[ 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