Home Blog Page 555

Trading : Exchange consolidation : Lynn Strongin Dodds

THIRD TIME LUCKY?

Lynn Strongin Dodds looks at whether Deutsche Börse and the LSE will walk down the aisle this time around.

Be33-Web-27

Despite Brexit looming, Deutsche Börse and the London Stock Exchange Group (LSEG) are determined seal their £21bn all stock deal. They have been down this road before but this time instead of other exchanges muscling in on their relationship, competition authorities may threaten their happy ending.

This is the third attempt of the two exchanges trying to form a partnership. The first was scuppered by a hostile takeover approach from Sweden’s OM Gruppen, in 2000 while four years later, the German exchange returned with a £1.35bn offer which was rejected by the LSE because it undervalued the company. This time though Europe needs a national champion to sit at the world exchange table which includes the $30.8bn InterContinental Exchange Group, $32.2bn CME Group and $28.7bn Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing.

“One of the problems is that the LSE and Deutsche Börse are caught in the middle with Nasdaq behind them,” says Richard Daniels, senior analyst of TABB Group. “Separately they would never be able to reach the scale needed to compete with the larger global players.”Be33-Web-28

If successful, the combined group would boast a market cap of roughly $28.5bn and while it is being touted as a “merger of equals,” the deal would see the German bourse shareholders receive around 54.4% of the new holding company, with LSEG investors holding 45.6%. Carsten Kengeter, chief executive of Deutsche Börse, will become head of the merged business, while Xavier Rolet, the LSE’s French-born chief, will step down, though he will remain with the company for a year after the deal closes as a consultant to the board. Donald Brydon, chairman of the LSE, will be chairman of the new business.

The hope is that their respective shareholders will give their collective blessing in early July after the UK’s referendum on its EU membership, and that the merger can be completed in the first quarter of 2017. While skeptics fear that differences in languages, computer systems and trading platforms could see shareholders’ cost savings evaporate, others think synergies could be leveraged. However, shareholder approval is only the first hurdle – they need agreement from no fewer than 20 authorities – some as far flung as the US, Russia and Singapore where the exchanges have operations.

There is no guarantee that that they will give their approval because of the combined company’s dominance in derivatives clearing, cash equities trading and listings. Four years ago, regulators stymied Deutsche Börse’s attempt to merge with NYSE Euronext because it would have created a near-monopoly on exchange-traded derivatives in Europe. There is already dissension by the French Finance Minister Michel Sapin and central bank Governor François Villeroy de Galhau arguing that the merger would create excessive concentration and an exchange that was too big to fail especially on the clearing front.

Competition authorities in general have taken a tougher stance, according to John Colley, a professor at Warwick Business School. “They remain to be convinced of this argument,” he says. “We are also seeing a trend in other industries such as chemicals and telecom where they are not approving deals and even when they do such as in AB InBev’s £71bn acquisition of SABMiller, it was contingent on AB InBev selling SABMiller’s entire beer business in Europe. There is a real risk that the LSE and Deutsche Börse will not go through.”

Spencer Mindlin, an analyst with consultancy Aite Group, adds, “Nationalism and exchange membership tend to want to keep their exchanges in their home markets for their own reasons. The flip side to this is that the general mood of the regulators globally seems to have shifted away from trying to stimulate competition towards market consolidation as reduced fragmentation makes it easier to surveil the markets. Exchanges like consolidation since they basically run a scale business.”

The axe would fall in London

There will also be political wranglings over job losses which are often an inevitable fact of mergers. In this case, 1250 people will lose their jobs from the E450m cost savings initiative proposed in their joint prospectus issued on 1 June. Although a LSE spokesperson said that this would be spread between the different locations, there are fears that London would feel the brunt due to stricter German employment legislation. In fact, Colley believes that the 1250 would mainly be in the UK’s capital, “and could be the first tranche because there will need to be greater savings and this will lead to substantial job losses.”

Deutsche Börse’s so-called works council is already up in arms about the proposed layoffs as well as the intention of having London as the headquarters. In a letter to the exchange, it not only demanded that Frankfurt be the base for at least 20 years, but also certain employee guarantees related to dismissal, retirement and severance. Deutsche Börse has over 5,200 staff globally while its London counterpart employs over 3,500 people in the UK, North America Italy, France and Sri Lanka.

The benefits of the deal have also been called into question. The prospectus points to revenue synergies of at least E250m annually in year five after completion and the efficiencies of having the FTSE, Russell and Stoxx indices sitting under one roof. “If you look at the cost savings I am not sure transaction costs will go down significantly but there will be savings for the larger banks in terms of connectivity and the rationalisation of protocols and infrastructure,” says Daniels. “However, the scale of that is difficult to predict and it might not be as impactful as some think.”

Herbie Skeete, managing director of Mondo Visione, also does not expect many advantages over the short term. “For example, I do not see market data fees, which are a big chunk of exchange revenues, to fall,” he says. “It will be interesting to see what happens with the FTSE, which is now a well-known global brand and whether they will keep it separate or merge it with Stoxx.”Be33-Web-29

As to clearing which many see as the linchpin of the deal, lines are also being drawn in the sand. On one side, there are the advantages of cross margining or netting opportunities but on the other there is criticism that the market would be too concentrated with LCH.Clearnet and Eurex handling a combined E150bn of client’s money.

“There is a misconception that combining the two clearinghouses would create an entity that would be too big to fail,” says Steve Grob, who is responsible for Fidessa’s strategic development. “They are already too big to fail. The issue is what is the best way to achieve the combination technically and to meet the internal politics? Clearing is what the deal hinges on and it is something everyone in the industry needs because of the higher capital requirements.”

Daniels also believes that they should integrate the two CCPs and not keep them separate as intended. “At the moment they plan to rationalise them but if you remove the political sensitivities it would make sense to have a single clearinghouse in order to gain the efficiencies. How you get there though is another issue.”

Further consolidation

If the deal is successful, the general consensus is that this will put an end to the mega exchange deal because further consolidation at the top end would surely not get the competition legislators’ nod. However, those in the mid and smaller end such as Nasdaq, Euronext and Bolsa de Madrid would feel the heat to either expand or focus on a niche area.

