PDF Enterprise Applications Markets and Services in The Finance Industry 9Th International Workshop Financecom 2018 Manchester Uk June 22 2018 Revised Papers Nikolay Mehandjiev Ebook Full Chapter
PDF Enterprise Applications Markets and Services in The Finance Industry 9Th International Workshop Financecom 2018 Manchester Uk June 22 2018 Revised Papers Nikolay Mehandjiev Ebook Full Chapter
PDF Enterprise Applications Markets and Services in The Finance Industry 9Th International Workshop Financecom 2018 Manchester Uk June 22 2018 Revised Papers Nikolay Mehandjiev Ebook Full Chapter
https://textbookfull.com/product/security-protocols-xxvi-26th-
international-workshop-cambridge-uk-march-19-21-2018-revised-
selected-papers-vashek-matyas/
New Trends in Computer Technologies and Applications
23rd International Computer Symposium ICS 2018 Yunlin
Taiwan December 20 22 2018 Revised Selected Papers
Chuan-Yu Chang
https://textbookfull.com/product/new-trends-in-computer-
technologies-and-applications-23rd-international-computer-
symposium-ics-2018-yunlin-taiwan-december-20-22-2018-revised-
selected-papers-chuan-yu-chang/
https://textbookfull.com/product/big-scientific-data-benchmarks-
architecture-and-systems-first-workshop-sdba-2018-beijing-china-
june-12-2018-revised-selected-papers-rui-ren/
https://textbookfull.com/product/computer-vision-applications-
third-workshop-wcva-2018-held-in-conjunction-with-
icvgip-2018-hyderabad-india-december-18-2018-revised-selected-
papers-chetan-arora/
Enterprise Applications,
LNBIP 345
123
Lecture Notes
in Business Information Processing 345
Series Editors
Wil van der Aalst
RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
John Mylopoulos
University of Trento, Trento, Italy
Michael Rosemann
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Michael J. Shaw
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL, USA
Clemens Szyperski
Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/7911
Nikolay Mehandjiev Brahim Saadouni (Eds.)
•
Enterprise Applications,
Markets and Services
in the Finance Industry
9th International Workshop, FinanceCom 2018
Manchester, UK, June 22, 2018
Revised Papers
123
Editors
Nikolay Mehandjiev Brahim Saadouni
Alliance Manchester Business School Alliance Manchester Business School
Manchester, UK Manchester, UK
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface
The third part of the proceedings contains three papers focusing on the use of
semantic modelling in supporting financial trading. In their paper, “Semantic Model
Based Framework for Regulatory Reporting Process Management,” Pilaka et al.
describe how semantic modelling can help in extracting instances of regulatory
reporting processes from event traces and help with compliance monitoring. The
proposed framework is tested through applying it to event traces from the Australian
Securities Exchange to extract instances of the “off market bid” regulatory process.
The second paper, “Applying Ontology-Informed Lattice Reduction Using the
Discrimination Power Index to Financial Domain,” by Quboa et al. describes the use of
semantically encoded knowledge about asset allocation to support the automatic
clustering of instances sampled from the domain and their tagging with semantic
information. The final paper in this section by Behnaz et al., “A Statistical Learning
Ontology for Managing Analytics Knowledge,” proposes an ontology development
process tuned to developing statistical learning ontologies that can support analytics.
Two case studies ground the research to the domains of commodity pricing and digital
marketing.
Special thanks go to Alliance Family Foundation and Alliance Manchester Business
School Strategic Investment Fund, which supported this event financially through the
Alliance MBS Big Data Forum. We are also grateful to Fethi Rabhi, who has guided us
all the way in getting this workshop and proceedings organized from start to finish. We
are grateful to our team of reviewers and Program Committee members, who worked
very hard with the authors to ensure the quality of the papers included in this volume,
and to Ralf Gerstner and Christine Reiss from Springer for their excellent support in
producing this proceedings volume.
The workshop took place at the Alliance Manchester Business School in Manchester,
UK. Financial support by the Alliance Family Foundation through the Alliance MBS
Big Data Forum is gratefully acknowledged.
