09 December 2016
Anne Plested

65582

Anne Plested - Fidessa

26Posts 83,151Views 2Comments

Hang on a second!

17 July 2014  |  1818 views  |  0

MiFID II introduces the requirement to synchronise the business clocks of trading venues and their customers, standardising the recorded time on post-trade data, transaction reporting and, most importantly, order event auditing. Regulators argue that in the event of unusual market activity they will be able to pinpoint the exact moment things turned sour. A noble cause then, but is it feasible?

The first problem is that of a clock source. Trading systems will need to synchronise themselves to some ‘golden source’ of time. In the interests of avoiding monopolistic ‘Time Lords’ who have legislative authority to charge lots of money for telling the time, it’s probably best to settle on an existing system like GPS. It’s accurate to tens of nanoseconds, but can we use it?

Specialised Precision Time Protocol (PTP) hardware can synchronise clocks in a network at the nanosecond resolution but these are prohibitively expensive – especially for smaller, independent investors running their own hardware. The software implementations of PTP only achieve accuracy to the order of microseconds – that’s thousands of times less accurate than ESMA’s discussion paper speculates will be required for HFT firms.

Assuming you have spent a lot of money on buying a GPS time source, upgrading your network to use it and modifying software to take advantage of the higher resolution clocks, can you meet the requirements? Possibly. Reading the time through off-the-shelf operating systems takes some nanoseconds, writing an auditable event takes some nanoseconds, sending a signal down copper wire takes some nanoseconds. Along with other unpredictable jitters in the system, all of these will conspire to degrade accuracy beyond the acceptable regulated allowance. Perhaps regulating to a few milliseconds’ accuracy may be more achievable?

Regulation is only as good as its enforceability. Given the inherent instability of time measurements at the speculated resolution, how is anyone ever going to provably measure that it is not correct? Are we all just wasting our time?

TagsTrade executionRisk & regulation

Comments: (0)

Comment on this story (membership required)

Latest posts from Anne

ESMA sets a date for SI compliance

08 November 2016  |  2271 views  |  0 comments | recomends Recommends 0 TagsTrade executionRisk & regulation

The clock’s ticking on MiFID’s extra time

06 October 2016  |  3122 views  |  0 comments | recomends Recommends 0 TagsTrade executionRisk & regulation

The ever-growing MiFID II shopping list

19 September 2016  |  4247 views  |  1 comments | recomends Recommends 0 TagsTrade executionRisk & regulation

No summer break for MiFID II

18 July 2016  |  4898 views  |  0 comments | recomends Recommends 0 TagsTrade executionRisk & regulation

So much to do, so little time

23 March 2016  |  11390 views  |  0 comments | recomends Recommends 0 TagsTrade executionRisk & regulation

Anne's profile

job title EU Regulation Change
location London
member since 2013
Summary profile See full profile »
I head up the regulation change programme for Fidessa in Europe. Since joining in 2009 I have played a significant role in the establishment of the Fidessa Regulation Team, monitoring and evaluating t...

Anne's expertise

What Anne reads
Anne writes about

Who's commenting on Anne's posts

Ahsan Quadri