Marking Your Own Homework
On the surface, it's hard to argue with. Exchanges have lost the member-owned, neutral utility status that they once enjoyed in the structure of the market, or at least, that's true for most of the big primary markets. Most have technology arms, most compete with participants on some level (if not directly through trading, of course), and many people I've spoken to over the years have viewed them as vendors on steroids. Market data revenue, of course, comes up in the Sifma complaint.
The regulators, too, have begun to take a more active interest in what goes on at the exchange level, particularly in the US. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) have both conducted high-profile investigations of late involving bourses, and fines have been levied in response to some of them. Even on Friday, in fact, the CFTC criticized monitoring and risk management capabilities at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange group.
Stretched Thin
If exchanges were to lose their SRO status, though, and come under direct control from the center, there are big questions over whether this would necessarily promote safety and stability in the markets. While the SEC has been upgrading its technology of late, commissioning the Midas system from Tradeworx and looking into the Consolidated Audit Trail project, the CFTC is still really struggling to get to first base, let alone cover the full circuit. It doesn't even know what to do with all of the data it's receiving from swaps reporting, and that doesn't provide a solid foundation of confidence for giving it more responsibility over vast, complex organizations like the futures and commodities exchanges.
Likewise, while there may be questions of conflicts of interest stemming from some areas of exchange operations, and there have been consistent and well-documented criticisms of exchange policies from market participants, this does seem a little pedantic in its approach. Exchanges are SROs, yes, but there are elements of central regulation already. Most have to submit their rule changes to the relevant regulator before they're passed, and any regulator can fine and punish errant institutions.
Perfect Worlds
Sifma is right, to an extent. In a perfect world, exchanges would be overseen by central regulators, and in the modern climate it does make sense for that to occur, at least while they're operating as commercial enterprises. However, there has to be an element of practicality to this, and a trade body suggesting that regulators spreading themselves even further over a market while already operating under constrained conditions does not a convincing argument make.
If exchanges were to lose their SRO status, though, and come under direct control from the center, there are big questions over whether this would necessarily promote safety and stability in the markets.
Rather, to restore confidence and bolster it, what is needed is reform at the exchange level. Rather than placing the marketplaces under the aegis of a regulator unable to oversee them, instead we should be looking at why the SRO status is unsuitable, and instituting changes at the entity itself to adjust that.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@waterstechnology.com or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.waterstechnology.com/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@waterstechnology.com to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@waterstechnology.com to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@waterstechnology.com
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@waterstechnology.com
More on Regulation
DSB says industry is ready to meet UPI mandate ahead of deadline
The Unique Product Identifier will be required for certain OTC derivatives in the EU at the end of April, following US adoption in January.
‘Very careful thought’: T+1 will introduce costs, complexities for ETF traders
When the US moves to T+1 at the end of May 2024, firms trading ETFs will need to automate their workflows as much as possible to avoid "settlement misalignment" and additional costs.
Court case probes open-source licenses as movement stands at crossroads
The Software Freedom Conservancy’s lawsuit against TV-maker Vizio begins trial in California, raising questions about open-source licenses and the risks posed by adhering to them.
Waters Wavelength Podcast: Countdown to T+1
DTCC’s Val Wotton joins the podcast this week to discuss the impending move to T+1 in the US.
Consolidated tape hopefuls gear up for uncertain tender process
The bond tapes in the UK and EU are on track to be authorized in 2025. Prospective bidders for the role of provider must choose where to focus their efforts in anticipation of more regulatory clarity on the tender process.
Fighting FAIRR: Inside the bill aiming to keep AI and algos honest
The Financial Artificial Intelligence Risk Reduction Act seeks to fix a market abuse loophole by declaring that AI algorithms do not have brains.
Waters Wrap: The rise of AI washing… and regulation washing?
The SEC recently levied fines against two investment advisors over “AI washing”. Anthony takes issue with the announcement.
Prepare now for the inevitable: T+1 isn’t just a US challenge
The DTCC’s Val Wotton believes that firms around the globe should view North America’s move to T+1 as an opportunity—because it’s inevitable.
Most read
- Sell-Side Technology Awards 2024: All the winners
- Sell-Side Technology Awards 2024: Best sell-side front-office platform—Bloomberg
- Systematic tools gain favor in fixed income