Program Committee
Marc Adam University of Newcastle, Australia
Madhushi Bandara University of New South Wales, Australia
Sonia Cisneros-Cabrera Alliance Manchester Business School, UK
Onur Demirors Izmir Institute of Technology, Turkey
Saif Dewan Australian National University, Australia
Stefan Feuerriegel University of Freiburg, Germany
Mahdi Fahmideh Gholami University of Wollongong, Australia
Peter Gomber University of Frankfurt, Germany
Nikolay Kazantsev Alliance Manchester Business School, UK
Stefan Lessmann Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany
Artur Lugmayr Curtin University, Australia
Jan Muntermann University of Göttingen, Germany
Dirk Neumann University of Freiburg, Germany
Maurice Peat University of Sydney, Australia
Helmut Prendinger National Institute of Informatics, Japan
Qudamah Quboa University of Manchester, UK
Fethi Rabhi University of New South Wales, Australia
Federico Rajola Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Italy
Ryan Riordan University of Ontario, Canada
Michael Siering University of Frankfurt, Germany
Andrea Signori Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Italy
Basem Suleiman University of Sydney, Australia
Christof Weinhardt Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany
Axel Winkelmann University of Würzburg, Germany
Financial Innovation
Blockchained Sukuk-Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Shazib Shaikh and Fatima Zaka
Semantic Modelling
1 Introduction
integrity, harmonized European regulation and a level playing field among dif-
ferent types of trading venues to assure competition and to foster innovation.
Furthermore, MiFID I increased competition between trading venues through
the introduction of multilateral trading facilities (MTFs).
The competition between trading venues fostered by MiFID I led to a highly
fragmented equity market in Europe. As of June 2017, new competitors of the
incumbent national exchanges together achieved a market share of more than
28% of total European electronic order book trading in equities [17]. Industry
studies (e.g., [32]) show that the service and fee competition triggered by MiFID I
reduced explicit transaction costs both at trading venues and post-trade infras-
tructures.
Today, new requirements laid down in MiFID II and its accompanying regu-
lation Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (MiFIR) seek to extend the
benefits that MiFID I generated for equity markets to other asset classes and
to address problems caused by market fragmentation, dark trading, and over-
the-counter (OTC) trading. One of the key objectives of MiFID II and MiFIR,
which have to be applied from January 3rd, 2018, is that OTC trades (unless
they fulfill certain criteria as discussed in detail in Sect. 3) are being forced to
take place on RMs, MTFs, or Systematic Internalisers (SIs) due to the so-called
trading obligation for shares. The goal of this study is to describe the context
of the new trading obligation for shares and to investigate its potential effect
on trading volume and liquidity on lit venues, i.e. transparent open order book
markets that play a crucial role in the price discovery process. Thereby, this
study should serve as a toolbox for market participants to assess the impact
of the new regulation based on their own individual estimates regarding likely
scenarios and the thresholds for migrating OTC volumes. Based on data and
experts’ estimates collected by a questionnaire, this study provides a prospec-
tive assessment of potential effects due to the introduction of the MiFIR trading
obligation.
In Sect. 2, we discuss the drivers and goals of MiFID II/MiFIR against the
background of changes in European equity trading due to MiFID I, technological
developments in trading in the last ten years, and lessons learned from the
financial crisis. Section 3 describes the concept of the MiFIR trading obligation
and the related industry discussions concerning its implementation in detail. In
Sect. 4, we explain the scenario methodology and develop the scenarios to assess
the potential impact of the trading obligation on market share distribution and
market liquidity in European equity trading. Section 5 describes our empirical
analysis and results regarding the impact of the trading obligation on trading
volume and liquidity. Section 6 discusses the results as well as limitations of this
study. Finally, Sect. 7 concludes this paper.
1
CESR, the predecessor of ESMA, defined Broker Crossing Networks as “internal
electronic matching systems operated by an investment firm that execute client
orders against other client orders or house account orders” [4].
6 P. Gomber et al.
regulatory regime, and a large fraction of trading is still conducted OTC. Conse-
quently, MiFID II and MiFIR include several new regulations aiming at enhanc-
ing transparency, which are described in the following Sect. 3.