“I think it will happen but it will be a question of timing and smaller exchanges will have to reach a certain size before they become attractive,” says Mindlin. “In the meantime, M&A can be a distraction as they try and grow their market share, foster liquidity and look to increase their listings.”Be33-Web-30

Skeete also notes that the purchases may be different than in the past. “The landscape is changing because exchanges have moved away from the cash equities, fixed income and derivatives model and have become much broader,” he says. “We will see more deals outside these traditional businesses such as the ICE acquisition of Interactive Data last year.”

©BestExecution 2016[divider_to_top]

[divider_line]

Empowering the buyside : Louise Rowland

REBOOTING THE BUYSIDE.

The traditional split between the buyside and the sellside is blurring at the edges. Stringent new regulations and ongoing cost constraints are driving asset management firms to assume greater control of the trading process.

It’s a tipping of the scales that’s been underway for some time but will only intensify with the implementation of MiFID II in January 2018. This new directive places a weighty obligation on buyside firms not only to secure best execution – in terms of price, liquidity and transparency – but also to provide evidence that they are doing so to regulators and end investors. That in turn will require the capture and analysis of a far greater amount of data than ever before.

At the same time, squeezed margins and spiralling compliance costs mean that buyside players are looking to make economies wherever possible and to target far higher levels of operational efficiency.

One option for large asset management firms is to take the DIY route and build a sellside operation in-house within a buyside infrastructure, as Deutsche Asset Management has done.

For smaller and medium-sized firms, however, the option of investing substantial resources is neither practical nor affordable. Growing numbers are therefore taking a more à la carte approach, keeping some proprietary activities under their own roof, while putting out the rest to specialist outsourcing services.

The trading landscape is also continuing to evolve, with a rise in the number and variety of trading venues, as well as possible new instruments and markets. There are also likely to be new types of collaborative initiatives, such as Project Neptune, a platform created by 42 buyside and sellside firms to enhance liquidity supply.

A new era then for the buyside. But are firms ready and willing to embrace what lies ahead?

SHARING THE LOAD.

Paul Walker-Duncalf and Richard Lilley, Joint Managing Partners of Linear Outsourced Trading Ltd, explain the merits of a fully outsourced solution.

 Be33-Web-08

Is the empowerment of the buyside a new development?

From a trading perspective, the buyside has been empowered for some time. Most medium to large managers have a sophisticated array of proprietorial or broker-provided tools to aid execution. Those firms are also unbundled and have discretion to execute with a firm or in a venue to provide best execution rather than in order to pay for other services. Many smaller managers are not yet unbundled and so may not yet be empowered with the same discretion. That will change as we move towards the implementation of MiFID II.

What is the advantage of opting for a fully outsourced solution?

Where portfolio managers deal for themselves, the advantages of outsourced trading are improved quality of execution provided by experienced dealers, compliance with regulations and allowing portfolio managers to concentrate on adding alpha rather than being distracted by execution.

For those investment managers with a trading desk, outsourcing removes the cost of running the desk and replaces it with a variable one, as charges are only incurred when trading commissions are paid.

Traders in many buyside firms are not located with portfolio managers and, as trading has become increasingly electronic and commoditised, it doesn’t matter if it is remotely located.

The inevitable rise in electronic trading has meant that trading skills are being lost and in-house trading is not adding the value to justify the cost.

Any manager outsourcing should see the Linear Outsourced Trading desk as an extension of their own firm, offering a bespoke service and the level of contact they would expect with in-house dealers.

What is the profile of your client base?

Our business is most likely to appeal to smaller and medium sized asset managers which cannot afford the capital outlay and ongoing running costs of a trading desk.

Which activities are buyside firms most likely to outsource?

Many investment management functions other than front office have been outsourced. As asset managers attempt to control costs in a period of challenged performance and lower earnings, they are searching for other areas of cost reduction, including trading. Many portfolio managers perceive thatthe research service they receive from brokers will deteriorate if they outsource trading. With changes to the pricing of research and the unbundling of execution and research commissions being fully implemented across Europe under MiFID II, this concern should no longer be valid.

Where do the cost efficiencies of outsourcing lie?

The fully loaded cost of a buyside trader is independently estimated at £300k. In challenging times, this is a cost many asset managers simply cannot afford. Outsourcing transfers everything to a variable cost.

How do you see the outsourcing market developing?

We are seeing interest from clients in the outsourcing model and Linear has everything in place from trading, mid and back office and CSA capabilities to meet client demand.

THINKING BIG.

Mark Pumfrey, Head of EMEA, Liquidnet, explains how the trading network supports the buysideBe26_MPumfrey_Liquidnet

How will MiFID II affect the buyside trading desk?

MiFID II will introduce significant changes for the buyside, in particular in the areas of dark pool trading and the ‘unbundling’ of payments for research and execution. As the industry prepares for its implementation, we will see a rise in the use of execution-only venues and probably fewer but larger trades executed.

Research providers will also have to focus clearly on their unique selling point and the price they will charge. Full unbundling will assist asset managers to meet best execution obligations as they would be able to trade unencumbered by research commitments.

What are buyside firms doing to prepare?

Under the new rules, the buyside will need to understand what is happening with their order flow and forensically analyse execution data provided by their brokers to prove best execution. As a consequence, buyside firms are intensifying their scrutiny of their brokers and trading venues’ execution performance.

Where does Liquidnet fit into the trading ecosystem?

Liquidnet helps institutions protect the performance of their portfolios by allowing them to trade more efficiently – minimising market impact and maximising price improvement.

We are building a complete execution ecosystem for the buyside which includes matching blocks through our core negotiation product; seeking blocks by uncovering deeply hidden liquidity sources; and building blocks using our Next Gen algos and decision-making tools.

How can you address the problems of inefficiency in sales trading on the buyside?

Much of the current inefficiency results from buyside traders struggling to unlock liquidity. We enable institutional investors to find a match and execute within its own community, centralising institutional liquidity. Independent research from LiquidMetrix shows we deliver, on average, 90 basis points price improvement compared to volume-adjusted prices in lit markets at the time of trade. When investment returns are low, this can make a huge difference to the fund’s overall performance and return.

