
Editor’s letter
e-trading comment
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
Europe’s lenders sail into uncharted waters of the banking book
Regulators are pushing banks to map their credit spread risk. Here be dragons?
SEC may lack legal clout to impose new dealer rule – Citadel
Adoption of quantitative dealer definition may require congressional changes to US Securities Exchange Act
US Basel endgame hits clearing with op risk capital charges
Dealers also fret about unlevel playing field compared with requirements in the EU
CFTC’s clearing house recovery rule splits industry
Some fear CCPs will fast-track recovery, others say any rule book will be ignored in emergency
EU banks ‘will play for time’ in stand-off over India’s CCPs
Lawyers say banks are unlikely to set up subsidiaries and will instead pin hopes on revised Emir fix
ECB mulls intervention on uneven banking book reporting
Inconsistency among EU banks on whether deposits and loans are in scope for credit spread risk
Iosco warns of leveraged loan ‘vulnerabilities’
As recovery rates plummet, report calls for clearer covenants and more transparency on addbacks
Narrow path to compromise on EU’s post-Brexit clearing rules
Lawmakers unlikely to support industry demand to delete Emir active accounts proposal altogether