A key concept of MiFID II/MiFIR is to require all organized trading to take place
on organized venues and to ensure that trading systems are properly regulated
to assure a higher level of transparency (MiFIR, Recital 6). To achieve this goal,
the new market framework introduces four key concepts: (i) a new category of
trading venues called Organised Trading Facility (OTF) for non-equity instru-
ments to be traded on a multilateral platform, (ii) the so-called “double volume
cap regime” for equity trading, (iii) a new trading obligation for derivatives, and
(iv) a new trading obligation for shares. Moreover, transparency requirements
that only apply to shares according to MiFID I are extended to equity-like and
non-equity instruments establishing uniform requirements for the transparency
of transactions in financial markets (MiFIR, Recital 1).
The trading obligation for shares intends to restrict equity trading conducted
OTC to ensure that more trading takes place on regulated trading venues and on
platforms of SIs in order to increase transparency and to improve the quality of
the price discovery process as well as liquidity on lit markets (MiFIR, Recital 11).
It requires investment firms to undertake all trades in shares on an RM, an MTF,
an SI, or an equivalent third-country trading venue. Exemptions to the trading
obligation only apply if there are legitimate reasons2 . MiFIR, Recital 11 explicitly
states in this context that “[...] an exclusion from that trading obligation should
not be used to circumvent the restrictions introduced on the use of the reference
price waiver and the negotiated price waiver or to operate a broker crossing
network or other crossing system”. Therefore, BCNs, that are a relevant part of
OTC trading in equities today, cannot exist any longer in their former set-up
after January 3rd, 2018. These systems have to be authorized and operated as
MTFs or SIs (MiFIR, Recital 6).
The introduction of the trading obligation and the prohibition of BCN trig-
gered an intensive industry and regulatory debate concerning the level playing
field and delineation between bilateral (SI and OTC) and multilateral trading
(RM and MTF). This debate centered around the possibility for SIs to trans-
act via riskless back-to-back transactions both by executing customer orders
2
According to MiFIR Article 23 (1), trades can only be executed on an OTC basis if
they are non-systematic, ad-hoc, irregular and infrequent, or are carried out between
eligible and/or professional counterparties and do not contribute to the price discov-
ery process. Article 2 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/587 (RTS 1)
lists seven circumstances where trades do not contribute to the price discovery pro-
cess: vwap-twap trades, portfolio trades, hedges, transfers among fund portfolios,
give-ups/give-ins, collateral transfers, deliveries in case of exercises, securities financ-
ing transactions and buy-ins.
The MiFIR Trading Obligation: Impact on Trading Volume and Liquidity 7
within their own SI and with other SIs or HFT Market Makers via so-called
SI-Networks. Exchanges and various regulators argued that this might create
unfair advantages for SIs relative to multilateral venues, reduce market trans-
parency and impede the efficiency of the price discovery process. After an inten-
sive correspondence between ESMA, the European Parliament and the European
Commission in early 2017, the European Commission proposed a Commission
Delegated Regulation [12] to clarify and amend the definition of SIs by adding a
new article 16(a) to Commission Delegated Regulation No 2017/565 that states:
“An investment firm shall not be considered to be dealing on own account [...]
where that investment firm participates in matching arrangements entered into
with entities outside its own group with the objective or consequence of carrying
out de facto riskless back-to-back transactions in a financial instrument outside
a trading venue”. Recital 2 of the Commission Delegated Regulation applies this
restriction to both internal and external matching of trades, thereby referring to
the intensively discussed networks of SIs.
This debate reveals that MiFID II/MIFIR re-launch a fight for market shares
between trading venues and SI/OTC trading on the one hand and among the
different types of trading venues on the other hand. Therefore, it is by no means
a given fact that the trading obligation and the prohibition of BCNs will result
in higher market shares of multilateral venues relative to bilateral means of
execution.
An intelligent interpretation and implementation of the new MiFID II/MIFIR
set-up by the financial industry might even result in higher shares of non-lit
and non-multilateral executions in European equity trading from January 2018
onwards. Specifically, the tick size regime in combination with best execution
requirements and the double volume caps within MiFID II/MiFIR might lead to
a shift of trading behavior and resulting order flows.