What kind of trading activity is the platform currently witnessing?

Liquidnet EMEA had its best ever first quarter performance in European equities this year and continues to see strong market share gains. As institutions gear up for MiFID II, where best execution is paramount and natural parent order block liquidity becomes even more valuable, we expect to see further strong growth in our core block business, Next Gen Algos and Fixed Income offering.

Will other initiatives arise in the marketplace?

Over the next few years we expect to see new venues, order types and systems being created to help solve some of the problems the industry is facing, but only those which offer value to investors will survive.

What is Liquidnet’s focus for the future?

We are continuously innovating and bringing new efficiencies to the market. Our focus in 2016 is to deliver what the buyside needs in equities and fixed income: tools that allow them to source block-trading opportunities, real-time data, and analytics to make smarter trading decisions.

©BestExecution 2016[divider_to_top]

[divider_line]

Empowering the buyside : Mark Pumfrey

THINKING BIG.

Mark Pumfrey, Head of EMEA, Liquidnet, explains how the trading network supports the buysideBe26_MPumfrey_Liquidnet

How will MiFID II affect the buyside trading desk?

MiFID II will introduce significant changes for the buyside, in particular in the areas of dark pool trading and the ‘unbundling’ of payments for research and execution. As the industry prepares for its implementation, we will see a rise in the use of execution-only venues and probably fewer but larger trades executed.

Research providers will also have to focus clearly on their unique selling point and the price they will charge. Full unbundling will assist asset managers to meet best execution obligations as they would be able to trade unencumbered by research commitments.

What are buyside firms doing to prepare?

Under the new rules, the buyside will need to understand what is happening with their order flow and forensically analyse execution data provided by their brokers to prove best execution. As a consequence, buyside firms are intensifying their scrutiny of their brokers and trading venues’ execution performance.

Where does Liquidnet fit into the trading ecosystem?

Liquidnet helps institutions protect the performance of their portfolios by allowing them to trade more efficiently – minimising market impact and maximising price improvement.

We are building a complete execution ecosystem for the buyside which includes matching blocks through our core negotiation product; seeking blocks by uncovering deeply hidden liquidity sources; and building blocks using our Next Gen algos and decision-making tools.

How can you address the problems of inefficiency in sales trading on the buyside?

Much of the current inefficiency results from buyside traders struggling to unlock liquidity. We enable institutional investors to find a match and execute within its own community, centralising institutional liquidity. Independent research from LiquidMetrix shows we deliver, on average, 90 basis points price improvement compared to volume-adjusted prices in lit markets at the time of trade. When investment returns are low, this can make a huge difference to the fund’s overall performance and return.

What kind of trading activity is the platform currently witnessing?

Liquidnet EMEA had its best ever first quarter performance in European equities this year and continues to see strong market share gains. As institutions gear up for MiFID II, where best execution is paramount and natural parent order block liquidity becomes even more valuable, we expect to see further strong growth in our core block business, Next Gen Algos and Fixed Income offering.

Will other initiatives arise in the marketplace?

Over the next few years we expect to see new venues, order types and systems being created to help solve some of the problems the industry is facing, but only those which offer value to investors will survive.

What is Liquidnet’s focus for the future?

We are continuously innovating and bringing new efficiencies to the market. Our focus in 2016 is to deliver what the buyside needs in equities and fixed income: tools that allow them to source block-trading opportunities, real-time data, and analytics to make smarter trading decisions.

©BestExecution 2016[divider_to_top]

[divider_line]

Empowering the buyside : Paul Walker-Duncalf & Richard Lilley

SHARING THE LOAD.

Paul Walker-Duncalf and Richard Lilley, Joint Managing Partners of Linear Outsourced Trading Ltd, explain the merits of a fully outsourced solution.

 Be33-Web-08

Is the empowerment of the buyside a new development?

From a trading perspective, the buyside has been empowered for some time. Most medium to large managers have a sophisticated array of proprietorial or broker-provided tools to aid execution. Those firms are also unbundled and have discretion to execute with a firm or in a venue to provide best execution rather than in order to pay for other services. Many smaller managers are not yet unbundled and so may not yet be empowered with the same discretion. That will change as we move towards the implementation of MiFID II.

What is the advantage of opting for a fully outsourced solution?

Where portfolio managers deal for themselves, the advantages of outsourced trading are improved quality of execution provided by experienced dealers, compliance with regulations and allowing portfolio managers to concentrate on adding alpha rather than being distracted by execution.

For those investment managers with a trading desk, outsourcing removes the cost of running the desk and replaces it with a variable one, as charges are only incurred when trading commissions are paid.

Traders in many buyside firms are not located with portfolio managers and, as trading has become increasingly electronic and commoditised, it doesn’t matter if it is remotely located.

The inevitable rise in electronic trading has meant that trading skills are being lost and in-house trading is not adding the value to justify the cost.

Any manager outsourcing should see the Linear Outsourced Trading desk as an extension of their own firm, offering a bespoke service and the level of contact they would expect with in-house dealers.

What is the profile of your client base?

Our business is most likely to appeal to smaller and medium sized asset managers which cannot afford the capital outlay and ongoing running costs of a trading desk.

Which activities are buyside firms most likely to outsource?

Many investment management functions other than front office have been outsourced. As asset managers attempt to control costs in a period of challenged performance and lower earnings, they are searching for other areas of cost reduction, including trading. Many portfolio managers perceive thatthe research service they receive from brokers will deteriorate if they outsource trading. With changes to the pricing of research and the unbundling of execution and research commissions being fully implemented across Europe under MiFID II, this concern should no longer be valid.

Where do the cost efficiencies of outsourcing lie?

The fully loaded cost of a buyside trader is independently estimated at £300k. In challenging times, this is a cost many asset managers simply cannot afford. Outsourcing transfers everything to a variable cost.

How do you see the outsourcing market developing?

We are seeing interest from clients in the outsourcing model and Linear has everything in place from trading, mid and back office and CSA capabilities to meet client demand.

