years and tracked 24 ‘categorizers’, ranging from equity sector to holding period to decision day of the week, across six broad investment decision categories, or skills: stock picking, size adjusting, entry timing, exit timing, scaling in and scaling out.

Chris Woodcock, who leads the research and product teams for Essentia Analytics, said in a blog that categorizers are factors that have a significant negative or positive impact on alpha.

The research found that across the 60 portfolios, the one factor that significantly affected the generation of alpha was very different.

Flynn Levy said: “I was surprised there was so little consistency in the sources of alpha amongst the portfolios.”

For 63% of managers, alpha was associated with at least one factor within stock picking.

“I was not surprised that stock picking was the most common source of alpha,” she added. “We found most value was destroyed by holding onto losing positions too long and exiting into falling prices.”

Sources of Alpha. Source: Essentia Analytics

Essentia’s system identified when managers should have made an earlier decision and saved an average of 94 basis points of performance per year.

“There is a similarity to people who go to a party,” added Flynn Levy. “Some regret staying until the bitter end, some leave too early and miss the fun but guests should find somewhere in the middle.”

Woodcock said that Essentia’s expectation for carrying out the research was that they would find a small number of “alpha leaks” – which did not turn out to be the case.

“But we were able to identify sources of alpha generation and/or destruction in all portfolios — within a set of factors that are consistent, identifiable and measurable in every case,” he added. “We think these are incredibly encouraging findings for active managers; once identified in their own portfolio, these can be corrected and optimized, with potentially significant benefits to their returns.”

Behavioural analytics

Flynn Levy founded Essentia Analytics in 2013 after spending a decade as  a fund manager. Her previous experience included running more than $1bn of pension funds for Deutsche Asset Management and as founder and chief executive officer of Avocet Capital Management, a specialist technology hedge fund manager.

She wanted data that could tell her what she should be doing differently to improve her performance as a fund manager but that was not easy to find.

Essentia uses data to analyse performance and managers receive custom notifications to remind them of their investment process just when their most detrimental behavioural patterns come to the fore.

“Incoming chief executive officers have a difficult job as there is a limit to how far they can cut costs,” added Flynn Levy. “There is a cultural acceptance that behavioural analytics is a ‘must have’.”

We're Enhancing Your Experience with Smart Technology

We've updated our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy to introduce AI tools that will personalize your content, improve our market analysis, and deliver more relevant insights.These changes take effect on Aug 25, 2025.
Your data remains protected—we're simply using smart technology to serve you better. [Review Full Terms] |[Review Privacy Policy] By continuing to use our services after Aug 25, 2025, you agree to these updates.

Close the CTA