In order to curb competition among trading venues based on tick size,
MiFID II (Article 49) imposes the adoption of a (minimum) tick size regime
that is defined in prescriptive and detailed tick size tables of Commission Del-
egated Regulation No 2017/588 [13]. While Article 49 MiFID II requires RMs
to comply with the tick size regime, Article 18 (5) extends this requirement to
MTFs (and OTFs). However, the tick size regime does not extend to SIs and
OTC trading. Empirical research of [24] reveals that 29.3% of all SI trades and
24.8% of all OTC trades in a 2.5 years data set of European top liquid stocks
violate the existing voluntary tick size agreements [18] among exchanges and
MTFs in Europe. The vast majority of those tick size violations are trivial price
improvements over the quotes of public lit markets. The ability to grant those
trivial price improvements in the SI space and thereby still meeting the require-
ments of the trading obligation makes the SI regime very attractive. As it enables
to execute within the public spread and to free-ride on the public price discovery
process, it reduces the incentives of liquidity providers to provide competitive
quotes in lit markets. Furthermore, the price improvements, even if economically
very small, will likely prioritize SIs over lit markets in order routing decisions
driven by best execution requirements. In response to ongoing debates about
the minimum tick size exemption for SIs, ESMA opened a public consultation in
8 P. Gomber et al.
November 2017 to clarify that SIs’ quotes should reflect the tick sizes applicable
to EU trading venues.
The dark pool caps will also result in a change of trading behavior. Market
operators (e.g., Cboe Europe3 offering a Periodic Auctions Book model) as well
as buy and sell side firms (e.g., the Plato Partnership project that is linked to the
Turquoise Block Discovery service) launch new services and functionalities that
help to avoid a classification of orders under the negotiated trade and reference
price waivers and classify them as executions under either the auction model
(and therefore limited pre-trade transparency) or under the LIS waiver (that is
not included in the double volume cap mechanism). While this will increase the
relevance of block trading in the future European execution ecosystem, investors
will still try to identify ways to execute below LIS trades without pre-trade trans-
parency and market impact. Against the background of the BCN prohibition,
SIs offer an attractive alternative for customers in this respect as the SI trans-
parency is limited to standard-market sizes (which is 7,500 e for most European
shares), SIs fulfill the trading obligation requirements, and SIs enable customers
to receive price improvements in combination with lower explicit fees compared
to trading venues. The concept enables SI providers to keep order flows currently
traded in their BCNs while at the same time fulfilling the requirements of the
trading obligation (without the need to become an MTF). Moreover, they are
able to tailor quotes to specific clients based on risk considerations, to cream-
skim the order flow, i.e. to send informed order flow to public markets, and to
attract smart order routers based on small increments in price improvements
over the public spread. SI executions (e.g., at midpoint) also do not count under
the reference price waiver and are not included in the double volume caps. The
benefits of the SI regime might additionally attract current liquidity providers
in BCNs to register as SIs in an attempt to retain their business model.
Thereby, the new regulatory framework and the combined effect of the trad-
ing obligation, the tick size regime, and the double volume cap will significantly
influence European equities trading and will likely result in a redistribution of
market shares between multilateral trading venues, SI, and OTC trading.
4 Scenario Development
The scenario analysis is a qualitative forecasting technique that is useful for
strategic planning [3]. It is an effective methodology to deal with uncertainty
when forecasting complex developments or structures, which is regularly used
by academics and practitioners [34]. The scenario analysis represents an alterna-
tive to extrapolating past trends and relationships. In line with [29], we under-
stand scenarios as “a narrative description of a consistent set of factors which
define in a probabilistic sense alternative sets of future business conditions”. A
scenario analysis enables to capture a whole range of possible future outcomes
thereby revealing how different assumptions and uncertainties interact under
certain conditions [36]. Scenarios are suitable to capture new states after major
3
Formerly Bats Europe.
The MiFIR Trading Obligation: Impact on Trading Volume and Liquidity 9
In order to assess the likelihood of migration for different OTC trade size
categories, we conducted an online survey among industry experts on trading
and market structure. This survey was composed of 25 questions dealing with
different aspects of MiFID II/MiFIR that might have an impact on European
market structure. Access to the questionnaire started on November 29th, 2017
and closed on December 19th, 2017. This ensures that participants’ answers are
based on a prospective view and are not biased through first changes triggered by
the new rules. The questionnaire was distributed among 375 experts, whereof 111
experts submitted the online questionnaire before the deadline. This results in a
response rate of 29.6%. Among more general questions, the survey participants
10 P. Gomber et al.
were specifically asked to evaluate the scenarios described above and to estimate
the volume shifts of OTC volumes in different trade size categories to lit markets
due to the trading obligation for shares.