©BestExecution 2016[divider_to_top]

[divider_line]

Buyside focus : Next generation algos : Chris Hall

A DEEP DIVE INTO DATA.

Chris Hall examines the algo strategies buyside firms are pursuing to enhance performance.

Algorithm performance analysis by buyside trading desks has reached new levels of precision and granularity in recent years. A combination of message standardisation, technology investment and improved analytical skills is enabling desks to wring greater levels of execution performance out of their suites of algorithms, and exert greater levels of control over the execution process.

There are at least three reasons for this intensifying focus on execution analytics. The first is a natural progression resulting from the increased ownership of the execution process by the buyside trader. Initially schedule-based, mechanistic labour-saving devices placed solely in the hands of sales traders, algorithms are now highly sophisticated, finely calibrated tools, easily available on the desktop. To wield such instruments effectively requires a deep level of understanding based on solid, evidence-based analytics.

Second, the lack of transparency over how brokers route orders to venues and how they manage potential conflicts of interest are still causing concern on the buyside in the aftermath of ‘Flash Boys’ and various dark pool scandals. The result is risk committees and other stakeholders are seeking reassurance that trading desks are monitoring executions effectively. Third, regulators are imposing new rules to a similar end, demanding that asset managers demonstrate they have the processes in place to deliver best execution consistently.

Regulatory drivers

With MiFID II’s best execution requirements on the horizon, State Street Global Advisors’ (SSGA) London-based EMEA trading desk has taken a key step forward by reviewing its use of algorithms, based on a framework of ongoing execution performance monitoring. The outcome was a reduction in the number of brokers used from 17 to 10 as well as types of algorithm from 25 to 8, leaving traders to select from a matrix of 80. This was considered a manageable number that could be used with confidence and fully understood by traders, in compliance with the impending regulation.

Be33-Web-12In addition, the firm conducted risk-adjusted execution performance analysis to create a league table that would be used to allocate business over the following six months. Algorithmic performance was analysed against the relevant volume weighted average price or implementation shortfall benchmarks.

SSGA is currently going through its second full six-month cycle of this performance analysis process, but will shift in July from the original table of 10 core brokers to three leagues of four. To ensure a sound basis for monitoring algorithm and broker performance, it utilises its own internal trade analytics capability, but also uses a single third-party transaction cost analysis (TCA) provider to analyse all executions. The asset manager consolidated its FIX connections with ostensibly one provider to enable analysis of FIX messages and time stamps on a like-for-like basis.

SSGA’s analysis has focused on differences between providers, for example, the percentage of passive fills per order, and the impact this has on overall performance. This is useful in its own right, but also increases the real-time understanding of the routing logic of brokers’ smart order routers (SORs) for specific strategy types. “If we can see differences between the executions achieved via different brokers, for example, in the amount of flow that is internalised, or from the proportion of resting executions on particular venues executed by a VWAP algo, then we’re in a better position to have an informed discussion with brokers about their performance and the routing logic of their SORs relative to their peers,” says Dale Brooksbank, head of European trading at SSGA.

Don’t delay

While MiFID II’s best execution requirements have been delayed, asset managers have been on notice to step up their game since the Financial Conduct Authority’s ‘Best execution and payment for order flow’ thematic review of 2014. Brooksbank, also chair of the buyside trading committee of the Investment Association says, “The FCA’s review made it very clear that asset managers need to have the level of understanding that enables them to hold brokers to account for the execution quality they provide. We need to be asking brokers to explain how they manage potential conflicts of interest and we can best do that by having rigorous independent analysis that allows us to understand how they select and route to venues. We’re seeing more conversations on these topics across the industry,”

He adds that the big leap forward for the buyside is the ability – enabled by the FIX trading protocol – to analyse the fills at the child order level in real-time and their contribution to the overall market impact of a trade. “Having this granular level of analysis is good for both the sell and the buyside in that it helps us to improve our knowledge and fuels ongoing dialogue around service improvement,” he says. “The improvement in buyside performance analysis stems in large part from increased investment in analytics capabilities by asset management firms, in parallel with a significant up-skilling on trading desks.”

Be33-Web-11Further innovation is afoot. At Principal Global Investors, Huw Gronow is in the midst of a project to generate more detailed analysis of equity trading outcomes in order to ensure alignment between the execution decisions of his London-based trading desk and the intent of the firm’s portfolio managers. As head of equity trading for Europe and Asia, Gronow recently helped to oversee the implementation of an upgraded order management system and is now mulling further technology investments to support more detailed analysis of equity trading performance.

“We’re looking to close the feedback loop between the portfolio management function and the trading desk in order to optimise the implementation process,” he says. “ As part of this initiative, we’re aiming to systematically extract data from the fields in the FIX messages generated by each child order.

While the project was initiated before MiFID II’s best execution requirements were firmed up, Gronow sees beneficial overlaps with upcoming compliance requirements. “Asset managers need to collect a great deal more execution data to provide the analysis required to meet best execution requirements under MiFID II. We’d hope our existing investment in analytics and compliance efforts will be mutually reinforcing,” he explains.

At an industry-wide level, Gronow suggests there is a growing impetus behind standardisation of execution performance analysis, driven in part by a desire across the buyside for closer scrutiny of SORs. As co-chair of the FIX Trading Community’s EMEA investment management sub-committee, Gronow is at the helm of a new push to standardise use of FIX across the buyside. “If we can achieve consistency in the information that is returned to the buyside via FIX messages we are in a much better position to compare execution outcomes, across venues, brokers, algorithms, etc,” he asserts.

Dig deeper

As the usage of execution algorithms extends from equities to derivatives, so does the demand for in-depth analytics. According to Yuriy Shterk, head of derivatives product management at Fidessa, fast followers at large investment institutions, including some insurance firms, are joining the quant-based early adopters of algorithms when trading listed derivatives, thus increasing the interest in analytics over the past 12-18 months.

