
MTFs ally to end dependence on LSE data
Daily news headlines
LONDON – Rival multilateral trading facilities (MTFs) Turquoise, Chi-X and Nasdaq OMX have learned from their collective failure to take full advantage of the systems outage at the London Stock Exchange (LSE) earlier this month, due to their trading platforms’ reliance on LSE reference data.
The three MTFs have joined in a “loose alliance” to form an informal working group to explore alternative market data and reporting services, challenging those provided by the LSE. Bob Greifeld, chief executive officer of OMX says, “it will not be too difficult to come up with a market-based solution”.
The exchanges’ move also reflects opinion that, since the introduction of the European Union’s Markets in Financial Instruments Directive, there has been a fragmentation not only of Europe’s equity market, but also in market and pricing data.
The US operates a central system for aggregating price reporting, known as ‘consolidated tape’. However, the LSE says comparable systems already exist in the EU through Bloomberg and Reuters market data services.
The LSE was last week taken to the UK high court by Plus Markets – a quote-driven alternative investment trading system – over claims regarding rules that require trades on other exchanges to be reported to the LSE.
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 Operational risk
Power play: how geopolitics is shaping op risk at G-Sibs
Op Risk Benchmarking: Geopolitics is a top five fear for G-Sibs, but most banks lack specialist risk staff and classical tools
Automating regulatory compliance and reporting
Flaws in the regulation of the banking sector have been addressed initially by Basel III, implemented last year. Financial institutions can comply with capital and liquidity requirements in a natively integrated yet modular environment by utilising…
No tick-the-box approach to compliance risks
Op Risk Benchmarking: G-Sibs share fear of regulatory run-ins, but lack common stance on modelling, KRIs and more
Bread-and-butter op risks at the top table
Op Risk Benchmarking: As G-Sibs are forced to do more, how can they avoid doing more wrong?
Op Risk Benchmarking: Inside the G-Sibs
New initiative scrutinises op risk measurement and management practices at the world’s largest banks
Sizing cyber: banks split on who owns and measures hack threats
Op Risk Benchmarking: G-Sibs split on risk modelling and management for IT disruption and infosec
Banks frequently breach appetite for top op risks
Op Risk Benchmarking: Five G-Sibs breached appetite in past year across four risk types, new research reveals
Investment banks: the future of risk control
This Risk.net survey report explores the current state of risk controls in investment banks, the challenges of effective engagement across the three lines of defence, and the opportunity to develop a more dynamic approach to first-line risk control