Jesper Bremholm joined Katamaran Capital as an execution trader following a year and a half as equity trader at Kuvari Partners. Bremholm began his new role on 2 December, with the move following Kuvari’s decision to give back external capital in September and become a family office, The TRADE understands. Bremholm has previously served at firms including: BLS Capital Fondsmæglerselskab, Nykredit, and Nordea.

Paul Atkins was appointed chair of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), following Gary Gensler’s departure – set for 20 January 2025. Atkins was initially appointed by President George W. Bush as a commissioner of the SEC in July 29 2002, where he served until August 2008. set for 20 January 2025.

Liquidnet made three new hires into its European Execution & Quantitative Services (EQS) team as it seeks to grow its execution offering across the region. Among the new hires is Prashanth Manoharan who has been named head of execution consulting, EMEA. He was most recently director of cash equities analytics at BNP Paribas.

Oliver Ekers also joined the team, as an execution trader, having most recently served in the same role – focused on Europe – at Instinet. At Liquidnet he will cover sales trading across both high-touch and algo trading. The third new hire is Henry Baugniet, who joins as an execution analyst, leveraging his wealth of experience as a data scientist. Previously, Baugniet built a real-time trading strategy for the Betfair exchange.

Societe Generale made three new appointments to its Global Markets Activities team in a bid to enhance its fixed income and equities offerings. Francisco Oliveira was appointed co-head of global markets activities and head of fixed income and currencies. He joined from BNP Paribas and his move is effective as of 6 January 2025.

Meanwhile, New York-based Sylvain Cartier was appointed head of global markets for the Americas, effective from 1 January 2025. Elsewhere, Mohamed Braham was appointed deputy head of fixed income and currencies. He will begin his role on 6 January 2025 and be based in Paris.

The post People Moves Monday: Alana Capital, Katamaran Capital, SEC and more… appeared first on The TRADE.

In relation to segregated accounts and margin, FICC’s proposed rule changes seek to address the Commission’s new requirements and the conditions for including margin in the broker-dealer reserve formulas.

The proposed rule change would provide for the separate and independent calculation, collection, and holding of margin for proprietary transactions of a netting member from margin submitted to FICC by a netting member to support the transactions of an indirect participant.

In addition, the rule change would establish segregated accounts for direct and indirect participants, including establishing a minimum $1 million cash margin requirement for each segregated indirect participant.

Elsewhere, the rule change seeks to consolidate the methodology for calculating the margin requirements.

Meanwhile, in relation to access models, FICC proposes to re-name, consolidate, and adopt additional provisions governing GSD’s existing correspondent clearing/prime broker services.

As part of the proposals, moving forward, the correspondent clearing/prime broker services would be referred to as the “Agent Clearing Service,” submitting members would be referred to as “Agent Clearing Members,” and executing firms would be referred to as “Executing Firm Customers.”

In a filing, FICC stated that it designed the proposed changes to the Agent Clearing Service to highlight the similarities between the Agent Clearing Service and other agent clearing models.

“We are pleased that the SEC took action to approve FICC’s rule filings related to access models and segregated accounts and margin. With these approvals, we are now ready to advance our implementation efforts with the industry, in preparation for next year’s deadlines,” DTCC said in a statement.

“We’re also appreciative of all of the comments and perspectives that the industry has shared with us on a range of matters, including default management, done away and porting. Additional work remains as we get ready for implementation, and we are committed to ensuring we deliver the best solutions with the best value for the industry.

“The expansion of US Treasury clearing is a significant industry-wide effort that promises to deliver critical benefits to the industry, including increased transparency and reduced risk.  We will continue to work closely with our clients and key stakeholders on ensuring safe, smooth and successful implementations in 2025 and 2026.”

The post SEC approves FICC access models and segregated accounts and margin rule filings appeared first on The TRADE.

big xyt named Philip Lemmon head of TCA sales EMEA as it seeks to enhance its growth initiatives across the region. His move follows two and a half years as head of EMEA sales at ISS LiquidMetrix. Lemmon has experience working with exchanges, the sell- and buy-side, and has previously served at SteelEye, Abel Noser, Pipeline Financial Group and E*TRADE.  

