Algorithmic Trading special report

Click here to download the PDF
Praising Parameterization
The extent to which algorithmic trading has permeated the financial services industry depends on who you ask. Take, for example, a traditional, equities-only "pick-and-stick" asset manager, which typically employs lengthy investment horizons, and therefore, may only execute a small number of orders during the course of a normal month. Shredding large block trades into smaller child orders as a way of increasing the likelihood of obtaining a fill and reducing market impact and diversifying risk, is not something long-only shops are interested in. But scratch under the surface of a more "adventurous" buy-side entity-any firm that executes large numbers of trades during the course of a typical trading day-and you'll find a small army of home grown, broker-provided, or third-party-developed algorithms hard at work, responsible for determining when to trade, where to trade, how to trade, and how often to trade. This might sound highly sophisticated, but in truth, the market's forerunners have been doing this sort of thing for at least the past decade.
What has changed in recent years, however, is the extent to which providers-both brokers and specialist third-party vendors-have "parameterized" their offerings, allowing users to tweak their parameters on-the-fly, effectively changing the algorithm's behaviour without affecting its core logic. This means that in the event that traders believe market conditions have changed from what they were when the algorithm was initially deployed-which can undermine the algo's efficacy-they can modify any number of parameters, thereby maintaining its level of specificity and effectiveness. In the past, end-users were most often forced to rely on their algo developers to make the necessary tweaks, a process that was both long-winded and laborious. In the algorithmic trading roundtable on page 4, there is frequent reference by our four panelists to the importance of parameterization, and the extent to which it allows buy-side and sell-side practitioners to differentiate themselves in what has become a crowded and highly competitive space.
More on Trading Tech
Doing a deal? Prioritize info security early
Engaging information security teams early in licensing deals can deliver better results and catch potential issues. Neglecting them can cause delays and disruption, writes Devexperts’ Heetesh Rawal in this op-ed.
Google gifts Linux, capital raised for Canton, one less CTP bid, and more
The Waters Cooler: Banks team up for open-source AI controls, S&P injects GenAI into Capital IQ, and Goldman Sachs employees get their own AI assistant in this week’s news roundup.
Waters Wavelength Ep. 323: MarketAxess’s Chowdhury and Burke (plus some Cusip updates)
This week, Riad Chowdhury, head of Asia-Pacific, and Dan Burke, global head of emerging markets at MarketAxess, join to discuss block trading in fixed income. Plus Reb discusses her recent article about Cusip and updates on the class action lawsuit moving through the courts.
As datacenter cooling issues rise, FPGAs could help
IMD Wrap: As temperatures are spiking, so too is demand for capacity related to AI applications. Max says FPGAs could help to ease the burden being forced on datacenters.
WatersTechnology latest edition
Check out our latest edition, plus more than 13 years of our best content.
Deutsche Bank casts a cautious eye towards agentic AI
“An AI worker is something that is really buildable,” says innovation and AI head
LLMs are making alternative datasets ‘fuzzy’
Waters Wrap: While large language models and generative/agentic AI offer an endless amount of opportunity, they are also exposing unforeseen risks and challenges.
Trading venues seen as easiest targets for Esma supervision
Platforms do not pose systemic risks for member states and are already subject to consistent rules.