Max Bowie: Counting the Cost of the Consolidation Craze

Proponents of the current frenzy of exchange mega-mergers—including Deutsche Börse’s bid for NYSE Euronext (and the counter-bid from Nasdaq and the IntercontinentalExchange) and the London Stock Exchange’s bid for TMX Group, as well as the failed merger between the Singapore Exchange and the Australian Securities Exchange—claim they will produce more efficient markets and deeper liquidity with a broader and more valuable pool of market data. But what do these deals really offer their clients among market data consumers?
Certainly an exchange that combines several markets has more data to offer its clients, and the economies of scale that these deals deliver for the exchanges should allow them to pass savings on to customers. Often, however, while these deals do indeed make more data available, clients also find themselves paying more for the privilege.
However, clients should be able to claw some of that back as a result of lower connectivity costs: instead of needing connections to two entities, trading firms now only need to connect to one entity, since a merged exchange typically makes access to all markets available through a single point of access—though there is also a risk that a merged exchange will consolidate its datacenter space, forcing firms to move from one datacenter to another.
But for the most part, these moves are primarily designed to benefit the exchanges themselves, with the synergies achieved contributing to better margins, or being set aside in a “war chest”—for example, when lowering transaction fees to compete with rival markets.
But data consumers complain that all too often, these synergies don’t find their way back to loyal customers in the form of savings, begging the question of who exchanges are trying hardest to please—customers or shareholders?
Subtle But Significant
Over recent years, two trends have subtly but significantly reshaped the exchange landscape: One is the demutualization of exchanges, shifting ownership from exchange members to the open markets, and making exchanges primarily accountable to shareholders. The second is that stock exchanges are increasingly seen more as pools of liquidity for high-frequency traders and speculative hedge funds and prop shops than the capital-raising venues they once were, with these participants creating more data—which in turn increases data costs—but not necessarily valuable data.
Now, I’m not advocating a return to the exchanges of olde, since I believe these changes are just evolution at work in liquidity pools rather than gene pools. But I do wonder whether this narrower focus has left exchanges more vulnerable to challenges from non-listing markets such as MTFs, forcing them to set their sights on scale through globalization and a more diverse product set than low-margin equities.
This strategy makes M&A activity key to acquiring market share and new products, but also leaves them vulnerable to others pursuing the same strategy. For example, if Nasdaq fails in its joint bid for NYSE, how else will it compete against a merged NYSE-Deutsche Börse with more products and resources? And would such a deal force Nasdaq into a deal with another exchange on less than favorable terms, just to ensure it has the clout to compete? And if so, might we see the London Stock Exchange—for which Nasdaq waged a dogged but unsuccessful takeover campaign only a few short years ago—show an interest in Nasdaq, to create (in conjunction with its TMX merger) a triangular collection of three large Western markets that mirrors the trading patterns of cross-border traders?
Speculation aside, each of the deals on the table has the potential to create bigger, broader and deeper markets that could bring true benefits to traders, and could deliver innovative new solutions for data delivery and pricing—the LSE’s new policy on pricing has drawn particular praise from some quarters—as well as placing them in strong positions to compete with other markets. And if they focus on keeping customers happy, the competition issue should take care of itself.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@waterstechnology.com or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.waterstechnology.com/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@waterstechnology.com to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@waterstechnology.com to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@waterstechnology.com
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@waterstechnology.com
More on Emerging Technologies
DeepSeek success spurs banks to consider do-it-yourself AI
Chinese LLM resets price tag for in-house systems—and could also nudge banks towards open-source models.
Standard Chartered goes from spectator to player in digital asset game
The bank’s digital assets custody offering is underpinned by an open API and modular infrastructure, allowing it to potentially add a secondary back-end system provider.
Saugata Saha pilots S&P’s way through data interoperability, AI
Saha, who was named president of S&P Global Market Intelligence last year, details how the company is looking at enterprise data and the success of its early investments in AI.
Data partnerships, outsourced trading, developer wins, Studio Ghibli, and more
The Waters Cooler: CME and Google Cloud reach second base, Visible Alpha settles in at S&P, and another overnight trading venue is approved in this week’s news round-up.
Are we really moving on from GenAI already?
Waters Wrap: Agentic AI is becoming an increasingly hot topic, but Anthony says that shouldn’t come at the expense of generative AI.
Cloud infrastructure’s role in agentic AI
The financial services industry’s AI-driven future will require even greater reliance on cloud. A well-architected framework is key, write IBM’s Gautam Kumar and Raja Basu.
Waters Wavelength Ep. 310: SigTech’s Bin Ren
This week, SigTech’s CEO Bin Ren joins Eliot to discuss GenAI’s progress since ChatGPT’s emergence in 2022, agentic AI, and challenges with regulating AI.
Microsoft exec: ‘Generative AI is completely passé. This is the year of agentic AI’
Microsoft’s Symon Garfield said that AI advancements are prompting financial services firms to change their approach to integrating AI-powered solutions.