Liquidnet appointed Ayesha Rasheed Boulware as senior trade coverage consultant, based in San Francisco. Boulware will provide primary account coverage for Liquidnet members, with a focus on strengthening relationships and meeting the trading needs of clients across the West Coast. She brings 25 years of industry experience to the role, having held positions at Portware, Tradebook, and Flextrade. Boulware also previously managed the West Coast region for ITG’s electronic products prior to its acquisition by Virtu.

The post People Moves Monday: SEC, big xyt, and Liquidnet appeared first on The TRADE.

 

“In the UK, you will have to decide what policy and timing is right for you. I don’t suspect you will follow the timing of Argentina or Jamaica. I’d note, though, that if one looks at the 27 months it took the US from proposal to implementation, your implementation might be June 2026.” 

With the US well into its third week of T+1 settlement for equities, corporate bonds, and municipal securities, a change in the UK would align with the US market structure with its treasury markets and the UK’s gilt market, both of which already operate on a T+1 cycle. 

Gensler recounted the smooth transition in the US, which took 27 months from the proposal to implementation. He noted that setting and sticking to a firm implementation date was crucial for this success, acknowledging the collective efforts of market participants, clearing houses, and regulators.

“It’s essential to set a firm implementation date and stick to it. This collective action issue ensures market participants allocate resources for software updates and other necessary preparations. Having a set date helps organise system planning and implementation,” he stressed. 

The current timeline for the UK appears to include a plan being put in place in 2025 with the implementation of a T+1 settlement cycle in UK occurring no later than 31 December 2027. This, however, is still up for debate and subject to change. 

Gensler highlighted the global trend towards shorter settlement cycles, noting that Canada, Mexico, Argentina, and Jamaica have also adopted T+1. “Time is money and time is risk,” he said. “Shortening the clearing and settlement cycle saves money and lowers risk, which increases efficiency, boosts liquidity in the markets, and promotes resiliency during times of stress. 

“For everyday investors, this means that if you sell your stock on a Monday, you now get your cash on Tuesday, instead of having to wait until Wednesday,” Gensler explained. “This change is significant for the 58% of American households holding stock, many of whom were previously puzzled by the two-day waiting period,” he added. 

Echoing Gensler’s sentiments, Andrew Douglas, who chairs the UK T+1 Taskforce Technical Group, also stressed the importance of setting a firm date for the transition. This collective action issue ensures market participants allocate resources for necessary preparations, such as software updates and system planning. 

A collective effort 

Looking at the key takeaways, Gensler stressed that the settlement transition requires market collaboration. “Transitioning to T+1 is a team effort involving thousands of market participants, including clearing houses, depositories, custodian banks, broker-dealers, investment advisors, self-regulatory organisations, stock exchanges, service providers, industry groups, trade associations, and regulators. It’s also a global effort.” 

He shared that the SEC has engaged with market participants and regulatory counterparts worldwide, including in the Americas (Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Jamaica, and Peru), the UK, Europe, and Asia. This global coordination is crucial because of the interconnected markets, he said.   

T+0? 

Additionally, Gensler emphasised the importance of same-day or T+0 allocations, confirmations, and affirmations, which are critical for the movement of securities and cash on T+1. “When we proposed the rule in February 2022, only about two-thirds (68%) of transactions were being affirmed on trade day. By 29 May, the day after the transition, T+0 affirmation rates were approximately 95% by 9pm,” Gensler reported.  

“International investors may need to adjust their operations to manage foreign exchange risks, potentially moving to T+0 instead of waiting a day after the trade,” he noted, adding that the collective net benefit of lower risks and increased efficiency outweighs these costs. 

“Time zones also play a significant role in the transition. The UK might have an advantage because you can learn from our experience, being to the west of you. For us, it was more challenging because we were pioneering the shift. European asset managers moved staff to the US to manage foreign currency risks during the US 4PM to 6PM time zone rather than late at night in Europe.” Gensler said. He pointed out that European asset managers moved staff to the US to manage foreign currency risks during the US time zone, which could be a consideration for the UK. 

Mutual funds and ETFs in the US have largely adopted a one-day settlement cycle by business practice, aligning portfolios from treasuries to equities. Gensler highlighted that this change reduces market complexity, particularly in the area of corporate actions, where the ex-dividend date now aligns with the record date. 

