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.
Execution In the months following the implementation of MiFID II, we have seen and will continue to see a number of Systematic Internalisers (SIs) appear on the market – some of their own volition, some following ESMA’s publication of benchmark data and thresholds. What we have seen is that many of these SIs started off by […] September 18, 2018
FIX Infrastructure End-to-end testing of trading infrastructure is critical in today’s increasingly heavily regulated environment – but compliance comes at a price. So why should financial firms pay it, and what happens if they don’t? In our second blog post on the topic, we explore the most pressing reasons to implement a robust testing mechanism. The most […] September 11, 2018
FIX Infrastructure As trading processes become ever more sophisticated and regulators race to catch up, the end-to-end testing of trading infrastructure is an increasingly crucial component of compliance. Financial services firms face severe penalties for trading errors – including fines, loss of reputation, potential bankruptcy and even personal repercussions for senior executives. The cost of failure is […] August 21, 2018
Trading Forex trading is increasingly influenced by and synchronized with equities. With this trend come new opportunities and challenges for Forex market participants. The trading styles and tools traditionally used for Forex are converging with other asset classes, enabling multi-asset and true cross-asset trading, and presenting an opportunity to consolidate and streamline trading technology. Download the […] August 7, 2018
By submitting this form, you acknowledge that data collected by us will be handled in accordance with our Privacy Notice.