Be33-Web-10“The concept of TCA is beginning to appear in listed derivatives. Increasingly, traditional equity houses are demanding the same level of analytics when trading futures and options,” says Shterk, whose firm launched a derivatives analytics service last year. “Demand depends on sophistication. Some firms want to benchmark the performance of algorithms and brokers to determine future order flow, others want to understand the results of an execution in more detail in order to improve future performance. The more advanced firms are looking to use the analytics to enable the algorithms to adapt to circumstances, such as changes in market direction or volume.”

©BestExecution 2016[divider_to_top]
[divider_line]

Data management : The rise of the CDO : Heather McKenzie

THE CHIEF DATA OFFICER COMES OF AGE.

Heather McKenzie explains why the CDO not only needs grounding in technology but also a business background.

A decade ago, global bank Citi was one of the early pioneers of the concept of the chief data officer (CDO) in financial services. The bank was faced with siloed legacy systems and outdated processes – challenges that many firms still face today. However, the US bank’s move to appoint John Bottega, who is now chairman of the Board of Directors of the Enterprise Data Management (EDM) Council, did not open the floodgates. CDOs are still a rare breed in the financial services industry.

If anything, the problems Citi was seeking to address have only become worse for many financial firms. At the same time regulators are seeking greater awareness from firms of their risk profiles, which requires a deep understanding and control of data.

In a May 2015 report, The Role of the Chief Data Officer in Financial Services, consultancy Capgemini stated: “For many if not most financial institutions today, the concept of an end to end information management programme has been an elusive dream. This is especially true with multi-line and multinational entities where individual business units or lines of business routinely operate in silos with only a thin veneer of shared services and standards in place across the enterprise.”

There were only a few instances of financial institutions that have taken up the challenge of end-to-end information management, said Capgemini. These firms did have a common element in that they recognised the need for “a leader who is empowered to be the steward and champion of the enterprise’s information”. CDOs are emerging in the financial industry as those leaders, said the consultancy.

Consultancy PWC also has been mulling the emergence of the CDO, publishing a report in February 2015, Great expectations: The evolution of the chief data officer. Such an individual, said the firm, is charged with establishing and maintaining data governance, quality, architecture and analytics. This will enable firms to harness information to manage risk and create revenue generating opportunities. “Approached correctly, the CDO role can create business value, help manage firm-wide risk, reduce cost and drive innovation by leveraging information as an asset,” said PWC.

Sitting at the top table

Steve Young, a principal at London-based investment management consultancy Citisoft, says there is “a lot of noise and activity” around data management and discussions regarding CDOs, but none of it is consistent. “One of the challenges around data management in the investment management industry is that there is no common methodology across the industry,” he says. “We increasingly see variations in where CDOs sit within a firm and what their responsibilities are.”

In order to be effective, says Young, a CDO must “be on the top table” of a firm. If a CDO reports into an operations or technology board member it will be more difficult for him or her to operate in a way that will be effective. “One of the main characteristics of the CDO role is that it bridges technology and the business. In siloed organisations, there is no ‘natural fit’ for a CDO, which is one of the reasons the role is being created. It requires a new skill set and a new team to address the many issues that data management creates,” he adds.

Marty Williams, vice-president reference data product management at Interactive Data, agrees: “A CDO needs to be at the board level in order to drive the data strategy throughout an organisation.” This raises an interesting question for very large firms, he adds, as they have to decide whether or not to appoint one global CDO or an “office of the CDO” that may involve more than one individual role as CDOs are appointed for each business line.

While much of the impetus towards appointing a CDO is driven by regulation (particularly the requirement that firms have a strong understanding of data across the enterprise), the ability to reap opportunities from data is another factor.

Capgemini believes a CDO should act as a catalyst for a firm’s development and implementation of an effective and business value-driven information management programme. It identifies a number of services, methodologies and capabilities that are required to extract value from data. These include “harvesting knowledge” for the enterprise. Put simply this means gathering information from disparate sources in a methodical manner.

“Finance, risk, marketing, HR and other group functions that are responsible for integrating information at a company-wide level, must have the ability to both rationalise information feeds they receive and readily understand the full depth and breadth of information that is being provided through those feeds. The rationalisation and integration process cannot even begin, however, if these central groups lack clarity about the information entering their systems, including: where it came from, why it came in, and how it is to be used. It is the obligation of the CDO to serve as the firm’s central knowledge coordinator and be able to answer these and other similar questions,” said the report.

A CDO should also “operationalise” best practice in data governance and stewardship methodologies. This requires the implementation of a consistent data governance and stewardship programme – often a daunting challenge given the distributed nature of data within an organisation. Operationalising a company-wide data governance programme, said Capgemini, is not the same as defining an organisational structure for a governance programme. An internal consulting function is required to enable multiple lines of business and organisations to adopt a consistent set of methodologies and best practices for data governance and stewardship.

A CDO must also set standards for regulatory compliance, data security and data retention. Another important function is to establish processes, methodologies, tools and best practices for data issue management and resolution.

Reading between the lines

Data can tell a firm a great deal about its customer base and also where its risks are, says Williams. “Having that information at your fingertips is very valuable and more and more firms are finding there is opportunity to be mined within their data,” he says. Data science, data analytics and big data are all disciplines that are growing as a result of this, he adds.

Young says most buyside firms want to unlock the value of the data they hold but it is challenging. Data has been acquired and resides in different technology stacks and is used for very specific tasks. The value of the CDO is that he or she can take the data and use it to provide business value, by for example giving better data to front office functions in a timelier manner.

Both Young and Williams believe a CDO must have a hybrid set of skills, spanning not only the technology but also the business of the firm. To date, many CDOs have had strong technology expertise but lack business acumen. As Williams notes, “Business skills are very important because in order to reap benefit from data an individual needs to have strategic thinking and the ability to execute on the firm’s business plan.”

The ability to deliver a return on investment is also critical, but is challenging as increasingly the expectation of returns is over a shorter time span than previously.

Young warns that although data governance is an important aspect of data management, individuals who are good at data governance are not necessarily the best CDO candidates. “Firms have approached data management from a governance angle, mainly because regulators urged this. However, my view is that people good at data governance are all about control and often are not good communicators or visionaries. Vision and communication are strong factors in being a successful CDO.”

