Single-Dealer Platforms | SingleDealerPlatforms.Org

Phased approach delivers rapid tech benefits

Posted on July 2, 2018 by James Cusack

In an environment where technology is constantly evolving and customer preferences can change rapidly, Caplin’s agile approach to project development enables banks to see a rapid return on their investment.

The banking sector has a patchy record at best when it comes to implementing major technology projects. Despite massive expenditure on hardware, software and consultancy – research from Celent suggests that European banks alone spent more than $70bn on software and information technology in 2017 – institutions are often left unsatisfied with the end result.

Lengthy implementation cycles are a significant factor in banks’ dissatisfaction with large scale projects, which is why Caplin’s preferred engagement model is to start small with a ‘lite’ proof of concept and analysis phase. This is commercially less risky than a full project while allowing for planning of the ‘main event’ and leaving the customer with working software and collateral that they can show around the organisation and use to build support for the larger project.

Agile software development is not a new concept. The agile ‘manifesto’ was written in 2001 by a group of developers who suggested that producing working software was more important than creating mountains of documentation and that vendors should prioritise customer collaboration and the ability to respond to change.

This approach allows new products to be brought to market more quickly and scaled more rapidly than under conventional development processes. Our projects are delivered in two-weekly ‘sprints’ with tight feedback loops for each cycle, which enable us to quickly identify what is working well and build on the elements of the project that are meeting the client’s objectives.

The agile approach to development has been implemented across trading markets, enabling banks to test new products and get them in front of their customers in as little as a few weeks. Because the process is completed in such a short timeframe it is possible to demonstrate value very quickly.

The key here is to focus on the highest value functions that need to be delivered. In many cases developers are asked to work on multiple projects simultaneously, even though the reality is that they will only ever be able to deliver a small fraction of these projects to completion.

Another benefit for banks in adopting an agile approach is that they can quickly adapt the development process to reflect feedback from customers and react more rapidly to changes in the regulatory environment.

This is vital in fast-moving markets where an application could be effectively redundant by the time it goes through the conventional development process – too much forward planning doesn’t always work!

Filed under: Agile, Customer experience, DevOps, FX, Single-Dealer Platforms, Technology Trends, Web trading technology | Leave a comment »

Mobile trading on the move says survey

Posted on April 5, 2018 by James Cusack

After some unexpected results in 2017, the latest survey of FX traders conducted by JP Morgan reveals a level of enthusiasm for mobile trading that more accurately reflects what we have seen in the field over the last number of years.

JP Morgan has been in the vanguard of mobile FX trading. In that context, the findings of its 2017 survey – most notably, that fewer than one in three (31%) of FX traders were likely to use a mobile trading app – were surprising, particularly when stacked up against feedback from our inaugural FX survey.

Our research underlined the fact that retail banking is far ahead of corporate and institutional banking in terms of using mobile app trading services to reduce the burden on hard-pressed sales teams, with most banks citing regulatory and compliance issues as the major obstacle to the adoption of the technology.

However, the survey showed that the buy-side wants to go mobile and that the sell-side may be underestimating this appetite. We found that while most buy-side firms believed market participants were already demanding the ability to view and manage orders on their mobile, the majority of sell-side firms believed that demand would not reach this level for a number of years.

Data from JP Morgan’s 2018 survey is more in line with our experience, with the number of traders expecting to use a mobile trading app more than doubling over the last 12 months. Almost two thirds (61%) now say they are either ‘extremely likely’ or ‘somewhat likely’ to use a mobile trading app this year. This figure is significant given that 34% of the traders surveyed said their company policy prevents any mobile use.

Much is made of the perceived security and compliance concerns of mobile trading, but the reality is that trading through a phone app and trading remotely on a laptop are no different from a security perspective. Indeed, security and compliance concerns have forced mobile trading solutions to be even more secure.

The effective implementation of mobile management systems requires mobile users in most firms to use secure passcodes to access their phones and secure login to an app using two-factor authentication provides additional assurance. Misplaced devices can be remotely wiped and mechanisms such as authentication patterns at the point of execution have largely eliminated unauthorised trading and errors.

The key feature of mobile trading is undoubtedly usability – clients that prioritise advanced features and extremely competitive pricing are more likely to be drawn to multi-dealer channels or complex desktop offerings.

