In a low interest rate environment with regulatory hurdles, capital requirements, and technological complexities, how do firms in the futures industry thrive?
We gathered one seasoned fin tech reporter, Jim Kharouf from John Lothian News, and representatives from an FCM, an ISV, a prop firm/market maker, and a bank – to join us at a busy Chicago steakhouse, for a candid discussion about the state of the futures industry.
The contributors unanimously agreed that the current business environment remains challenging. Amongst the obstacles mentioned by FCM representatives were increased capital requirements, the additional liability carried on behalf of their customers (recently exemplified by Advantage Futures settlement with the CFTC on rules 1.73 and 1.11), account for clearing costs in their business models, and cope with risk models that are not perceived Furthermore, banks’ withdrawal from markets has resulted in fleeting liquidity.
Interestingly, in spite of headwinds, all participants are finding ways to grow their business. As the FCM segment contracts, larger firms have the opportunity to consolidate business. There was a consensus in the group that it was increasingly important to leverage core competencies and focus resources in niche areas. Likewise, trading firms with adequate capital and technology capacity have an opportunity to fill some of the void left by banks–a number are also exploring diversification strategies.
Industry participants are increasingly leveraging third-party technology to offset cost and complexity. The challenge remains finding vendors with the longevity and market knowledge to be partners, and solutions that allow participants to focus on core business drivers. One participant commented that sometimes vended solutions look good on paper, and may perform to specifications, but that his main concern was around all aspects, including operational, which may not be up to scratch to make a purchase worthwhile.
Speaking of the coming years, the group opined that cost and regulatory hurdles are so high in the current environment that few new entrants are expected. For incumbents that are able to focus on their core competencies, and remain differentiated from their competition, new opportunities will be found now and going forward.
To read the full report from John Lothian News, please click here
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
Risk & Compliance MiFID II marked a sea change in the approach to the handling of order, trade and transaction data. Rigorous new requirements around data capture, analysis, reporting and record-keeping made the communication of data a central theme in ensuring trading systems were MiFID II compliant, and connectivity – between external and internal systems, databases and processors […] August 14, 2018
By submitting this form, you acknowledge that data collected by us will be handled in accordance with our Privacy Notice.