©BestExecution 2016[divider_to_top]
[divider_line]

Profile : Julien Kasparian & Eric Roussel : BNP Paribas Securities Services

THE EVOLVING SECURITIES SERVICE LANDSCAPE.

Be33_BNPP-13-DPSJulien Kasparian (left), Head of UK Sales and Relationship Management, Banks and Brokers and Eric Roussel (right), Head of Clearing and Custody Solutions, BNP Paribas Securities Services assess the potential impact of MiFID II on their client base.

 

What has been the impact of MiFID I and what do you think will be the impact of MiFID II?

Julien Kasparian: With every piece of regulation there are challenges and opportunities and MiFID II will be the continuity of MiFID I in terms of best execution, greater transparency, reporting, pre and post trade obligations. What was unexpected though with MiFID I was the emergence of several alternative trading platforms and clearinghouses. Although the cost of execution fell, the level of investment in terms of technology and new order management systems rose. One question is whether the lower costs of execution offset the investment needed to connect to them.

Eric Roussel: Under MiFID II, I think on the equity side, the introduction of caps on dark pool trading will have an impact. I also believe there will be significant change on fixed income and OTC products because the regulation extends across all asset classes. There will be a move towards electronic platforms and more anonymous trading. Central counterparties will also play a much greater role in fixed income than before.

Has the delay had any impact for your clients?

Julien Kasparian: We have a wide client base and I think a big part of the marketplace was relieved. Some were happy because they saw MiFID II as a major challenge from an IT standpoint while others viewed it as a business model issue. For example, how do they position themselves in a world of unbundling research from execution? There was though another part of the market that wanted to show everyone that they would have been ready on the original deadline.

How will the clearing landscape change and what will the impact be on market participants?

Julien Kasparian: I think there will be less clearing members because of the capital requirements driven by Basel III, while overall demand for clearing will increase. Broker dealers and banks will not only have to handle greater volumes and face many more CCPs but also handle margin calls and manage collateral against exposures. This requires firms to be innovative and take a holistic view of their assets as well as have the ability to optimise the collateral, offer segregated accounts and be well connected to the different CCPs.

How has BNP Paribas responded to the changing environment? Has the firm had to develop new services or is this an evolution of the existing service and products?

Julien Kasparian: We have a long history in securities services with BNP Securities creating the business line in 1992 and then acquiring JPMorgan European direct custody & clearing in 1995. We spent the1990s as a local clearing and custody firm in each European market but in 2000 we acquired Paribas and two years later bought Cogent where we entered the UK. The growth has been significant and we have not stopped developing products since MiFID I.

One of the biggest changes is the increase in outsourcing. In the past, it was mainly buyside firms that wanted to outsource custody and then moved to back and middle office functions. Last year, we found that sellside firms were taking a much closer look at their operations to determine the return on investment and to outsource functions which were not considered part of their core competencies.

Are the sellside then following the buyside in the way they outsource?

Julien Kasparian: We have the assets under custody and increasingly clients are asking what else we can help them with since we manage those assets. Small and mid-sized brokers were the first to follow the buyside but now we are having discussions with major players who are looking to outsource more in their back and middle offices. This is because their legacy systems are obsolete and can’t cope with all the requirements and complexities of the new regulation.

Eric Roussel: However, there is no one size fits all solution because buy and sellside do not want to outsource everything to everyone. It will depend on the firm in terms of how far they will go. What we are doing is leveraging our platform and technology and building solutions that are customised to the client.

On the buyside, we think one of the biggest growth areas will be in collateral management because under the new regulations, they will have to post initial and variation margin more frequently. The big sellside firms want to keep this function in-house, since collateral management is mostly dealing with cash and they want to closely monitor how they keep, allocate and optimise their assets.

What type of solutions are the buyside looking for in terms of collateral management?

Eric Roussel: There are many different moving parts including valuation, optimisation, and transformation. We launched a suite of solutions called ‘Collateral Access’, as well as developed strategic partnerships with Clearstream and Euroclear in the tri-party collateral space. These services are alongside the middle office and focus on the automation and velocity of the collateral as well as the legal agreements and segregation. Tri-party will remain important but I am not sure the extent to which it will increase. At the moment, a large part of collateral being used is cash and tri-party arrangements mainly deal with securities.

Despite the Target2 Securities (T2S) gaining a significant amount of attention, it is unlikely to cause a major revolution – do you agree and what do you think its impact will be?

Eric Roussel: I think it is good news that T2S is live and at the end of 2017 all central securities depositories (CSDs) should be signed up. Monte Titoli, the Italian CSD, was three months late but it is important to look at T2S as a five to ten year project and if that is the case, three months is not a big deal. Everyone realised it would not be easy but it is already a success and in the end it will help manage cross border transactions and source intraday liquidity. We are seeing two different categories of clients – those that manage their liquidity directly with their own account at the central banks and others who prefer to outsource and rely on commercial bank money as the process of managing central bank money is complex.

Given all the changes how has the relationship between asset servicing firms and clients changed?

Julien Kasparian: Firms are looking for best in class when they outsource and although this period offers major transformational opportunities, we can’t afford to make a mistake. It is no longer about offering a plug in and out of a back office but we have moved more towards a partnership in that we are working together in providing the solutions.

Eric Roussel: During the past two years, we have never had so many conversations with clients. The main concern is how they can best cope with the regulations whether it be on collateral management or accessing liquidity. We are now designing solutions in coordination with our clients.

Biographies.

Julien Kasparian joined BNP Paribas Securities Services in August 1997, and is currently Head of UK Sales and Relationship Management, Banks and Brokers. He has held various management positions within clearing services, operations, product, and market infrastructure as well as sales and relationship management. Prior to joining BNP Paribas, Kasparian worked for the Central Bank of France as an account manager. He is a graduate of London Guildhall University and DUT GEA where he studied Business Economics & Strategic Management.

Eric Roussel is Head of Clearing and Custody Solutions at BNP Paribas Securities Services. He joined BNP Paribas CIB in 1997 at the IT department, to develop counterparty risk management solutions and after algorithmic trading. Previously, he held a trading COO position where he was responsible for business development for proprietary trading desks.

