Sense and Sensitivity
![james-rundle james-rundle](/sites/default/files/styles/landscape_750_463/public/import/IMG/765/194765/james-rundle-580x358.jpg.webp?itok=KSqZWuPJ)
Much of our coverage recently has been focused on clearing and settlement, given the central counterparty (CCP) rules from the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), incoming reform over the trading of derivatives in the US and the EU, as well as Central Securities Depository (CSD) regulation earlier this year. Indeed, I've read so many articles and long, unwieldy regulatory documents of late that Swap Execution Facility (SEF) is permanently tattooed on the inside of my eyelids. I've even started creating acronyms in text messages to friends and family, much to their perpetual amusement (read chagrin).
The Futures and Options Association (FOA) guidelines last week, then, gave a slight breath of fresh air in a way. That's not because the issues aren't complex, of course, they are. But in FOA's detailed recommendations to its members, a thread of common sense permeated the document, something that I discussed with them in a late-afternoon phone call that day.
After all, while kill switches and their working may be more difficult to implement in practice, the basic idea in and of itself screams with an overriding sense of obviousness. Venues should of course be able to kill destructive, glitch and rogue algorithms along with the firm that activates them; the intricacies can be worked out later. Likewise, any orders routed to a market should have to go through pre-trade risk controls, and said controls should be married up with the post-trade process as well. Taking electronic trading as a whole, rather than focusing on specific practices within it such as algorithmic or high-frequency trading is sensible, it mitigates the risk of regulatory loopholes that can potentially be destructive or damaging.
Overwatch
All of these, naturally, are things that have been already thought about and to an extent implemented. FOA couldn't speak for its entire membership, which includes venues, banks, prop trading firms and vendors, but said that some of what it's published is already going on.
Some areas are bound to raise eyebrows, though. The ESMA guidelines on overwatch regarding service providers, for instance, seem sensible on the surface. Quite rightly, firms should have a rigorous diligence and review process for the services they receive. But in the same way, they shouldn't regulate-by-proxy. Independent software vendors (ISVs) and software providers, on the whole, are not regulated entities. But the function they serve and the products they create are used to implement activities which are regulated. It's all well and good saying that firms should have some sort of oversight process to ensure that the vendors they use are ESMA-compliant, but you can understand that there are some grumblings, legal ones at that, where this is seen as back door regulation.
Regulation is a difficult balancing act, we all know this. The competent authorities have to ensure a stable and fair market while also keeping it loose enough to operate freely. But that doesn't mean their services should be subcontracted out, forcibly, to the cost of participants.
Essentially, if a technology service is important enough to be mentioned in a policy document and have strictures regarding its effective operation, it should probably be overseen by the regulator. Not by a bank, or a broker, or a principal trading firm which has its own compliance issues to worry about.
Sensitivity
This is where the second part comes in, rather than being a strange and disturbing 50-Shades-of-Fi-Tech amalgam. Regulation is a difficult balancing act, we all know this. The competent authorities have to ensure a stable and fair market while also keeping it loose enough to operate freely. But that doesn't mean their services should be subcontracted out, forcibly, to the cost of participants.
Common sense is a laudable goal, but that has to be coupled with a more intellectual understanding of the ramifications. Arguably, this lesson should have been learned after the first iteration of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive, the holes in which regulators are now rushing, legally, politically and technically, to close now while potentially storing up further problems for the future.
If you'd like to talk about regulation, over-reach, or if you're a vendor concerned about potentially being in breach, I'd like to hear from you. Give me a call on +44207 316 9811, or send an e-mail to james.rundle@incisivemedia.com and we'll have a chat.
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.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
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. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@waterstechnology.com
More on Trading Tech
BlackRock to integrate Aladdin and Preqin to create new private markets platform
CEO Larry Fink calls combining the two platforms “maybe the biggest opportunity in 10 years.”
Ace high or busted flush? Digital Asset’s mixed fortunes mirror DLT adversity
The vendor hoped to remodel post-trade using blockchain technology—and it still might—but its bumpy progress raises questions over the future of DLT in finance.
This Week: BlackRock/Preqin, Trading Technologies, FIA Tech and more
A summary of some of the past week’s financial technology news.
Adaptive’s Aeron goes live on Microsoft Azure Marketplace
The messaging software used for building bespoke trading platforms is now available on Microsoft’s marketplace, making it accessible through major cloud providers.
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.
Waters Wrap: CME, Google and the pursuit of ultra-low-latency trading
CME Group and Google have announced Aurora, Illinois, as the location for the exchange’s new co-location facility. Anthony explains why this is more than just the next phase of the two companies’ originally announced project.
WatersTechnology latest edition
Check out our latest edition, plus more than 12 years of our best content.
Natixis refines in-house interoperability model
The French asset manager has refined its canonical data model over the last decade, as the interoperability movement continues to evolve.