Gensler reiterated the importance of this transition for the financial system. “Waiting two days to get your cash after selling something is outdated,” he stated. “This transition lowers margin requirements, frees up liquidity for clearing house members, and reduces risk. Although it might seem like a minor change in the market’s infrastructure, it has significant benefits. This requires a team effort for a smooth transition, as we saw in the US and the Americas.” 

Points for further discussion 

Looking ahead, Gensler outlined three key areas for further discussion. Firstly, he detailed new rules enhancing central clearing in the US Treasury market, scheduled for phased implementation over two years. 

These rules enhance customer clearing and broaden transaction scope, making the Treasury market more efficient, competitive, and resilient, he noted. “By March 2025, the separation of house and customer margin must be completed, meaning a clearing house can no longer net customer margin against house margin. By the end of 2025, certain cash transactions must be cleared, and by June 2026, repo and reverse repo transactions must be cleared. These dates are set, and I encourage everyone to start preparing, especially for March 2025.” 

He then advocated for regulators and market participants globally to consider shortening the settlement cycle for currency trading. “Currently, currency markets settle in T+2, but if major markets in North America and Asia move to T+1, it could be beneficial. Engaging with central banks and CLS about this possibility is crucial.” 

Gensler then moved on to encourage exploration of same-day settlement practices. “Moving affirmations and allocations to the same day and possibly settling transactions into the evening, like in China, could be beneficial. Our money markets, commercial paper, and certificates of deposit already operate on a T+0 basis. China and India are exploring this as well. These are discussions for the future, and you’ll need to decide what’s right for you, considering what’s happening elsewhere, particularly in Europe and the EU.” 

The post SEC chair Gary Gensler urges UK to set T+1 transition date appeared first on The TRADE.

Senvest Management is a registered investment advisor based in New York, employing investment strategies across approximately $3 billion in assets under management.

Senvest has admitted the facts set forth by the watchdog’s order, acknowledging that its conduct violated the federal securities laws and has agreed to pay a $6.5 million penalty, alongside agreeing to implement improvements to its compliance policies and procedures.

The SEC’s order found that from at least January 2019 until December 2021, Senvest employees at multiple levels of authority communicated about company business internally and externally using personal texting platforms and other non-Senvest messaging applications, in violation of the firm’s policies and procedures.

The advisory firm also failed to maintain or preserve the off-channel communications as required under the federal securities laws.

According to the SEC, in one instance, three senior employees engaged in off-channel communications on personal devices that were set to automatically delete messages after 30 days.

Elsewhere, the order concluded that certain Senvest employees failed to adhere to provisions of the firm’s code of ethics requiring them to obtain pre-clearance for all securities transactions in their personal accounts.

“The Commission continues to focus on regulated entities’ compliance with the recordkeeping requirements,” said Eric Werner, director of the Fort Worth regional office.

“Adherence to these requirements is essential for the Commission to effectively exercise its regulatory oversight and enforce the federal securities laws.”

Alongside the $6.5 million penalty, Senvest was censured and ordered to cease and desist from future violations of the relevant provisions of the federal securities laws.

Senvest also agreed to retain a compliance consultant to conduct comprehensive reviews of its policies and procedures relating to the retention of electronic communications found on personal devices, and the framework for addressing non-compliance by its employees with those policies and procedures.

Last year, US regulators handed out historically high combined penalties for recordkeeping and supervision failures.

Most recently, The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) issued an order simultaneously filing and settling charges against Goldman Sachs for violating the cease-and-desist provision of a previous order.

The post SEC orders Senvest Management to pay $6.5 million penalty for recordkeeping failures appeared first on The TRADE.

The US watchdog is looking to bolster risk management practices for central counterparties in the US Treasury market and facilitate additional clearing of US treasury securities transactions through forcing some cash Treasury and repos to be centrally cleared.

The SEC stated that additional rule changes are designed to reduce the risks faced by a clearing agency and incentivise and facilitate additional central clearing in the US treasury market.

“Today’s adopting release addresses clearing of treasury securities in two important ways,” said Gary Gensler, SEC chair.

“First, the final rules make changes to enhance customer clearing. Second, the final rules broaden the scope of which transactions clearinghouse members must clear. I am pleased to support these rules because they will help to make the treasury market more efficient, competitive, and resilient.”

New amendments from the SEC also permit broker-dealers to include customer margin required and on deposit at a clearing agency in the US treasury market as a debit in the customer reserve formula, subject to certain conditions.