We assume that the probability of OTC volume migrating to lit markets
depends on the respective size of an OTC trade and 98% of the respondents
agreed to this assumption. The survey participants estimated that on average
39% of the OTC trades smaller than 500,000 e and 22% of the OTC trades
between 500,000 e and 50 mn e will migrate to lit markets. As OTC trades
larger than 50 mn e are very likely to account for portfolio transfers and other
non-trading related motivations, a vast majority of survey participants (98%)
expects that this kind of trades will remain OTC. Therefore, we assume that no
volume of this category will shift to lit markets.
Additionally, the participants were asked to determine which of the three
scenarios (A-C) appear to be most realistic. 17% of the survey participants
consider scenario A to be most realistic while 34% of the respondents believe
that scenario B is most realistic. With 43%, the largest group of industry experts
considers scenario C to be most realistic among the three different scenarios.
Only 5% of the respondents think that none of the scenarios described above is
realistic4 .
5 Empirical Analysis
In the next steps, we determine the likely change in trading volume on lit mar-
kets due to the trading obligation for OTC trades respectively the BCN trading
prohibition for the three scenarios described above. Furthermore, we investi-
gate the liquidity effect due to these volume shifts in public limit order books
on the main market. For this analysis, we use Thomson Reuters Tick History
(TRTH) as the primary source of data. Our sample comprises constituents of the
EURO STOXX 50 as of January 2013. The sample period covers all trading days
between 1 January 2008 and 30 June 2013. The sample period is suitable for the
research question at hand since it ends one year before MiFID II came into force.
Thus, it excludes any possible announcement effects or changes in trading pro-
tocols to cope with the new regulatory environment such as new mechanisms to
handle the double-volume cap mechanism that were already introduced shortly
after MiFID II came into force in mid-2014 (e.g., the Volume Discovery Order,
Cboe Europe’s Periodic Auctions Book, or the Plato Partnership). Nevertheless,
market share distribution and overall trading volume in the last quarter of our
sample (2nd Quarter 2013), which serves as the reference for our scenario anal-
ysis, were similar to the same quarter in 2017 (2nd Quarter 2017) before the
application of MiFID II/MiFIR.
Our coverage of venues includes the main market for each stock of the EURO
STOXX 50 index. Therefore, we include data of the following main markets:
4
The complete analysis of the survey results can be found in [21].
The MiFIR Trading Obligation: Impact on Trading Volume and Liquidity 11
Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Milan, Helsinki, Madrid, Brussels and Dublin. The
data contains trades on all these main markets as well as order book updates at
a millisecond precision. In addition to the main markets, we include all trades
from alternative venues such as Bats, Chi-X5 (now Cboe BXE and Cboe CXE)
and Turquoise, thus covering more than 95% of overall trading volume of these
stocks on lit markets. Besides the trades executed in open limit order books,
we include all off-exchange trades reported to Markit’s trade reporting platform
BOAT.
Our empirical analysis comprises two consecutive steps. In step one, we set up
three different scenarios (as outlined in Sect. 4) and determine the likely increase
in trading volume on lit markets due to the trading obligation for OTC trades
and the BCN trading prohibition. As noted before, our data set features the
intraday turnover for each single trade on a single stock basis. This special
characteristic enables us to distinguish between different trade size classes. The
distinction of different trade sizes within our analysis is of high importance to
determine the expected turnover which will likely migrate from OTC to lit mar-
kets dependent on the probability to classify for the exemptions of the trading
obligation. Due to the difficulty to predict the exact amount of volume migration
as well as the actual change in fragmentation, we perform a scenario analysis.
