Buy-side firms reject EMS brokerage charges
Some users favour licence fee over per-trade charging – and have forced vendors to switch
Leading buy-side firms are calling time on the brokerage charging models used by some liquidity aggregators, joining dealers in a growing protest.
In at least two cases, buy-side users of an aggregator have been able to push the vendor into applying an annual licence fee instead of per-trade charges.
“There has always been a lot of contention around the way in which EMS and platform fees are charged,” says Ken Monahan, senior analyst on the market structure and technology team at Greenwich
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@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net 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@risk.net
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@risk.net
More on Investing
NAIC cracks down on risky feeder funds
Vehicles have been used by insurers to invest in ‘weird and wonderful’ assets, say practitioners
Quants are using language models to map what causes what
GPT-4 does a surprisingly good job of separating causation from correlation
NAIC softens its rating overhaul. Insurers still don’t like it
Insurers worry that the regulatory body could override credit ratings without sufficient explanation
Looser loan terms clear way for more ‘c-on-c violence’
Creditor-on-creditor fighting likely to build, as carve-outs for struggling borrowers get wider
EU reporting regime a ‘hurdle’ for risk transfer deals, say investors
Onerous disclosure templates could deter US banks from marketing synthetic securitisations to European buyers
The quants who kicked the hornets’ nest – to champion causality
A small but influential cadre says the multi-trillion-dollar factor investing industry is based on flawed science
LDI managers disagree on credit collateralised gilt repo
BlackRock and Schroders execute first trades, but others favour different ways to source liquidity
Zero-day hedging takes root in new asset classes
Option users move beyond equity indexes in search of cheaper, sharper hedging tools
Most read
- Quants are using language models to map what causes what
- Reluctantly, CME moves to clear US Treasuries
- The bank quant who wants to stop gen AI hallucinating