FiNETIK – Asia and Latin America – Market News Network

Asia and Latin America News Network focusing on Financial Markets, Energy, Environment, Commodity and Risk, Trading and Data Management

Derivatives: Struggling Into the New Era – Outlook 2013/14

The past few years have been challenging for the global economy but it seems as though the derivatives industry sustained more than its share of insults and injuries over the past year or so. Still reeling from the trauma of MF Global in October of 2011, exchange-traded volume went into its first nosedive in decades.

Urgent regulatory requirements added intense cost and time pressures to company staffs that were already stretched. A non-clearing FCM, Peregrine Financial, collapsed in scandal. OTC derivatives struggled with complex regulatory mandates and weak volume.

Perhaps the only positive for the year was that mergers and acquisitions at both the macro and micro level imply that innovation and creativity are still powerful industry drivers. That in turn suggests that the creative dynamism that has characterized the derivatives industry for so many years still has some innings to go.

Read the detailed report about Derivatives market outlook, challenges and issue of big deals, exchange mergers and new start ups, customer protection, Regulatory,Extraterritorial and Tax problems  and more. 

Source: WEF 25.04.2013 by Nicolas Ronalds

Advertisements

Filed under: Asia, Brazil, Exchanges, Risk Management, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Dark Pools in Danger ?

Increasing regulatory supervision and calls for transparency on one side and  the threaten proliferation of “unregulated and opaque”  Dark Pool and crossing networks by large institutions, have increased the calls by exchanges and exchange federations to review regulation and even ban them.

While the global debate is in full swing, China has clearly distance it self from any alternative trading venues in the country and prohibited the access to any “non-transparent” trading venues like dark pools for it’s QDII (Qualified Domestic Institutional Investors).

Below Article highlight the current trends and voices

SEC to extend probe into dark pools 09.10.2009

The Securities and Exchange Commission is to extend its regulatory probing of dark pools to include issues surrounding high frequency trading, direct market access and co-location.

What’s the Matter with Dark Pools, 02.10.2009

Dark pools are on the regulatory front burner. They’re seen as competing with the displayed markets, even as they’ve captured a segment of trading from the desks of broker-dealers’ upstairs.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is now bearing down on issues related to trading in dark pools and how much flow can execute in individual pools without triggering obligations to the rest of the marketplace. To provide some perspective on this broader discussion….

LSE and Turquoise an Item: Official, 01.10.2009

When we suggested here a few weeks back that the London Stock Exchange take a look at on-the-block Turquoise as a possible solution to its ‘TradElect problem’ it was slightly tongue in cheek. After all, we knew the LSE was in talks with MillenniumIT and it looked on paper as if an approach to Turquoise would amount to the exchange losing face to an upstart rival.

Dark Pools 2009: Not So Dark Anymore AITE Group, 30.09.2009

Only two things about dark pools are clear at this time: their overall market share continues to grow, and regulatory intervention appears inevitable.

London Stock Exchange to leave FESE  30.09.2009

But the move is a sign that a recent criticism by some of the world’s largest exchanges of the large banks’ off-exchange activities is not shared by some exchanges, which see their interests increasingly aligned with those same banks.

n a letter to Eddy Wymeersch, chairman of the Committee of European Securities Regulators, Ms Hardt said FESE believed the banks’ dark pools were “unregulated venues” operating with “full opacity”. The European equities market was “becoming a dealer market”.

Chi-X Global alleges ‘fear card’ move by ASX 30.09.2009

The head of Chi-X Global, the equities trading platform, on Wednesday accused the Australian Securities Ex­change of playing the “fear card” after the exchange’s chairman spoke of the dangers of allowing multiple share trading venues.

New ideas fail to lift mood over dark pools 24.09.2009

Yet even as dark pools continue to generate eye-catching ideas, controversy is raging over their very existence. In Europe, the issue is pitting exchanges against big banks in a new battle over control of billions of dollars in share trading orders.

Exchanges call on G20 to tackle dark pools 23.09.2009

The World Federation of Exchanges (WFE) has urged G20 leaders to press for market reform to tackle the uneven playing field and eroded price discovery it claims has been caused by the emergence of alternative trading platforms such as dark pools.

In a letter sent to Mario Draghi, head of the financial stability board at the Bank for International Settlements ahead of the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, the WFE calls for more uniform rules between exchange-traded and “less-regulated” markets.

The WFE warns: “The heightened opacity of certain market operations in many countries inhibits price discovery and may lead to negative outcomes, such as increased volatility.”

“Taken together, the combination of the absence of a level playing field between execution venues and decreased market transparency is an unsettling development,” says the letter, signed by William Brodsky, chairman of the WFE.

