Editor’s letter
The rehabilitation in all things technological – as far as the bond markets are concerned – and the improvement in corporate bond liquidity are providing a welcome boost to the area of electronic bond trading. Electronic trading from corporate bonds first emerged in the mid-1990s and rapidly failed to live up to many of the industry’s promises. One key problem was that providers failed to take account of the nuances of the corporate bond market – illiquidity and fragmentation.
As a result many platforms assumed that the market would be willing and able to jump from a relationship-led, over-the-counter market to one of exchange trading within short period of time. Combined with collapses in technology spending by financial institutions and the liquidity crisis that rocked the US and European bond markets in 2002, many trading platforms retreated back to the government bond markets or threw in the towel altogether.
However after a year of improving liquidity, trading platforms are returning, to a large extent chastened and less complacent. At the same time a number of the largest banks in credit have been pushing their own electronic trading platforms in an attempt to reap the benefits of greater efficiency and speed that electronic trading offers.
Perhaps after the false dawn of the 1990s, 2004 will finally bring the reality of electronic trading to corporate bonds.
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 Regulation
FCA presses UK non-banks to put their affairs in order
Greater scrutiny of wind-down plans by regulator could alter capital and liquidity requirements
Industry calls for major rethink of Basel III rules
Isda AGM: Divergence on implementation suggests rules could be flawed, bankers say
Saudi Arabia poised to become clean netting jurisdiction
Isda AGM: Netting regulation awaiting final approvals from regulators
Japanese megabanks shun internal models as FRTB bites
Isda AGM: All in-scope banks opt for standardised approach to market risk; Nomura eyes IMA in 2025
CFTC chair backs easing of G-Sib surcharge in Basel endgame
Isda AGM: Fed’s proposed surcharge changes could hike client clearing cost by 80%
UK investment firms feeling the heat on prudential rules
Signs firms are falling behind FCA’s expectations on wind-down and liquidity risk management
The American way: a stress-test substitute for Basel’s IRRBB?
Bankers divided over new CCAR scenario designed to bridge supervisory gap exposed by SVB failure
Industry warns CFTC against rushing to regulate AI for trading
Vote on workplan pulled amid calls to avoid duplicating rules from other regulatory agencies