Mostly… fixed income and cross product eTrading

June 4, 2007

Transaction Building Blocks

Filed under: Algos, etrading, Nuts and Bolts, OMS / EMS — holky @ 6:15 am

Again on the future of OMS/ECNs…  I saw a press release a while ago re ULLINK’s UL REACH thing that apparently lets sellside publish their algorithms to buy-side community so they are made available “instantly” (meaning without having to wait for a new ullink software release).

Why don’t the FI ECNs build their GUIs to support transactions being built from generic building blocks of functions and fields?  Build the equivalent of their existing etrading offering as the generic functionality using those building blocks, and then shift ‘development’ of anything over and above that to the sellside who wish to support a particular type of transaction. 

As long as dealers wish to support it (and so develop it), this removes the constraint that the ECNs place on what can be transacted on the platform. With the right building blocks could dealers support things such as customers electronically unwinding existing swaps once non-standard, or etrading butterflies and curves and so on ? .. the things some big buyside say they require before they will do any of their swaps business electronically.   In terms of value-add the ECN becomes “the library” of  core etrading functions as well as the connectivity between customer+liquidity provider – not a bad position to be in to ensure they remain in the future landscape.

As the OMS guys are already coding dealer-specific functions (algos) into their gui, if the ECNs continue to hard-code their gui-per and so constrain the product offering then where does that leave them in the future?



  1. […] I thought “immediately” was interesting terminology.. (same thought applies to ullink framework that avoids the need for ullink software release just to get new algos out of the door).  Are […]

    Pingback by Algos in Silicon « Mostly… — June 25, 2007 @ 5:40 pm

  2. […] or generic enough to support all the products and variations required, why not just offer the transaction building blocks to allow dealers to arrange these as required to service their clients? Spend your development ££ […]

    Pingback by Back Office Woes « Mostly… — August 22, 2007 @ 6:54 pm

  3. […] this to be adopted in spades if point to point means we are not so constrained by gui too (not transaction building blocks but breaks out of the existing constraints?)… What’s the alternative? Deploy a […]

    Pingback by fidessa/latentzero - why should you care? « Mostly… — September 11, 2007 @ 5:11 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: