The TRADE 53 | Page 77

[ S U R V E Y | E X E C U T I O N M A N A G E M E N T S Y S T E M S ] FIGURE 1: OVERALL SCORES Aspect of Service Weighted Average Score 2014 2015 2016 2017 Diff 2017 vs 2016 Reliability and Availability 5.86 5.95 5.93 5.92 -0.01 Latency 5.33 5.57 5.69 5.62 -0.07 Client Service Personnel 5.52 5.49 5.58 5.53 -0.05 Ease-of-Use 5.58 5.54 5.60 5.54 -0.06 Handling of New Versions/Releases 5.01 5.18 5.26 5.19 -0.07 Breadth of Broker Algorithms 5.45 5.70 5.59 5.62 0.04 Timeliness of Updates for Broker Changes 5.12 5.29 5.48 5.42 -0.06 FIX Capabilities 5.32 5.75 5.72 5.78 0.06 Breadth of Asset Class Coverage 5.11 5.15 5.35 5.45 0.10 Breadth of Direct Connections to Venues 5.14 5.30 5.41 5.54 0.13 Product Development 4.80 4.92 5.21 4.98 -0.23 Ease of Integration to Internal Systems 4.78 5.45 5.36 5.35 -0.01 Overall Cost of Operation 5.13 5.35 5.33 5.24 -0.09 However, more than half of the respondents wanted something; and in almost every case that something was not compliance tools. There was no shortage of requests, for everything from better live data and enhanced graphing to integration with WhatsApp on mobile devices. While some requests for pre-trade TCA and venue analysis could be construed as compliance oriented, they also might reflect traders’ desire to do a better job in improving execution performance. So a question is raised as to whether, in their rush to build new compliance capabilities, EMS providers are in fact diverting development resources from those things traders really want to see. Some of the apparent mismatch may be down to the location of respondents. MiFID II is after all a European construct, albeit one that may be replicated elsewhere. European and UK based respondents only accounted for a little over one-quarter of respondents (27.8%). Those in Asia grew strongly, accounting for 33.1% of the total. North America, principally the US remained the largest group, representing 37.8% of total responses received. While traders may not drive the choice of EMS as strongly as they once did, they are the principal users of the systems that get installed. When a trader is moved to FIGURE 2: RESPONDENT PROFILE Job Title % of Total Responses 2014 2015 2016 2017 Head of Trading 23.6 22.9 18.6 18.1 Trader 35.0 35.6 37.7 40.7 CRO, CTO 16.6 13.6 10.2 11.7 Portfolio Manager 8.9 9.3 9.8 13.5 Other (Technology, Operations, Support) 15.9 18.6 23.7 15.9 lament that the EMS they are using is “simply terrible” an assumption must be made that they are not happy with the decision or its execution. As Figure 2 highlights, the majority of responses come from traders or head traders. Portfolio managers account for an additional one in seven of responses. Compliance and Risk officers do provide around 11% of responses, a number largely unchanged or declining in recent years. Those whose performance is directly affected by the quality of execu- Issue 53 TheTradeNews.com 77