The tick size is the smallest increment permitted in trading a security. It can be seen as the price of time priority in the order book. A small tick size equals a low price to get ahead in the queue; a large tick size equals the opposite. This makes tick size an important parameter in the market micro structure. Setting the “right” tick size is difficult, however; the “Laffer curve” sometimes used to describe the expected effects of taxation arguably applies to tick sizes as well.
– Too small tick size => the value of time priority decreases which leads to lower liquidity in the order book.
– Too high tick size => the spread cost is considered too high and may result in lower turnover velocity.
Furthermore, the task of finding the right tick size is rather futile, since the ideal definition differs between investment firms.
Before MiFID applied in 2007, each exchange could decide on their own tick size without worrying about other venues, since all trading was in practice concentrated to the incumbent exchanges. At one point, 25 different tick size tables were used in Europe. When fragmentation started to take off after MiFID, one of the drivers was the fact that the MTFs implemented lower tick sizes than the incumbents. The use of Smart Order Routers, together with the Best Execution requirement, “forced” the order flow to the MTFs with the lower tick sizes than the incumbents. The result was a “race to the bottom” and a negative impact on market quality.
Finally in 2009 this lead to an agreement between the trading venues, through the Federation of European Stock Exchanges (FESE), to introduce a common tick size table (“FESE-2”) for the most liquid stocks. This short-lived agreement lasted until the beginning of 2011, when Euronext announced that they would use a more granular table for their most liquid stocks (“FESE-4”). Deutsche Börse soon followed with a tighter tick size table than the agreed FESE-2.
Against this background, it is no surprise that regulators now suggest centrally governed tick sizes. We now know the scope of the new tick size regime, but what consequences can we expect? Will the proposed changes find the right balance between spread cost and order book depth?
This article provides an overview of the new tick size regime under MiFID II and its possible consequences.
FIX Infrastructure It goes without saying that it’s imperative for trading technologists to thoroughly test their systems before the put them in a production environment. Clearly, building a market-beating trading platform requires a high level of uptime and a propensity for failure that’s as close to zero as possible. And for years technologists have used a range […] November 5, 2018
Risk & Compliance Nine months into the MiFID II era, it’s time to look beyond the compliance issues and start considering the business opportunities presented to firms operating under the Systematic Internaliser regime. With the support from a value-adding regulatory solution, SI status can be used for competitive advantage, suggests Jonas Lindqvist, Principal, Trading and Trade Execution, Itiviti. […] October 9, 2018
Risk & Compliance Trading firms across the board are discovering that operational and regulatory requirements increasingly demand a consistent approach to connectivity, messaging and data management. To industrialize their response to these emerging requirements – to address the challenges in a streamlined, consistent and scalable way – firms need to put in place a centralized connectivity and messaging […] September 25, 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.