Conventional wisdom holds that if you want a truly flexible and open trading platform you should build your own. If time to market and cost are your top priorities, buy from a vendor. Today, however, some vendors claim to offer the flexibility of an in-house system combined with the convenience of one off-the-shelf. Is there a way to scrutinize the truth in this argument?
If you’re considering investing in a vendor platform and openness is a top priority, it is important to identify and evaluate the truly “open” platforms up front. Otherwise, you risk getting halfway through an implementation process only to discover that the functionality you wanted to customize is locked. But are there ways to measure and validate a vendor’s claim to openness?
One generic measure is lines of code (LOC), comparing how much of the system code is locked down vs. open and changeable. For example, Tbricks by Itiviti’s clean separation of system core and apps makes it easy to count the LOC and compare the two – by this measure, more than one quarter of the system is implemented as open and changeable code (apps). But what does this actually tell us? Is 25% a ‘good’ number?
Tbricks by Itiviti is actually designed to allow extension with as few lines of code as possible, sometimes with no code at all. The API is architected to remove ‘typical’ overheads from the development process, such as concurrency, memory management and excessive boilerplate code. There is also a massive amount of built-in functionality specifically for writing trading applications.
So, LOC is not the whole truth – how else can one evaluate a vendor’s claim to flexibility? Future articles will discuss this and other ways to determine system suitability (in-house or off-the-shelf) in depth.
Trading As discussed in an earlier blog post, convergence of equities and FX markets is spurring some institutions to merge their respective trading operations so as to enjoy economies and leverage successful activities across both asset classes. But for firms taking this route, there are significant challenges. Despite the convergence of FX and equities markets, there […] January 14, 2019
Risk & Compliance MiFID II posed a significant number of challenges for trading firms across Europe, but its regulatory impact has perhaps not been as dramatic as many had anticipated. Although many analysts predicted the imminent failure of smaller market players and potentially serious consequences for firms undertaking systematic internalization, the regulation came into play without creating quite […] January 7, 2019
Trading On December 5th 2018, Itiviti’s Systematic Internaliser solution was named Best New Technology Product – Trading and Execution at 2018 FOW International Awards. In this article, Itiviti’s Jonas Lindqvist explains how Itiviti was already working with clients to identify the opportunities offered by the SI regime on MiFID II’s January 3rd go-live date. In the […] December 17, 2018
Execution Change is nothing new in trading. Since the millennium, sell-side brokers have had to ride waves of transformation in regulation, market structure, technology and economic fundamentals. Survival and success have depended on adaptability and timely adjustment to these increasingly complex market circumstances in terms of organization, business models and technology. The financial crisis of 2008 […] December 10, 2018
By submitting this form, you acknowledge that data collected by us will be handled in accordance with our Privacy Notice.