For our subsequent analysis, we divide OTC trades and the corresponding
turnover in three disjoint classes representing different probabilities to migrate
to lit venues. The first class (OTC Small) represents the OTC trades below
LIS6 . The daily aggregated turnover in this category amounts to 17.70 mn e in
the second quarter of 2013 for an average EURO STOXX 50 constituent. The
second class (OTC Medium) includes the OTC trades between 500,000 e and
50 mn e, featuring a significantly lower probability to migrate. Trades within this
category amount to the highest turnover of the three classes representing a daily
average turnover of 101.15 mn e per instrument. The third class (OTC Large)
incorporates the remaining OTC trades (daily average turnover of 55.25 mn e
per instrument) with very high probability to remain OTC after the introduction
of the trading obligation.
Overall turnover in EURO STOXX 50 constituents amounts to 1,294 billion e
in the second quarter of 2013. Thereof, 48.90% were traded on lit markets, 2.64%
via SIs, 0.92% in regulated dark pools (i.e. dark pools provided by RMs or MTFs)
and 47.54% were conducted OTC (see Fig. 1). In our data set, BCN trades and
other OTC trades are not distinguishable as they are both flagged as OTC.
5
Cboe Europe operates both markets, Cboe BXE and Cboe CXE.
6
Under MiFID I, orders that are above the LIS threshold can benefit from a waiver of
pre-trade transparency. This waiver is intended to protect these orders from adverse
market impact and to avoid significant price movements that can cause market
distortion. For our sample of EURO STOXX 50 constituents, this LIS threshold is
500,000 e.
12 P. Gomber et al.
Since BCNs are prohibited under the new regulatory framework, it is necessary
for our analysis to determine the fraction of BCN trading volume. Therefore, we
rely on the market share of BCNs provided by Rosenblatt Securities, Inc. who
approximate that BCN turnover accounts for 4.55% of overall trading volume
in Europe.7 Consequently, the remaining market share of OTC trading without
BCN volumes amounts to 42.99%. Concerning lit venues, main markets account
for 70.14% of all lit trading volume, i.e. main markets (alternative lit venues)
have a market share of 34.29% (14.60%) of overall turnover in EURO STOXX 50
stocks.
7
An overview of the Rosenblatt Securities, Inc. estimates for BCN market shares in
Europe over time is available at
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-10/dark-pool-traders-find-
mifid-workarounds-to-stay-in-the-shadows.
The MiFIR Trading Obligation: Impact on Trading Volume and Liquidity 13
and their respective migration likelihood (as derived from the expert estima-
tions). On average, this results in a volume migration of 29.16 mn e per day
and instrument from OTC including BCNs to lit markets, which equals a mar-
ket share increase of lit markets amounting to 7.96 % points resulting in a mar-
ket share of 56.86%. The BCN volume that does not migrate to lit markets is
assumed to remain OTC and the SI market share to stay constant. The remaining
OTC turnover (including BCN) represents a market share of 39.58% compared
to 47.54% before the trading obligation.
Scenario B differs from scenario A in the sense that SIs are able to capture
the entire BCN volume so that only the OTC volume excluding the BCN volume
migrates to lit venues according to the identified trade size categories and their
respective migration likelihood. This results in a volume migration of 26.37 mn e
per day and instrument from OTC excluding BCNs to lit markets. The market
share of lit markets, therefore, increases by 7.20% points to 56.10%. Volume
traded via BCNs is completely captured by SIs leading to an increase of their
market share by 4.55% points to 7.19%. The remaining OTC turnover represents
a market share of 35.79%.
Different to scenario B, scenario C assumes that the market share of SIs rises
to a level equivalent to the US share of internalization. However, scenario C
assumes the identical volume to migrate from the OTC volume excluding the
BCN volumes to lit markets as scenario B. In addition, SIs (i) capture the entire
BCN volumes prior to the trading obligation and (ii) are able to attract turnover
from lit venues having advantages due to their possible independence from the
minimum tick size regime up to the derived internalization level comparable to
the US. The US volume traded in investment bank dark pools equivalent to
BCNs in June 2017 accounts for 8.79% of overall turnover [35]. At the same
time, the US retail internalization level is approximately 16.00% [8,35]. Due to
the fact that the percentage of equity holdings relative to total financial assets for
households in Europe is approximately half of the percentage of equity holdings
in the US8 , we derive a predicted market share of SIs = 8.79% + 51% × 16% =
16.95% for Europe. This scenario C is assessed to be the most realistic among
the participants of the survey and results in a net negative volume migration
effect for lit markets of −9.38 mn e per day and instrument, leading to a (net)
decrease by 2.56% points of lit markets’ market share to 46.33%. SIs completely
capture BCN volumes and additionally gain turnover from lit markets leading
to an increase of SI’s market share by 14.31% points to 16.95%. The remaining
OTC turnover represents a market share of 35.79%. The resulting market shares
of the different trading forms according to all three scenarios are reported in
Table 1.