Elsewhere, the amendments require covered clearing agencies in this market to collect and calculate margin for house and customer transactions separately.

Policies and procedures designed to ensure that the covered clearing agency has appropriate means to facilitate access to clearing are also required as part of the amendments, including for indirect participants.

Kevin McPartland, head of market structure and technology research at Coalition Greenwich noted in a social media post that “finally [there is] some clarity from the SEC on Treasury and repo clearing. Bottom line: most repo must be cleared; Treasury trades between dealers must be cleared; dealer and customer margin must be kept separate.”

The SEC stated that the amendments also include an exemption for transactions in which the counterparty is a central bank, sovereign entity, international financial institution, or natural person.

“DTCC remains committed to supporting the industry and providing solutions that enable compliance with the expanded treasury clearing rule,” the firm said in an issued statement. 

“We are prepared for this significant undertaking and will continue to evolve our access models and enhance capital efficiency whenever possible to effectively support our clients. At the same time, we will continue to facilitate industry discussions and provide education and leadership around this important topic, as we work together towards a successful implementation.”

BNY Mellon’s head of market structure, Nathaniel Wuerffel, labelled the development as the most important day for the structure of ‘the world’s most important market in decades’, in a social media post.

“In finalising the rule the commission made key adjustments from the proposal that narrow the scope in the cash market and allow for inter-affiliate transactions,” he said. “Importantly, cash market transactions will have two years for implementation and repo will have two and a half years. This is better than expected and important for a smooth transition.”

The post SEC adopts landmark new clearing rules for US Treasury market appeared first on The TRADE.

Named Rule 13f-2, the new rule will require institutional investment managers that meet or exceed specific thresholds to report short sale related information for equity securities through Form SHO.

Following this, the Commission will aggregate data about large short positions, including daily short sale activity, by security – maintaining the confidentiality of the reporting managers, alongside publicly disseminating the aggregated data via EDGAR on a delayed basis.

According to the SEC, this new data will supplement the short sale data that is currently publicly available.

“In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, Congress directed the SEC to enhance the transparency of short selling of equity securities,” said Gary Gensler, SEC chair.

“Today’s adoption will promote greater transparency about short selling both to regulators and the public. This rule addresses Congress’s mandate and improves upon existing sources of short sale-related data in the equity markets. Given past market events, it’s important for the Commission and the public to know more about short sale activity in the equity markets, especially in times of stress or volatility.”

Elsewhere, the Commission has amended the National Market System Plan (NMS Plan) which governs the consolidated audit trail (CAT).

The amendment will require each CAT reporting firm (reporting short sales) to indicate when it is asserting state when it is asserting the use of the market making exception in Rule 203(b)(2)(iii) of Regulation SHO.

On the same day, the SEC also adopted new reporting requirements for securities lending transactions in the US, pivoting on a major aspect of the regulation in the final rules.

The proposed rule 10c-1 which was first put on the table at the end of 2021 was set to require securities lending information to be reported within 15 minutes of a loan being made, a requirement which many said would impose significant operational and compliance burdens on broker-dealers and other market participants.

In the final ruling the SEC has changed the reporting requirement to occur at the end of the day. 

The move under chair Gary Gensler seeks to bring “securities lending out of the dark”, the SEC chair said back in 2021, and increase the transparency and efficiency of the securities lending market.

The post SEC adopts new short selling rule to bolster transparency for market participants appeared first on The TRADE.

Expected to launch in January 2024, the development will help create capital efficiencies for clearing members that trade and clear both US treasury securities and CME Group interest rate futures.

The arrangement will enable clearing members of CME and the Government Securities Division (GSD) of DTCC’s Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (FICC) to cross-margin an increased range of products, including CME Group SOFR futures, Ultra 10-year US treasury note futures and FICC-cleared US treasury notes and bonds.

“In line with our longstanding commitment to provide capital efficiencies to market users, we are very pleased to bring this enhanced cross-margining arrangement to the treasury marketplace in January,” said Suzanne Sprague, CME Group’s global head of clearing and post-trade services.

“We appreciate the opportunity to further our collaboration with DTCC for the benefit of market participants who trade across cash and futures markets.”

In addition, repo transaction that have treasury collateral with a time to maturity that exceeds one year will also be eligible for the new cross-margining arrangement.