The mobile experience is much more about making trading easy and convenient and building brand loyalty with corporate clients. Native notifications are also useful, helping clients stay on top of their positions and reducing the need for bank sales teams to call clients to let them know their orders have filled.

Filed under: FX, Mobile, Single-Dealer Platforms, User Experience (UX), Web trading technology | 1 Comment »

The positive side of MiFID II

Posted on March 1, 2018 by James Cusack

Most of the discussion around MiFID II in an FX context has been pitched in fairly negative terms – yet the industry has much to gain from the clarity the directive will bring to the trading process.

It is understandable that some market participants have viewed the implementation of the new rules with trepidation given that they are required to provide a greater degree of detail around their trade execution.

However, it is also understandable that traders want to see the same level of transparency in FX that they see in equity or fixed income trading.

We have seen that banks are using MiFID II to improve transparency around the FX trading process. By reporting on price construction and displaying cost to the client, the sales desk ‘owns’ this P+L to a greater extent.

This is significant because banks are facing unprecedented pressure on costs. Margins are shrinking and as a result headcount is falling, so it is vitally important for FX sales desks to be able to justify their existence.

One of the most effective means of underlining their importance is to improve efficiency. This can be achieved by getting clients to self-serve but having a management information system to demonstrate value and proactivity in increasing margin/wallet share.

That means client trades can be attributed even if they are done on a self-service basis, increasing the visibility of eFX across the investment banking arm by highlighting the profitability of the sales desk relative to its modest headcount.

Intelligent institutions are overcoming budgetary constraints, using the compliance budgets allocated to MiFID II to re-tool existing systems to the overall benefit of the user.

In conjunction with the Global Code of Conduct, MiFID II has also created a more level playing field within the FX industry. The ability to demonstrate full compliance is vital to maintaining market credibility and will also serve to limit the impact of firms who have used technology to distort the market.

Filed under: MiFID II, Regulation, Single-Dealer Platforms, Web trading technology | Leave a comment »

Electronic trading in fixed income markets: report by BIS (Bank of intl settlements) – worth reading!

Posted on February 25, 2016 by Paul Blank

An interesting report (well worth reading), published in January by The BIS (Bank of international settlements), looks at the impact of ‘electronification’ of the fixed income markets. The report was based on structured interviews with market participants, and a survey of electronic trading platforms.

It argues that advances in technology and regulatory changes have significantly affected the economics of intermediation in fixed income markets and that electronification is changing the behaviour of investors. The rise of electronic trading is creating efficiencies for many market participants, improving market quality in normal times, lowering transaction costs and reducing market segmentation, while at the same time Continue reading →

Filed under: Corporate Bonds, OTC, Regulation, Single-Dealer Platforms, Survey Results | Leave a comment »

Future of Single-Dealer Platforms: SIs, MTFs or OTFs?

Posted on February 18, 2016 by Paul Blank

An excellent article in Risk.net covered also in FXWeek, looks at the future of Single-Dealer Platforms under MiFID II and discusses the options for bank platforms.

Should they register as:

Systematic Internalisers (SIs), which enables them to utlilise their own risk capital and trade on bilateral basis with customers
Organised Trading Facilities (OTFs), in which case they cannot use their own capital, and would in effect be running an agency business, but cannot run both an SI adn OTF under the same legal entity
Multilateral Trading Facility (MTF), which offers all to all trading

Initially, the SI regime seems obvious, as they can deploy their own capital, and trade with clients on a bilateral basis, which is what most SDPs currently do.

The test for an SI is that it Continue reading →

Filed under: FX, MiFID II, OTC, OTF, Regulation, Single-Dealer Platforms | 1 Comment »

Interesting Celent report on future of Spot FX trading technology & platforms

Posted on January 2, 2016 by Paul Blank

Just finished reviewing an interesting Celent report by Brad Bailey, on evolving spot FX market structure and technology trends in light of changes in global regulation, a blurring of traditional liquidity pools and the ongoing competitive landscape.

Brad touches on a number of the themes we have covered here over the year, but it’s always good to have someone else’s perspective on them.