©BestExecution 2016[divider_to_top]

[divider_line]

Viewpoint : Henry Yegerman : LiquidMetrix

ADVERSE SELECTION IN TRADITIONAL MAKER-TAKER VERSUS INVERTED VENUES.

Be33-Web-33

By Henry Yegerman, Global Head of Business Development at LiquidMetrix.

Over the last few years political and regulatory pressures have dramatically reduced the use of maker-taker pricing models in Europe. In the US and Canada, there has also been significant criticism of payment for flow models which may distort market behaviour. However, in North America, their popularity as a commercial model for venues has not diminished. In maker-taker pricing models, venues charge fees and pay rebates based on order type in order to drive client trade flow to their venue. In its traditional form, “Takers” of liquidity are charged a “Taker Fee”. Providers of liquidity, who supply liquidity through non-marketable limit orders are given a “Maker Rebate”. The venue profits as the taker fee exceeds the maker rebate. This original formulation of the maker-taker fee model does have the drawback that it increases the cost to brokers of executing marketable orders. In response, some venues have attempted to drive further client trade flow to themselves by turning the commercial model on its head. In this incarnation of taker-maker, those who add liquidity (i.e. makers) are charged a fee while liquidity takers receive a rebate. These venues are referred to as “inverted” as opposed to the markets that use the “traditional” maker-taker model.

Much of the criticism of the maker-taker model relates to its potential conflict with best execution. In the United States, the Order Protection Rule stipulates that a trade must be done at the venue with the best price, however, there is no specification of trade priority when multiple venues have the same price. The potential for conflict arises as brokers may be incentivised to make routing decisions based on maximising revenue through rebates rather than considering other factors that provide best execution for the client such as probability of execution or execution speed.

The focus here is not on the broader best execution issue of whether maker-taker models distort the market. Instead, we look at the narrower question of comparing traditional to inverted venues and focus on one specific aspect of execution quality, namely whether there are discernable differences in the amount of information leakage between traditional versus inverted maker-taker venues.

We use an aggregated, anonymised LiquidMetrix dataset with fill data from multiple venues. The executions are divided into two groups: (1) Lit venues using the traditional maker-taker model; and (2) Lit venues using an inverted maker-taker model. We control for stocks with different levels of liquidity by dividing the executions into three different spread groups: 0-10 bps (most liquid); 10-20 bps; and where the spread is greater than 20 bps (least liquid). We also constrain the analysis by using FIX Tag 851 to separately measure trades intending to add or replace liquidity. To measure potential adverse selection we examine the price movement in basis points of the stocks traded on both types of venues across a short-term time horizon.

Our data indicates that for both adding and removing liquidity, there is no significant difference between traditional maker-taker and inverted venues with respect to information leakage. We look at two charts, one for executions that “add” liquidity and the other for trades that “remove” liquidity and use “Absolute Price Movement (in basis points)” as our metric to measure potential adverse selection. The absolute price movement is the weighted average of the movement in the mid-price of the stock (in basis points) occurring from execution time to the next point in time being measured. For example, an absolute price movement of 1.5 bps at 500 milliseconds on the chart means that the stocks on average moved 1.5 bps (in either direction) 500 milliseconds after the execution.

Be33-Web-34

Figure 1 looks at those executions adding liquidity, where we see that the largest price movement is actually on traditional maker-taker venues for larger spread stocks. In general, we see that executions with wider spreads exhibit larger absolute price movements, but this is not particularly associated with either traditional or inverted venues.

When we look at executions that remove liquidity, we see a slightly different story.

In Figure 2, where we examine removing liquidity, the absolute price movement is approximately the same for both inverted and traditional maker-taker venues for larger spread stocks. For stocks trading with narrower spreads, there is no significant difference between the two types of venues.

We have attempted here to identify whether there are discernable differences in information leakage between traditional maker-taker versus inverted venues. Our results indicate no significant difference in absolute price movement for the sets of executions traded on inverted and traditional maker-taker venues. The size of the spread tends to be more closely correlated with potential information leakage. But, for the most part, both types of venues perform similarly relative to a given spread size.

It should be noted that although we controlled for spread size, there are many other factors such as the trading strategy and order types being used, which can influence the information leakage associated with different venues. Nonetheless, it should be viewed as positive news to those who route orders to inverted venues that there appears to be no additional leakage associated with their usage.

©BestExecution 2016[divider_to_top]

[divider_line]

News review

DEUTSCHE BÖRSE TAKES THE FINTECH PLUNGE.

Deutsche Börse, Europe’s largest exchanges operator, is to enter the fintech fray with the creation of a new venture capital fund – DB1 Venture – targeting investments in the emerging technology in capital markets.

Be33-Web-04The five-strong venture team, led by Ankur Kamalia, a managing director and head of venture portfolio management at Deutsche Börse, will be mainly based in Frankfurt although it will probably have a European and US markets focus.

The remit is to back companies that fall into five fintech sectors of interest. These include market infrastructure providers, such as trading platforms; companies that help to digitise post-trade services, such as blockchain startups; big data and analytics firms; alternative funding platforms; and companies offering technology that helps with the decision-making process when investing.

The division’s investment committee will be chaired by Deutsche Börse’s chief executive Carsten Kengeter who has said that “the future exchange and market infrastructure organisation will have a larger responsibility in fostering growth and innovation throughout financial markets. Technology is at the core of our business, so partnering with innovative fintech firms that are relevant for our clients is an absolute priority for us.”

The exchange operator said that the new investment structure will enable it to make proactive investment decisions across the entire group, whereas previously investments were made by different divisions. It will be a less opportunistic and more institutionalised way of investing. In other words, investments will only be made in areas that are strategic to the group.

Deutsche Börse has already made minority investments in young companies – most recently in the blockchain startup Digital Asset Holdings and GMEX, and a venture to trade capacity for cloud computing, as well as a trade repository it runs with Spain’s Bolsas y Mercados Españoles (BME).

Since Kengeter’s arrival a year ago, it has begun to restructure its portfolio, selling off a 50% stake in Infobolsa, a data provider, to the BME for E8.2m.