­­“The approval of the arrangement paves the way for increased efficiency and resiliency of the overall US treasury market, and we look forward to working with CME Group to deliver upon these important enhancements,” added Laura Klimpel, general manager of FICC and head of SIFMU business development at DTCC.

The post CME Group and DTCC’s enhanced treasury cross-margining arrangement receives SEC and CFTC approval appeared first on The TRADE.

The four separate rulemakings put forward by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in December last year represent the most significant attempt to revamp market structure for US equities in recent memory.

It’s been around 18 years since the introduction of Reg NMS by the SEC – a series of initiatives designed to modernise and strengthen the national market system for equity securities – and those in favour of modernising argue that the US’ two-decade lag in regulatory evolution has paved the way for certain levels of arbitrage across the industry that needs to be stamped out.

“The development of the current rules was informed by technological capabilities that today seem hopelessly archaic. Eighteen years ago, a turnaround time of 500 milliseconds seemed incredibly fast. Now people operate in nanoseconds,” says Daniel Schlaepfer, chief executive and president of Select Vantage Inc. 

“In the intervening years, people have developed strategies to arbitrage the outdated rules to their advantage, often to the detriment of market integrity. It’s been a long time since there’s been a revisit – Reg NMS was 2005 – and it’s a vastly different marketplace than it was back then.”

Among the SEC’s reforms is the proposal to amend certain rules under Reg NMS to adopt variable minimum pricing increments – or tick sizes – for the quoting and trading of NMS stocks. Elsewhere, is the suggested reduction of access fee caps for protected quotations and the acceleration of the transparency of the best priced orders available. Both, according to the regulator, are designed to enhance trading opportunities for all investors, ensuring that orders placed reflect the best prices available.  

Given that equity market structure in the US has not seen any major updates since 2005, the SEC’s proposals will likely cause some growing pains. The reforms, whilst well intended, have proved divisive among participants, and many argue such a large implementation could be disruptive to how the market operates. If these proposals were to come to fruition in their current form, it would be a massive overhaul – with perhaps too much change in one go. While evolution of equities market structure in the US is long overdue, what form it should come in is up for debate. 

Access fees

Though many agree that some level of modernisation is necessary and beneficial to the industry, the devil is in the details. The SEC has opted for a granular and fairly complex approach, particularly with regards to the proposed new access fee and tick size regimes. 

“The tick size proposal, in name only, is simple and one-dimensional, but in practice, there are changes to rebates, there are changes to pricing tiers, there are changes to odd lot data that’s being disseminated,” says Eric Stockland, managing director, electronic trading for BMO Capital Markets. 

“This is like a big plumbing change and it’s going to impact institutions directly and affect what algos they use, what their implementation costs are, and just the way that stocks are even quoted and traded.”

While the changes to the access fee regime are designed to reduce the cost of accessing quotes for all types of investors, institutional investors have become increasingly concerned about the impact the proposals will have on the cost of trading and cost of liquidity sourcing, arguing that they could have a detrimental effect on incentives tied to liquidity provision that could disincentivise firms looking at trading.

“While the explicit costs of accessing that quotation may go down, the implicit costs, which I would say is the spread in the security, is going to go up and we think it will increase more than the actual explicit fee will decrease,” highlights vice president and head of US equities and strategy for North American trading services at Nasdaq, Chuck Mack. 

“Institutions costs will go up in the end, which is probably not the outcome that they’re looking for. Looking at tick size too, if you don’t get that right, you can reduce and fragment liquidity and make it more costly to trade.”

Tick sizes

Several of institutions’ main concerns surround the SEC’s tick size proposal, with many suggesting the broadening out of increments in which an institution can quote inside of the best bid offer could fragment liquidity at a given price point. 

“When you broaden that out, institutions are going to struggle at a particular price, to find that block liquidity that they need to get in and out of what are very, very large positions,” says Jeff O’Connor, head of market structure, co-head coverage Americas at Liquidnet.

From an EU perspective, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) re-addressed its tick size regime in 2018 to combat concerns that Brexit will leave trading venues in the EU at a competitive disadvantage. Previous rules meant that the minimum tick size would be applicable to shares in accordance with the adjusted average daily number of transactions on the most liquid market in the EU.

