Crawling Before Walking
![james-rundle-waters james-rundle-waters](/sites/default/files/styles/landscape_750_463/public/import/IMG/283/261283/james-rundle-waters.jpg.webp?h=4a6b0616&itok=EjSrsvc6)
It must be tough, being a swap execution facility (SEF) operator. The things are enormously expensive to run, and if you're not Bloomberg, Tradeweb, or some of the larger interdealer brokers (IDBs) and information providers, you're already facing an uphill battle from the start.
Because, as everyone out of the dozen people I spoke to for my feature this month on how SEFs have done to date agreed, volume is king. Yes, you can have nifty compression tools, the occasional instrument that can't be found on other venues, and all kinds of technology to give away for free, but if you don't have liquidity on your books, then you're not going anywhere.
It doesn't help that volumes haven't been near the state they were before. Indeed, they imploded over the summer, but the recent upturn suggests that this was just reflective of seasonal changes in market conditions over the hot months than just because it's SEF trading, per se. Is it just the buy side not engaging properly? Maybe that's part of it. But it's also the hybridized methods of trading, that confluence between voice and screen that makes the statistics lie. As one of my sources said, a deal might be arranged and negotiated entirely by phone, and just executed on the SEF, which captures the details and reports it to a trade repository. Is that truly, then, an electronic trade in the spirit of the regulation as well as the letter of it?
That's not a criticism, of course. Electronic isn't necessarily better by default, and it still fulfils the central role of increased transparency. It's just that it's difficult to truly measure the penetration of modernizing influences such as screen trading, let alone the wider difficulties with taking something as varied as derivatives trading and trying to standardize it.
One other observation I noted, which didn't make it into the feature as such, was the language that people used when talking about the number of SEFs. A year ago, it was all about consolidation ─ now, not so much. People were more comfortable saying that some will simply go bust, and not necessarily be taken over, particularly if they don't offer anything revolutionary. The problem for many IDBs and others is that they almost have to offer the service, and with clearing access a consideration along with SEF rates, it might be less of a fiscal pain point to operate it yourself than relying on a competitor. For the smaller vendors, who are struggling to gain traction in a busy market, maybe not so much.
I still have a vast amount of material from the interviews, so I'll continue to publish analysis pieces over the next few weeks to complement the story. If you have views on the topic, please feel free to get in touch.
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 Regulation
Northern Trust offers internal fund accounting, data tools to clients
Regulations and a mandate to enhance quality and transparency in a bid to improve the investor experience are pushing buy-side firms to have more oversight of their third-party providers.
EU firms press for faster move to T+1 after smooth US rollout
Following the example set by North America, 70% of attendees at a European hearing on shorter settlement cycles favored a Q4 2027 switch to next-day settlement.
Finra clears hurdle with CAT launch, but several others remain
Two major components of the consolidated audit trail are now in place. But wrangling over the CAT’s future continues.
Bloomberg, industry bodies push back on Cboe’s proposed OEMS rule change
Some industry bodies disagree with the options exchange’s proposal to carve its Silexx OEMS out of the SEC’s definition of an exchange facility and place it into a separate business line.
GenAI: US Fed reveals its five use cases
Internal sandbox used to assess viability and risks; coding and content generation on the agenda.
Zeros and ones: Industry contemplates T+0 as the next step
With the North American transition to T+1 settlement complete, same-day settlement could be the next goalpost set, though skeptics are many.
The IMD Wrap: Déjà vu as exchange data industry weighs its options
Max highlights some of WatersTechnology’s recent reporting on data costs and capacity issues facing the options industry, and asks, haven’t we seen this before somewhere?
FRTB data quality issues persist amid shifting implementation dates
Banks are finding market and reference data challenges posed by the FRTB’s standardized model tricky, compounded by uncertainty over when the regulation will take effect.