The German exchange is one of a growing number of large financial institutions looking to step up its collaboration with fintech startups through initiatives. Venture capital-backed fintech companies are among the most popular having raised $14.4bn of financing last year – almost double the previous year – according to a report from KPMG International and CB Insights.

Rival CME Group has a similar division called CME Ventures, which is run out of the US and was also a backer in Digital Asset Holdings. Banks including Santander, HSBC and Commerzbank have also backed startups through dedicated teams.

Kengeter said in a statement: “Our objective with DB1 Ventures is to continue to be active in investing in early to growth stage ventures which are core or adjacent to our client, product, geographic and technology strategy. And as part of our active management, we will also deepen and extend promising partnerships with some of our current portfolio companies.”

Deutsche Börse is planning to merge with the London Stock Exchange in a E20bn deal.

Viewpoint : Marco Baggioli : ADS Securities

FX CREDIT GAP – TIME TO ACT.

Tighter regulation, reduced risk appetite and the decline in the number of prime brokers (PBs) has affected an estimated 25% of global FX volume, according to ADS Securities. The loss of available trading lines is leading to reduced trading, wider spreads, higher prices and increased foreign currency exposure for many participants, as Marco Baggioli, COO at ADS Securities, explains.

Be33-Web-32

Unless PBs, brokerages and institutions start working together to address this issue, the loss of credit lines will have a long-term impact on the FX industry. As active industry participants we are very aware of the tightening in the market. Our research has shown that there has been around a US$1.3tn drop in available credit in the last eighteen months. The recent Euromoney annual institutional investor survey found that trading volumes have fallen by 23 per cent as big banks lost market share.

Eighteen months ago there were over a dozen FX prime brokers and now we are down to six main specialist players – BNP Paribas, Citibank, JPMorgan, RBS, UBS and Deutsche Bank. The others are no longer committed to providing a full-service FX offering and if they stayed in the business, they now have a much narrower focus on specific multi-asset-class clients. They have decided that the risk vs. returns make this area of business unprofitable for them and have transferred resources – mainly capital – to other areas that have less risk and greater potential returns.

The remaining PBs have also adapted their business models to the changed world we operate in. More and more they are only looking to work with tier one clients by introducing higher capital and entry requirements as well as minimum fees to satisfy a much reduced credit and risk appetite and higher costs. It may feel as though it is a distant memory but in fact less than two years ago PBs would compete to provide their services. Brokerages from the small to the large would expect to be offered a PB option by at least two or more different banks. For most of these firms those days have gone.

Two years ago an agency broker with US$5million in paid in capital might have been able to access even the largest FXPBs. But today the same PBs will expect to see capital of around US$50-75 million before they engage in any conversation, which is why there is such a shortage of credit in the market. Some smaller firms may be able to trade bilaterally with each liquidity provider and post margin accordingly, but this approach has a lot of limitations, including netting of risk inefficient margin requirements and operational costs. So, at the moment the situation is unworkable for start-up hedge funds or those whose assets under management or capital do not make the cut with the FXPBs.

The change in the markets can be traced back to the Swiss National Bank de-pegging of the CHF from the euro on the 15th January 2015. This day will be remembered by all FX traders. The SNB may have been the trigger, but the reality is that the change was going to happen regardless and the SNB possibly accelerated the pace. The FX market is extremely large and is now based around very high tech sophisticated trading algorithms and because of this any significant market events cause rapid and uncontrollable changes to prices. This opens PBs up to extremely high levels of risk – risk which in the climate of increased controls and greater regulation, they cannot take on, especially when they only receive a few dollars per million traded.

So what needs to happen, what is the answer? We see the solution coming from within the industry. The FX market evolves very quickly. We have seen the development of very fast, low latency machines, we then moved to the development of sophisticated liquidity aggregation platforms, which use both bank and non-bank flows. But none of these solutions is, or can be, effective if the necessary credit lines to back the trading are not in place. Our view is that some of the immediate issues can be addressed by a true prime-of-prime model.

Prime-of-Prime is effectively a credit intermediation service mirroring what the traditional PBs offer to their selective client base. There are a number of brokerages which already provide a principal trading product. A principal trading account has a lot of benefits for clients who do not have an FXPB and need additional credit lines to access liquidity. The account means that they can trade bilaterally without PB fees, even placing small ticket sizes, which a PB would not want to handle and with no minimum monthly fees. The limitation is that you can only trade on the undisclosed liquidity provided by the brokerage offering the principal trading facility. At ADS Securities we offer undisclosed access to the top LPs and best liquidity through NY4, LD4 and TY3, but many clients want to trade using their own disclosed liquidity and relationships.

For these clients our prime-of-prime (PoP) is the perfect solution. They can execute anywhere in the market using their external liquidity. Our PoP clients – typically hedge funds, banks, family offices or brokerages – can access the credit lines and liquidity they need and maintain direct relationships with their providers. We provide them with the credit backing and all back end processing, including risk netting and margin optimisation.

So, this is our selling point. ADS Securities can offer a true PB service under a PoP set up because we are very well capitalised and have access to some of the largest NOP lines in the brokerage industry. Our track record and history with the PBs allows us to act as a true credit intermediary in the market. We sit between the PB and the trades and take on the counterparty risk. As more brokerages like us offer this level of service some of the credit gap will be filled.

Even before the SNB event it was clear that PBs were taking on risk and not being paid for the credit they were providing. This scenario always had to change if, as we estimate, there has been a reduction in available credit affecting up to of US$1.3tn in daily volume.

However, if large and well-capitalised brokerages are willing to take on some of this risk and sit between the clients and the PBs, this is a very good way of increasing available credit. Large brokerages help smaller market participants and support the work of the FX-prime brokers. There are also additional benefits in that the sign-up process for PoP is a lot quicker than getting PB agreements in place with larger banks.

We do believe this is one way that the decline in credit lines and volumes can be reversed and the industry can work together to grow the market. Prime-of-Prime may not be a new concept but it is now a product which is becoming an essential component of the global FX market.

©BestExecution 2016[divider_to_top]

[divider_line]

 

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