However, ESMA noted that while this is an adequate liquidity indicator for most equity instruments, it may not be suited to instruments where the most liquid venue is located outside of the European Union, such as the UK post-Brexit. The new tick size regime proposed by ESMA meant that regulators of European trading venues will be allowed to calculate the average daily number of transactions on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the liquidity available on third-country venues in calibration of tick sizes.

“Proposals to reduce and harmonise tick sizes across exchanges and off-exchange venues make sense but must be appropriately calibrated to prevent any adverse impact on price discovery and lit liquidity,” says Edward Monrad, head of corporate strategy at Optiver. “Although it’s not perfect, the EU’s tick-size regime may offer a good blueprint for a dynamic tick-size regime.”

Minimum bid ask spreads

Last updated in 2005, the move to reduce the minimum bid ask spread to a penny was deemed as dramatic by industry participants, especially given the 25 cent spreads seen a few decades prior. According to the SEC, its proposals to amend minimum pricing increments are designed to enhance trading opportunities and to help ensure that orders placed in the national market system reflect the best prices available for all investors.

Those who are hesitant to the reform suggest systems will not be able to handle this. However, as the structure currently stands, significant volumes in stocks priced below a dollar that already trade at sub-penny increments, alongside existing inverted markets and the proliferation of embedded dark orders, suggests that current systems are more than capable of handling the changes that they are concerned about. 

“Many stocks, given their risk and liquidity constraints, will trade much wider than a penny, and that is perfectly fine,” argues Ian Bandeen, chairman of the board of Select Vantage Inc. 

“Indeed, some might say that facilitating trading at the highest level of efficiency that the markets will bear is exactly what we should be promoting. If firms can employ better technology to profitably provide tighter spreads for the most liquid securities, then we should encourage, not thwart, that evolution.”

Many argue the rapid proliferation of more advanced order entry and risk management technology has allowed market makers and participants to profitably provide sub penny spreads for over a decade. 

“You have got to applaud the SEC for having the gumption to address these issues and taking on the hard battles,” adds Bandeen.

“There are some very powerful, well-entrenched special interests who will rightfully see this as a direct attack on their business models. At its core, the real issue revolves around who the markets should benefit – the vast majority of institutional and retail investors, or a narrow subset of powerful intermediaries. What the SEC is trying to achieve seems to be a return to fundamental first principles. Politically though, they are walking into a well-funded firestorm.”

Enforcing best execution

The debate surrounding who the markets should revolve around is echoed into the SEC’s proposal to put best execution in writing. As one of the four pillars of the SEC’s proposals, the new rule would establish a best execution regulatory framework for brokers, dealers, government securities brokers, government securities dealers and municipal securities dealers. 

“If adopted, [Regulation Best Execution] would help ensure that brokers have policies and procedures in place to uphold one of their most important obligations: to seek best execution when trading securities, whether equities, fixed income, options, crypto security tokens, or other securities,” says Gary Gensler, chair of the SEC. 

“I believe a best execution standard is too important, too central to the SEC’s mandate to protect investors, not to have on the books as Commission rule text.”

The proposal would require broker-dealers to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to comply with the proposed best execution standard, alongside requiring these policies and procedures to address how broker-dealers comply with the best execution standard and how they will determine the best market and make routing or execution decisions for customer orders.

“The best execution proposal is one that I don’t see getting through because in practice, we execute with the best market possible. Routers on a trading desk are still going to be forced to go to the best venue possible, so that doesn’t really change,” notes O’Connor. “There would be a big change if the retail auction component was to come to fruition. We would all have to adjust how we interact with the exchanges, it’s going to be another venue that traders need to send their child orders to. Certainly, there will be a lot of burden on broker dealers to adjust their routing and adding venues, but it’s not incredibly impactful.”

A retail lightening rod

Perhaps most divisive are the proposals set to fundamentally change the way the retail markets operate. As part of its best execution crusade, the US watchdog’s new proposals enforce that certain orders from retail investors be exposed to competition in fair and open auctions before such orders could be executed internally by any trading centre that restricts order-by-order competition. 

“That particular proposal was a bit of a lightning rod for controversy, and we took a position where we’re advocating for market-based solutions rather than regulatory edict,” explains Stockland. “If there’s an opportunity for us and our clients to interact more with retail, we will absolutely be ready for that day one, and we have some ability within our strategies to behave opportunistically in response to retail opportunities.”

