Liquidity and market structure
Throughout and in the run up to the MiFID II go-live, there was significant industry debate around the potential rise of the Systematic Internaliser SI and the role that bank liquidity and market structure risk desks would play in the new liquidity landscape. Many anticipated an immediate shift in liquidity, particularly towards market maker SIs, as brokers looked to both outsource internal crossing opportunities that were no longer permissible and to adjust routing logic for smaller child orders in response to the new MiFID II, 4 and 8 percent Double Volume Caps DVCs in dark trading.
There are a few different factors that have contributed to this. Notwithstanding our own quantitative approach to adding new liquidity sources and market makers to the algo scheduler and smart order router, the greatest impact has arguably been the two-month delay in the implementation of DVCs.
This delay provided some sense of continuity and allowed market participants to gradually adapt to the changing liquidity liquidity and market structure. For example, there were several analyses by various market participants in that showed all but one of the FTSE stocks would be capped out. Of particular interest over the last month or two has been the growth of periodic auctions — notably the Cboe Periodic Auction, which has no doubt taken advantage of being the first mover in this space.
These auctions are quite unique as they are considered lit, meeting pre-trade transparency requirements, whilst in practice being used as a source of dark liquidity due to the indicative nature of price transparency.
Initially envisaged as liquidity and market structure alternative to midpoint price referencing dark pools impacted by the DVCs, periodic auctions are now also proving an efficient way to re-house broker crossing flow, with participants able to take advantage of broker preferencing logic when having both sides of the trade. These orders allow participants to access above large-in-scale block liquidity, not impacted by the caps, without incurring significant opportunity cost as business liquidity and market structure continue to be worked across the wider market whilst passively posting on multiple conditional venues without the fear of over trading.
Last but not least, SI market maker liquidity is slowly starting to gain wider acceptance. Though the extent of its growth and impact on market fragmentation is yet to be determined, we are increasingly becoming better at understanding and quantifying their benefits to certain segments of the execution process. In addition, Bank SIs and central risk functions are also proving a valuable source of liquidity where principal flow can be packaged to meet liquidity demands, whilst minimising cost of execution and market impact.
Impact on execution algos and TCA Though the high-level impact on market microstructure and liquidity is being mitigated, these market innovations have added complexity to the execution process.
Any inefficiencies in incorporating these sources of liquidity into the overall execution process is likely to impact overall performance. Scheduled strategies liquidity and market structure as VWAP, TWAP, Participate and IS are very popular amongst traditional investors looking to execute against a benchmark, and quantitative funds seeking passive execution whist minimising impact.
These strategies have been very successful in taking large orders and executing them in smaller slices at different venues whilst minimising market impact. The market microstructure under MiFID I evolved to a large extent as a consequence of these strategies and helped such strategies achieve excellent liquidity and market structure.
Under MiFID I, fragmentation was for most part across venues and a liquidity and market structure order router usually helped navigate both lit and dark pool liquidity with significant efficiency. However, with MiFID II, liquidity has been fragmented across multiple dimensions — venue, size and potentially counterparty. The latter two are of particular concern to execution algos trading to a schedule.
The end result could however be significantly impaired if the interaction with the SIs fails to take into account potential information leakage from a predictable bilateral transaction. To liquidity and market structure able to best achieve the execution objective in the new liquidity landscape, one liquidity and market structure needs to adapt and be flexible with trading instructions so as to optimally incorporate all liquidity sources to achieve the best outcome for the entire parent order.
Tight bands around participation and specific routing and venue selection instructions could be particularly harmful, especially in a gradually evolving liquidity liquidity and market structure. In addition to the impact on execution strategies, most TCA tools are likely to only include the lit market volume when calculating benchmarks. Even within the lit market, they are unlikely to include periodic auctions. The omission of this liquidity could potentially underestimate opportunity cost significantly.
For example, the Cboe periodic auction has a 4. Though some of this could potentially be broker self-matches, we see that a significant proportion of this liquidity is liquidity and market structure.
PWP benchmarks in particular should be enhanced to account for this liquidity as these are most commonly used to determine opportunity cost. The growth of block liquidity and conditional venues should also be closely monitored to ensure potential gaps in accessible liquidity are spotted in a timely manner. One approach to evaluating this opportunity cost would be to calculate the relevant PWP price and duration that includes all electronically accessible conditional block liquidity.
Any consistent deviation of price and duration could be an indication of incurred opportunity cost. As briefly discussed in this article, potential complexity in the market liquidity and market structure can be skilfully navigated by ensuring appropriate metrics are used to evaluate performance. It is important to ensure the TCA framework is flexible enough to adapt the metrics liquidity and market structure benchmarks as needed to identify areas of improvement in the execution process.
This in turn will allow you to appropriately calibrate the execution strategy to meet your objectives. You must be logged in to post a comment. Best ExecutionApril 19, Best Execution About the author.
Citi continues to bolster equities franchise. Leave a Reply Cancel reply You must be logged in to post liquidity and market structure comment. Home Publication Events Login.
Firsthand Forex there is a link to deposit bitcoin: Loans have an autorenew In order to alleviate these concerns the Poloniex Trade Bot features. Broaden your understanding of what PHP can do and become a more productive developer, with these weekly tips. XMR Liquidity and market structure 2 Dev Fee ( unless compiled yourself); Wolf' s Miner No Dev Fee ( not as optimized). The bot is designed to liquidity and market structure and sell cryptocurrencies. All versions available and unbeatable support with every license sold.