20 October 2017
Steve Grob

Fidessa Fragmentation Index

Steve Grob - Fidessa

137Posts 529,511Views 3Comments

Size matters

18 January 2012  |  5069 views  |  0

An industry colleague pointed me towards an interesting YouTube video the other day that helps illustrate the importance of tick size in the global battle between primary and alternative trading venues. The video is from an alternative venue (or PTS) in Japan called SBI Japannext which, together with Chi-X Japan, is continuing to grow its market share of the Nikkei 225. The two combined now account for around 6% in this index.

The video shows end of day trading in Mizuho stock on 26th September 2011 and you can clearly see that SBI trades inside the TSE spread nearly all the time. The benefit is that price improvement is delivered nearly 80% of the time for both sides of the trade and, in this case, was around 10-11 bps.

Tick sizes in Japan vary considerably between the incumbent (1 to 100,000 JPY) and the PTS folks which begin at 0.1 and are capped at 10 and 100 at Chi-X and SBI respectively. Smaller tick sizes are only part of the game, though, as alternative venues need to provide low latency platforms and other incentives so as to encourage liquidity providers to step up and make prices in these smaller increments. And, for their part, these providers need to operate at sufficient frequency on and between venues so as to achieve an acceptable balance of profit and risk. The resultant liquidity, typified by smaller trade sizes and narrower spreads, isn’t always good news for institutional investors that want to trade in larger size. But, then again, maybe that’s what dark liquidity is supposed to be all about.

The Japanese situation can be contrasted with Europe where combatants have grudgingly agreed a scheduled process for tick size reductions, and with the US and Australia where tick sizes are standardised. It’s not all peaches and cream for alternative Japanese venues, however. Until recently they have had to contend with prohibition of maker taker pricing and a unilateral short selling ban.

a member-uploaded image TagsTrade execution

Comments: (0)

Comment on this story (membership required)

Latest posts from Steve

Why you’ll never be ready for MiFID II

12 September 2017  |  4669 views  |  0 comments | recomends Recommends 0 TagsTrade executionRisk & regulation

So that's nice and clear...

31 August 2017  |  5322 views  |  0 comments | recomends Recommends 0 TagsTrade executionRisk & regulation

Relocation, Relocation, Relocation

14 June 2017  |  5685 views  |  0 comments | recomends Recommends 0 TagsTrade executionRisk & regulation

MiFID II - the best thing that ever happened?

08 June 2017  |  8707 views  |  0 comments | recomends Recommends 0 TagsTrade executionRisk & regulation

Be careful what you wish for

26 April 2017  |  5407 views  |  0 comments | recomends Recommends 0 TagsTrade executionRisk & regulationGroupMiFID

Steve's profile

job title Director of Group Strategy
location London
member since 2009
Summary profile See full profile »
I am responsible for strategic development at Fidessa. This includes the development of new geographic markets and strategic partnerships and driving new industry initiatives. As part of this I head u...

Steve's expertise

Member since 2004
130 posts3 comments
What Steve reads

Who's commenting on Steve's posts