Payment for order flow (PFOF) – which is a form of compensation through transferring some of the trading profits from market makers to brokerages in return for directing order from a range of parties to be executed with them – and its widespread use has become a controversial topic globally. Many argue that this order flow – which the growing retail segment contributes significantly towards – should be won by publishing competitive quotes instead. 

According to 606 reports gathered by the SEC, Citadel Securities forked out $2.6 billion in 2020 and 2021 on PFOF, most of it on options, followed by Susquehanna (G1X global execution brokers), which spent a $1.5 billion and Virtu which spent $654 million in the same period.

The SEC has concluded that retail investors do not currently benefit from a fair and competitive market, due to the lack of a level playing field among various aspects of the market, namely wholesalers, dark pools and lit exchanges. As part of its proposed overhaul, the regulator has highlighted that the markets have become increasingly hidden from views, especially for retail investors. Over 90% of marketable orders for stocks listed on US securities exchanges by retail investors are routed to a small group of off-exchange dealers (wholesalers) – reflecting that these orders impose lower costs on liquidity providers than unsegmented order flow, said
the SEC.

And, these wholesalers typically execute the marketable orders of individual investors internally, without providing any opportunity for other market participants to compete to provide better prices – meaning they are not only segmented but are also isolated from order-by-order competition. 

If executed correctly, the watchdog’s proposal could mean both retail and institutional investors will benefit from increased competition for orders.  

“The loudest current fearmongers are primarily just the entrenched special interests with the most to lose from enhanced market efficiency and integrity. Bringing retail order flow back into the open markets will benefit everyone. Liquidity begets liquidity, and more liquidity means greater efficiency and less risk,” says Schlaepfer. “The only people who will be negatively impacted will be those whose business models relied on abusing outmoded rules to their exclusive benefit.”

What happens next?

The SEC first announced its equity market structure proposals in December last year, with a public comment period opened until 31 March. As of now, the SEC has not revealed which proposals will come into fruition and to what extent, but it goes without saying that the industry will be kept on it toes as the final verdict builds anticipation. The proposals themselves have resulted in wide industry discussion. Whether viewed as disruptive or not, they aim to improve competitiveness in the market – which is something that should be viewed as beneficial.

“These changes are about improving competition and efficiency in the market. We can debate the details and talk about the nuance, but ultimately, institutions benefit from a more efficient market,” concludes Stockland. 

The post The SEC’s equities overhaul: Necessary plumbing changes or a liquidity drain? appeared first on The TRADE.

Crypto trading platform Bittrex – along with its former chief executive, William Shihara – has been ordered to settle SEC charges for failing to register as an exchange, broker and clearing agency.

Bittrex and Bittrex Global agreed to pay a total payment of £24 million – specifically, a disgorgement of $14 million on a joint and several basis, a prejudgment interest of $4 million, and a civil penalty of $5.6 million.

Earlier this year in April, the SEC found that Bittrex was operating an unregistered national securities exchange and providing services to US investors related to crypto assets which were offered and sold as securities.

The business was also found to have “directed issuers who sought to have their crypto assets made available for trading on Bittrex’s platform to first delete from public channels certain “problematic statements” that Shihara believed would lead a regulator, such as the SEC, to investigate whether the crypto asset was offered and sold as a security.”

In the settlement, which is subject to court approval, neither Bittrex nor Shihara have admitted or denied any wrongdoing in response to the SEC’s allegations.

This news follows the SEC’s ruling earlier this week which ordered 11 Wall Street firms $289 million for widespread recordkeeping failures, having been found to have been using longstanding “off-channel” communications following an investigation . 

Gurbir Grewal, director of the enforcement division at SEC, said: “For years, Bittrex worked with token issuers to ‘scrub’ their online statements of any indicia that they were investment contracts—all in an effort to evade the federal securities laws. They failed. 

“Today’s settlement makes clear that you cannot escape liability by simply changing labels or altering descriptions because what matters is the economic realities of those offerings. I am grateful to the SEC staff for aggressively pursuing non-compliance in the crypto industry, resolving this matter, and bringing additional relief to harmed investors.”

The post Crypto trading platform Bittrex to settle SEC $24 million charge for operating an unregistered exchange, broker and clearing agency appeared first on The TRADE.