The exchanges call on G20 leaders to agree on ways to avoid “regulatory arbitrage” to ensure market participants do not just go to countries with weak rules.

Source: Finetik, 01.10.2009

Filed under: Australia, Exchanges, FiNETIK Articles, Japan, News, Risk Management, Trading Technology, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Dark Pools:New ideas fail to lift mood over dark pools

This week, Liquidnet, a US operator of “dark pools”, unveiled the latest device to emerge in European share trading, which it called “Supernatural”.

The company claims it will help European fund managers increase their chances of finding matches for large blocks of shares in Liquidnet’s dark pool by linking it up with other exchanges, brokers and alternative trading platforms such as Chi-X Europe.

Yet even as dark pools continue to generate eye-catching ideas, controversy is raging over their very existence. In Europe, the issue is pitting exchanges against big banks in a new battle over control of billions of dollars in share trading orders.

Dark pools allow the matching of large blocks of shares without prices being revealed until after trades are completed. Regulators on both sides of the Atlantic are studying them amid questions over their transparency.

Dark pools are not only run by companies such as Liquidnet; they are also operated by banks’ trading arms and exchanges. They have grown rapidly since first appearing in the US in the late 1990s, with at least 15 in existence in Europe.

The exchanges have launched an attack on the proliferation in Europe of pools run by the banks – such as Goldman Sachs, Credit Suiss, and Morgan Stanly – arguing they are operating outside the view of European regulators. 

Mifid launched competition in European share trading in 2007, leading to an explosion of new type of trading venues.

The Federation of European Securities Exchanges, whose members include Deutsche Börse  and Euronext , wrote this week to the Committee of European Securities Regulators in Paris, claiming banks’ dark pools were “unregulated venues” operating with “full opacity”.

It said that under Mifid, crossing networks were supposed to register under certain formal categories that would subject them to the same market surveillance and price reporting requirements as exchanges.

Yet many were not, FESE claims. “Practically all of this trading is outside the realm of European rules and thus beyond the reach of supervisors,” wrote Judith Hardt, FESE secretary general, in the letter to CESR chairman Eddy Wymeersch, a copy of which was obtained by the Financial Times. “As a result, more trades are being executed away from the public view, without interacting with other orders, and at prices that may not be optimal for clients.”

She argued that European equity markets “are becoming a dealer market”.

The banks are furious. They see the FESE move as exchanges exploiting post-crisis concerns over off-exchange markets to persuade policymakers of the benefits of channelling trading of stocks through regulated exchanges.

Dark pool trading accounts for about 4 per cent of all trading in Europe, according to consultancy Tabb Group. But it is growing, and with the proliferation of the types of “dark” trading venue unleashed by Mifid, bankers say exchanges fear trading could shift further away from them. “The exchanges are opportunistic, fear-mongering. And it’s pretty clear why: commercial interest,” says one.

The banks reject the notion that their crossing networks are unregulated, pointing out that broker-dealers are already regulated, and the banks’ clients – such as money managers – are regulated.

They also argue that their dark pools perform a legitimate function at a time when large orders are increasingly hard to execute on exchanges as complex electronic trading strategies slice orders into smaller and smaller sizes.

They reject the FESE view that investors are at a disadvantage by the alleged “opacity” of bank dark pools. They say that many of the block trades being carried out in them are placed by the banks’ asset manager clients, which in turn are handling funds placed with them by millions of ordinary investors.

The problem, industry experts say, lies with Mifid itself. Exchanges say that bank dark pools are not required to report trades in a coherent way, or even at the same time as those trades reported to the market by exchanges. Mifid is unclear on the issue.

Steve Grob, director of strategy at Fidessa, a trading technology company, says: “The reporting environment in the US is much more transparent. There needs to be some clear regulation about how they report what they do.”

Niki Beattie, managing director of The Market Structure Practice, a consultancy, says: “The thing is that brokers are governed by a certain set of rules and exchanges are governed by another. Mifid failed to move with the times.”

She believes, however, that Mifid has given brokers an “unfair advantage” over exchanges. “They are both trying to be liquidity pools and [Mifid] has given the brokers an unfair advantage,” says Ms Beattie, a former trading strategist at Merrill Lynch.

CESR is studying the issue. Last week Charlie McCreevy, European Union internal markets commissioner, said dark pools would form part of the European Commission’s planned review of Mifid. That would focus on whether the growth of those operated by broker-dealers gives their backers “unfair commercial advantages” in the market.

With dark pools under attack more broadly, banks may have a tough job making their case. Ms Beattie says: “The exchanges probably have some right to be out there questioning this.”

Source: FT, 24.09.2009 by Jermy Grant

Filed under: Exchanges, News, Risk Management, Trading Technology, , , , , , , , , , , , ,