8
Based on OECD data regarding household financial assets, equity holdings in the US
represent 34.96% of a household’s total financial assets while this number amounts
to 17.83% in Europe, which is 51% of the US figure. The European number is a
weighted mean considering only those European countries where corporations listed
in the EURO STOXX 50 are headquartered.
14 P. Gomber et al.
Table 1. Market shares (Each line adds up to 100%) of the different venues and forms
of trading before and after the introduction of the trading obligation.
Table 2 summarizes the resulting changes in trading volume and market share
of lit venues according to the three scenarios. It also reports the results for the
main markets and alternative venues separately. Therefore, the fraction of main
market turnover of overall lit turnover is assumed to remain constant at 70.14%
as in the second quarter of 2013.
Table 2. Volume migration and market share changes (average per day and instru-
ment) of lit markets in total as well as split according to main market and alternative
venues (assuming a constant fraction of main market turnover of overall lit turnover
amounting to 70.14%).
Fragmentation Index [19]. Within our setup, Fragmentation takes into account
all lit venues and is determined on a quarterly basis for each stock separately. To
account for general uncertainty, we include the order book midpoint volatility
(V olatility M P ) as a measure of price deviation. In general, high volatility is
associated with low liquidity and vice versa. Due to a high multicollinearity to
the tick speed and turnover, we do not include the number of trades or a dummy
for years in our regression setup.
In general, the relative spread and the XLM should show consistent signs of the
beta coefficients for all independent variables as visible in Table 3. In contrast to
the order book depth, a high relative spread and high values for XLM indicate
lower levels of liquidity, whereas higher values of order book depth indicate higher
liquidity levels. The adjusted R2 in the full models including control variables
(models 1, 3 and 5) ranges from 63% to 85%. Therefore, the explanatory variables
capture a high fraction of the overall variation in liquidity of European equity
markets.
Under all considered models, the beta coefficients of Turnover are consistent.
Each additional million of turnover decreases the spread by 0.038% (model 1)
and 0.26% (model 2), while round trip costs measured by XLM50k are reduced
by 0.14% (model 5) and 0.32% (model 6). Model 3 and 4 quantify the impact
of an additional million of turnover by an increase in depth of 0.3% and 0.47%.
Regarding the inverse of the stock price (P rice−1 ), our results almost consis-
tently show (except model 4) that stocks with low prices are less liquid, which
might (abschwächen, da nicht getestet) be explained by constraints due to min-
imum tick size requirements. Through higher analyst and media coverage of
stocks with high market capitalization, trading interest in these stocks might be
higher thus improving liquidity. However, the effect of Market Capitalization is
only significant for the order book depth and the relative spread in model 1.
The number of order book updates (Tick Speed ) is significant for the models 2,
4, and 6. By considering the full models, the significance of this effect vanishes.
Therefore, this effect seems to be captured by other variables within the full
model. By investigating the effect of Fragmentation, we obtain consistent results
(apart from model 1 and 5) and give additional empirical evidence that fragmen-
tation improves liquidity, which is in line with the studies presented in Sect. 2.
As V olatility M P is a measure of uncertainty, it is not surprising that high levels
of stock volatility are associated with lower liquidity since liquidity providers
face higher risks. Volatility as an explanatory variable is highly significant in
all models. The effect of each additional basis point of volatility increases the
relative spread by 5.25% (model 1) and 4.40% (model 2). XLM50k is expected
to increase by 7.42% (model 5) and 7.26% (model 6). The effect on order book
depth is even greater. For each additional basis point of volatility, the order book
depth will decrease by 10.95% (model 3) and even up to 11.84% in model 4.