The themes covered being: Continue reading →

Filed under: FX, MDP, OTC, Paul Blank, Regulation, Single-Dealer Platforms, Survey Results, Technology Trends | 1 Comment »

Buyside to start paying for research under MiFID II

Posted on November 8, 2015 by Paul Blank

The introduction of MiFID II regulations around Transparency, BestEx and Inducements will change the relationship between buyside firms such as asset managers , and the sellside banks and brokers who service these clients (although non-financial clients such as corporates will be excluded). In particular, the regulations will lead to the ‘unbundling’ of research from execution, and the effect will fundamentally change the way in which buyside firms pay for, and consume research across all asset classes.

Traditionally, buyside firms have ‘paid’ for research through a Commission Sharing Agreement (CSA), whereby the executing broker would ‘retain’ a portion of the commission paid for the trade to use to pay for external research and other services for the client. Buyside fund managers would typically allocate commission attributable to research on the basis of ‘broker voting’. However, this was seen by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) (and more recently here) as an inducement to trade, as it could encourage buyside firms to over-trade in order to gain larger share of research budget, rather than considering value for money.

Under MiFID II, the rules on inducements and paying for Continue reading →

Filed under: Paul Blank, Regulation, Research, Single-Dealer Platforms | Leave a comment »

Inviting expert guest contributors to SingleDealerPlatforms blog

Posted on October 26, 2015 by Paul Blank

Dear Readers,

The SingleDealerPlatforms.org blog is nearly six years old. During that time, it has built a loyal and focused following, by providing insight into the dealer-to-client e-trading space. Exploring new trends and emerging opportunities, and looking at the business, technical and regulatory challenges facing participants.

Given the focus, it’s not surprising the blog is popular within banks. Actually, over Continue reading →

Filed under: Paul Blank, Regulation, Single-Dealer Platforms, Survey Results | Leave a comment »

LMAX FX report: Restoring trust in global FX markets (well worth reading)

Posted on October 20, 2015 by Paul Blank

Just finished reading a new report and survey from exchange operator LMAX, called “Restoring trust in global FX markets – Striking a balance between transparency and efficiency”.

It’s detailed, with lots of charts and tables and expert opinions, and covers much ground, including topics explored in recent posts around transparency, the FEMR report, and the issue of last look and more.

David Mercer, CEO of LMAX starts by stating:

Liquidity providers (LPs) and market makers need to be rewarded for the risks they take, and in order to enjoy the benefits of transparent price discovery and firm liquidity, customers must meet the costs of the service provided. Fair execution must come at a fair price, and transparency cannot come at the cost of destroying liquidity provision.

Customers have benefited from new technology, with spread compression and lower commissions. However, traditional LPs have had to invest heavily in technology to support globally distributed client base, whilst facing ever more sophisticated buy-side customers and smaller, more naturally agile competitors in the realm of liquidity provision (ie: non-bank market makers).

Mercer, adds that there is much that LPs can learn from these new entrants, including:

elements of exchange-style trading that create a fairer trading environment.

Proposals currently being considered to enhance transparency in the FX market risk disadvantaging Continue reading →

Filed under: FX, OTC, Paul Blank, Regulation, Single-Dealer Platforms, Survey Results | Leave a comment »

Moving legacy SDPs to HTML5 (in stages)

Posted on September 19, 2015 by Paul Blank

Given the ubiquitous ‘write once, deploy anywhere’ nature of HTML5, it’s not surprising that almost all new Single-Dealer Platforms (SDPs) are being written in HTML5.

The trend started a while back, and in his 2013 white paper, HTML5 in 2013: Where Next? (2^nd one in the list), Patrick Myles, Caplin CTO identified three key reasons why everyone was moving to HTML5:

The move to cloud delivered services and Internet distributed applications has driven the need for lightweight, access-anywhere GUIs.
Apple and Google have embraced HTML5 as the future, building new-generation browsers themselves for the first time.
The drive to mobile and tablets, and the desire to re-use apps and code across platforms

Although, as Myles pointed out, there are challenges with HTML5, as it lacked many of the enterprise development features and tooling that developers expect and need to efficiently build large-scale, maintainable apps. It’s still evolving, meaning not all features are universally supported. Continue reading →

Filed under: Single-Dealer Platforms, Technology Trends, Web trading technology | Leave a comment »

SingleDealerPlatforms.Org

Subscribe

Log in