Subscribe to Itiviti Talks

MiFID II time synchronization underpins best execution, best practice and beyond

By LARS WIBERG, VP STRATEGIC RESEARCH, TRADING & TRADE EXECUTION, ITIVITI
December 13, 2017
Share:

Among MiFID II’s extensive new transparency requirements is a new set of technical standards that relate to time-stamping, message-latency, record-keeping and reporting that affects trading systems used by market participants of all kinds.

While relatively straightforward on the surface, the regulation’s requirement for time synchronization across trading-related applications are presenting practitioners with some serious logistical and technological challenges. The time-stamping of transactions for a range of functions, including best execution assessment, cross-venue monitoring, and algorithmic trading audit, is complex.

Technically, putting in place systems to meet the synchronization challenge is an extension of what many firms already have in place to monitor their high-performance trading systems. But the scale of the new measures, requiring significantly more data points to record across activities in a broader set of asset classes, means firms will need to adopt strict governance policies to manage the infrastructure needed to calibrate clocks, synchronize time-stamps and collect the data required for compliance.

For an investment firm to monitor best execution, it must be able to compare timestamps between venues on a like-for-like basis. Take, for example, measuring order arrival against first execution on a venue, where the venue disseminates timestamps in microseconds. It would be impossible to rebuild the order book at time of arrival at the investment firm unless the firm also synchronised down to the same granularity as the venue. This requires use of clock synchronization, from a venue perspective, as well as from an investment firm perspective.

MiFID II sets out different levels of granularity of time measurement and stamping according to the activities of the entity under regulation. For trading venues, the requirement is specified in terms of gateway-to-gateway latency. This refers to the time measured from the moment an order message is received by an outer gateway of the trading venue’s systems, sent through the order submission protocol, processed by the matching engine, and then sent back, until an acknowledgment is sent from the original gateway.

For trading venues – exchanges/regulated markets, multilateral trading facilities (MTFs), organized trading facilities (OTFs), swap execution facilities (SEFs) and systematic internalisers – offering gateway-to-gateway latency of more than one millisecond, the requirement is for time-stamping to a granularity of up to one millisecond. For these venues, MiFID II allows maximum divergence from the benchmark Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) of one millisecond. For faster venues with gateway-to-gateway latency of less than one millisecond, required time-stamping granularity is one microsecond, with maximum divergence of 100 microseconds.

For market participants like exchange members and their clients, the requirement again varies according to activity/function. For voice trading and request for quote (RFQ) activity, firms are required to provide a time-stamping granularity of one second, with maximum divergence from UTC of one second.

For high-speed electronic trading firms, the time-stamp audit points must be captured on the route of an order message from its origination by a firm’s FIX engine, through order/execution management systems to the venue’s market access gateway. Here, the required time-stamp granularity is one millisecond, with one millisecond maximum UTC divergence for non-HFT firms. For high frequency / algorithmic trading, the spec is for one microsecond time-stamp granularity and 100 microseconds’ maximum divergence from UTC.

MiFID II outlines a hierarchy of reporting obligations. From a time-stamp perspective, these range from voice recording and quotes for OTC instruments governed by Article 16 and are subject to latency divergences of up to one second, through to Articles 6, 7, 10, 11 and 26, which govern trade reporting (near real-time reports to an exchange or APA, and transaction reporting (more detailed reports, often with T+1 delivery), which in extreme cases are subject to microsecond accuracy requirements. Finally, Articles 17 and 25 cover record-keeping by investment firms, trading venue operators and systematic internalisers, with the requirement to store a full audit trail for five years (and in some cases up to seven years).

Too meet this array of requirements, firms’ connectivity solutions need to synchronize their business clocks in order to get the correct timestamp on each trade and on all order book data. Firms will require a comprehensive latency monitoring capability to detect any anomalies in the performance of the market data flow. It’s essential for firms to eliminate any jitter, or dissemination latency, from their information delivery systems, to ensure that the real-time view of the entire market at any given point in time is not distorted.

As such, MiFID II’s time-stamping obligations necessarily involve calibrating the clocks that measure activity on all internal systems involved in the trading process. This requires a compliant trading architecture that provides accuracy throughout the full order lifecycle: from trading application to market access gateway to exchange gateway to matching engine and back. In this way, firms need to generate a complete record of every new, amended, cancelled, partially traded and completely traded (filled) order. Trading firms and venues will need to design their time synchronization capabilities at the one millisecond level as a bare minimum.

What’s clear is that a piecemeal approach to addressing the time synchronization issue won’t suffice. Firms need to take a holistic approach if they are to avoid the spectre of non-compliance, and the financial and reputational penalties that involves.

Moreover, a holistic approach can bring substantial operational benefits. Accurate time-stamping can underpin firms’ responses to the EU Market Abuse Regulation (MAR), to best execution provisions of other regulations like the US’s Dodd Frank, and other compliance-related issues. It can also yield business performance metrics unavailable till now, offering insight into operational efficiency, profitability and risk management.

Download our MiFID II white paper

Related Content

MiFID II in action: half-year review

MiFID II in action: half-year review

Risk & Compliance Roughly six months after the introduction of MiFID II, Johannes Frey-Skött – VP Apps Engineering, Itiviti – talks to The TRADE about the short-term impact of the regulation on European market players, looking at both the positive and negative effects witnessed so far. He also outlines current pain points in MiFID II compliance and the […] July 17, 2018

MiFID II: the need for a centralized messaging platform

MiFID II: the need for a centralized messaging platform

Risk & Compliance With the pressure of initial implementation now a distant memory, MiFID II-regulated firms are turning their attention to the real work required to create sustainable long-term solutions. For many, the race to meet the January 3 deadline meant implementing temporary compliance processes that were far from perfect. Unless updated and improved, these could lead to […] July 10, 2018

Jitneytrade client connectivity case study

Jitneytrade client connectivity case study

Risk & Compliance What happens when one of the top 10 active brokers in Canada is confronted with: Stringent risk control requirements for electronic trading Time-to-market imperative to supersede TMX’ monitoring service termination Need to consolidate 14 internal trading platforms into a central gateway for enterprise-level risk management Optimization of latency and access speed for client connectivity Download […] June 26, 2018

The new Itiviti

The new Itiviti

Execution Following the merger between Itiviti and ULLINK in March 2018, Richard Bentley – Chief Product Officer of the combined company – talks to The TRADE about the new company at IDX London 2018. On the agenda: the rationale behind the merger, the company’s individual and combined strengths, product strategy going forward, key priorities for the […] June 11, 2018

Itiviti Talks

Itiviti Talks is your source for the technology perspective on the global capital markets. We have created this to be an engaging forum for sharing ideas with our clients, partners and other industry professionals. You will find videos, blog posts, white papers and more that deal with the needs and challenges of brokers, market makers and trading executives.
 
Watch, read and enjoy for new inspiration and insights.

By submitting this form, you acknowledge that data collected by us will be handled in accordance with our Privacy Notice.

Itiviti Talks

Get our view on global capital markets

Subscribe

Subscription successful

Thank you for subscribing!

Close window

Itiviti Talks

Get our view on global capital markets

Weekly email

    Trends in global capital markets from a technology perspective.

By submitting this form, you acknowledge that data collected by us will be handled in accordance with our Privacy Notice.