The MiFIR Trading Obligation: Impact on Trading Volume and Liquidity 17
Table 3. Regression results for the EURO STOXX 50 sample based on data for the
main markets. Endogenous variables are different liquidity measures. Exogenous vari-
ables are turnover, the inverse of the stock price, the market capitalization, the tick
speed of the order book, fragmentation, and volatility. The full models include addi-
tional controls for stock, market, and time specific effects. We apply robust standard
error estimations to correct for potential heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation biases.
Please note: *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.
Dependent variable
log(Spread) log(Depth10bps) log(XLM50k)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Constant −8.651 -6.884 −1.542 −1.699 1.463 2.629
t= t= t= t= t= t=
−36.435*** −46.290*** −7.966*** −12.017*** 7.239*** 17.187***
Turnover [mn] −0.0004 −0.003 0.003 0.005 −0.001 −0.003
t = −1.239 t = t= t= t= t=
−10.525*** 11.144*** 15.788*** −4.532*** −12.737***
P rice−1 1.633 1.4 −0.97 0.287 2.002 1.183
t= t= t= t = 2.272** t = t=
4.791*** 7.857*** −3.180*** 5.312*** 6.048***
MarketCap [bn] −0.003 −0.0003 0.011 0.006 −0.002 0.0002
t= t = −0.269 t = t= t = −1.160 t = 0.178
−1.760* 5.330*** 6.658***
Tick Speed [k] 0.0003 0.002 0.0001 −0.001 0.0001 0.002
t = 1.109 t= t = 0.499 t= t = 0.377 t=
9.889*** −3.257*** 8.763***
Fragmentation 0.321 −0.187 0.533 0.705 0.149 −0.157
t= t= t= t= t = 2.281** t =
3.638*** −2.431** 8.339*** 12.237*** −2.086**
V olatility M P 524.91 440.217 −1,095.38 −1,183.61 742.487 726.289
t= t= t= t= t= t=
7.264*** 6.965*** −19.707*** −18.092*** 11.660*** 12.839***
Controls:
Stocks Yes Yes Yes
Marketplace Yes Yes Yes
Quarters Yes Yes Yes
Observations 1,034
R2 0.654 0.348 0.858 0.725 0.713 0.417
Adjusted R2 0.634 0.345 0.851 0.724 0.697 0.414
Residual Std. Error 0.417 (df = 0.559 (df = 0.331 (df = 0.45 (df = 0.392 (df = 0.546 (df =
978) 1027) 978) 1027) 978) 1027)
Max VIF 4.88 2.14 4.88 2.14 4.88 2.14
Mean VIF 2.37 1.65 2.37 1.65 2.37 1.65
18 P. Gomber et al.
Assuming that the trading obligation changes the European market land-
scape according to scenario A and taking the full regression models as the model
of choice, the effect of additional turnover amounting to 20.45 mn e per stock
and day (see Table 2) will lower the relative spread on the main market by 0.78%.
The effect on XLM50k is slightly higher. Due to the additional turnover on the
main market, XLM50k will decrease by 2.82%. In terms of order book depth,
liquidity will increase by 6.32%.
The impact on liquidity measures in scenario B is slightly lower than the effect
within scenario A due to the assumption that BCNs will completely migrate to
SIs. The additional volume of 18.49 mn e per stock and day on the main market
results in a decrease of the relative spread of 0.71%. XLM50k reduces by 2.55%
and order book depth increases by 5.70%. Consequently, the trading obligation
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
spines helping to retain them in position on the back. It is said to be
the male that thus carries the eggs. This species is able to stridulate,
and when doing so vibrates its antennae with excessive rapidity. We
have only about a score of species of Coreidae in Britain, and none
of the remarkable forms of the family are among them.
Series 2. Cryptocerata.
The remaining families of Heteroptera are of aquatic habits, and form
in nearly all works a separate division called Hemiptera Cryptocerata
(or Hydrocorisae, or Hydrocores), distinguished by the antennae
being apparently absent; they are, however, really present, being
situate on the under side of the head, to which they are closely
pressed, or in some cases placed in a pocket in front of each eye.
There are six of these families. Schiödte is doubtless correct in
treating this division as an unnatural one; it is, however, generally
adopted, and is convenient for the purposes of nomenclature and
arrangement.