[ S U R V E Y
|
E X E C U T I O N
Figure 6: Asset Classes Traded
Asset Class
% of Respondents
2014
Equities
2015
2016
2017
2018
96.8 92.4 85.6 85.3 91.9
Listed Derivatives 59.2 63.6 56.7 54.6 57.8
26.1 35.6 20.0 25.4 25.6
Foreign Exchange 36.3
Fixed Income
41.5 33.0 35.4 34.4
Other 5.1 4.2 3.5 3.3
3.8
Figure 7: Types of EMS Used
Type
% of Respondents
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Single Multi Broker/Multi Asset 38.1 47.5 47.0 50.7 51.5
Multiple Single Broker or Single
Asset Class 23.3 33.1 29.8 31.0 30.7
Links from OMS to Br okers 26.0 37.3 22.8 25.7 27.8
Direct Links to Execution Venues 12.6 20.3 12.1 13.3 13.3
planning to either replace or supplement their existing
provider, several commented that they were looking
to improve the analytics capabilities, improve stability
and efficiency, and greater transparency on elements
such as trading venue charges and price increases.
Costing was also a major factor for those reviewing
their EMS provider and may prove to be a deciding
factor for those looking to switch.
Leading on from the results of Figure 4, the average
number of providers by size of respondents (shown
in Figure 5), further underlines the predilection of
buy-side firms to shrink the number of EMS provid-
er relationships they hold, regardless of their assets
under management (AuM). Firms at the larger end of
the AuM scale are still more likely to employ multiple
EMS providers, however, the averages for respondents
in the $10-50 billion and more than $50 billion in AuM
have now both slipped below two providers for the
first time since 2015.
Looking at the asset classes traded by respondents in
this year’s survey (Figure 6), there were a few minor
shifts, such as a small increase in the number of firms
trading listed derivatives, while there was an increase
in those active in the equities space, which rose to just
M A N A G E M E N T
S Y S T E M S ]
Methodology
Survey respondents were asked to provide a rat-
ing for each Execution Management System (EMS)
provider on a numerical scale from 1.0 (Very Weak)
to 7.0 (Excellent), covering 13 functional criteria.
In general, 5.0 represents the ‘default’ score of
respondents. In total more than 250 individuals
responded; more than 400 evaluations were sub-
mitted; and more than 15 providers were evaluated.
The evaluations were used to compile the seven
Provider Profiles covering the major providers
based on responses received. Each evaluation was
weighted according to three characteristics of the
respondent; the value of assets under manage-
ment; the scale of business being conducted elec-
tronically; and the number of different providers
being used. In this way the evaluations of the
largest and broadest EMS users were weighted at
up to twice the weight of the smallest and least
experienced respondent.
In arriving at any overall calculations, the scores
received in respect of each of the 13 functional
capabilities were further weighted according to the
importance attached to them by respondents to
the Survey. The aim is to ensure that in assessing
service provision the greatest impact results from
the scores received from the most sophisticated
users in the areas they regard as most important.
Finally, it should be noted that responses provid-
ed by affiliated entities are ignored and a few other
responses, where the respondent was not able to
be properly verified, were also excluded.
under 92%, a return to the levels seen in 2015. As with
the results in Figure 7, which illustrates the types of
EMS used by respondents, there was not much change
on last year’s results, with respondents providing al-
most exactly the same results, with fluctuations minor
enough as to be considered inconsequential.
Overall, the picture portrayed by the 2018 EMS
Survey is that of a movement back towards execution
focus that goes beyond compliance. MiFID II has
certainly made it’s mark on the front-office, and will
continue to do so, but with vendors having adjusted
their systems accordingly, traders will want to get
back to focusing on what really defines their role going
forward: quality execution.
Issue 57 // TheTradeNews.com // 69