The solution, called SIX Fixed Income Data, is designed to provide banks, asset managers, wealth managers and hedge funds globally with reliable fixed income data, based off an array of information sourced from global markets.  

The provider has said that the offering will give clients access to data for 3.6 million US instruments across municipal, corporate and government debt, and structured finance, and will reduce reliance on inconsistent and error-prone sources to price securities, manage risk, and comply with regulations.  

“Until recently, many market participants were constrained by offerings with inflexible commercial terms or forced to combine disparate data sources that lacked completeness and accuracy,” said Swati Bhatia, head of fixed income, financial information at SIX. 

“By launching SIX Fixed Income Data, we are giving market participants the coverage, reliability, and pricing flexibility they need in the asset class that represents the largest segment of the global capital markets.” 

SIX highlighted that the original issuance and lifestyle documentation of the offering is fully owned by the provider and will be available through its centralised platform.  

Similarly, it has said that SIX’s API-driven infrastructure will tackle issues of long onboarding times and disruptions that arise from using alternative solutions, by streamlining the integration of data into clients’ workflows, combined with transparent pricing and scalable licensing.  

Read more – SIX rolls out regulatory data service for digital assets 

In recent months, the expansion and launch of new data services has been a focus for the company. SIX Fixed Income Data’s announcement follows the Digital Assets Regulatory and Tax Service launched by the provider at the beginning of April 2025, designed to provide institutions with a single information source to help identify their exposure to digital assets and remain compliant with evolving regulations.   

The post SIX launches new data offering for global fixed income markets appeared first on The TRADE.

Niki Beattie

“There is little basis for most of the feedback and […] and many of the comments are surprising, given that they are based on, and sometimes contradict, the exchanges’ own publicly available information,” said MSP in its latest report.

Among the most vocal in their responses to MSP’s February report entitled ‘There’s No Market in Market Data’ were Euronext, LSEG’s Turquoise and the Federation of European Exchanges (FESE). Wednesday’s comments focus on these three entities.

MSP’s original conclusions suggested that exchanges were supplementing suffering equity market revenues with soaring market data prices, despite the accusation of there being ‘no specific costs for producing market data’.

Exchanges immediately hit back, calling the findings “inaccurate” and “misleading”. However, in today’s latest report, MSP has individually responded to every complaint, reaffirming its original stance and calling for action by regulators.

Read more – Exchanges hit back at ‘inaccurate’ and ‘misleading’ accusations around market data costs

“Market data pricing should reflect exchanges’ actual fixed costs of production – not arbitrarily capitalise on consumers’ variable usage and dissemination patterns,” said Niki Beattie, chief executive of Market Structure Partners.

“When these unjustified charges are removed, the facade of a standalone market data business crumbles, confirming our original conclusion that data is simply a by-product of trading.”

There are some areas where MSP has re-clarified figures. In Wednesday’s report, the market structure specialists acknowledge specific feedback from exchanges regarding Turquoise and LSE disclosures, as well as Euronext’s reporting methodology, where they presented their 2020 market data revenue (MDR) percentage against total group revenue rather than total trading revenue, as required by regulation.

However, it has reiterated that despite these areas of feedback, the conclusions of its original findings have not changed.

The exchanges

Euronext made several complaints against the original report. However, most central was the suggestion that the basis for its conclusion – namely that exchanges offsetting declining equities volumes with market data cost increases – was incorrect.

“The report claims that the share of market data revenues over the total revenues of Euronext has increased from 11% to 19%, when in reality […] this ratio remained stable over the period at 11%,” said Euronext in its response to the original report.

MSP in Wednesday’s findings acknowledged that the 2020 disclosure had a denominator footnote that it had not seen and that it would update the report to include this.

Read more – Some exchanges pocketing nearly £5 billion from ‘inexplicable’ market data price rises, finds report

It reiterated however, that: “it does not change the fact that the disclosures in the following years used a more correct denominator which shows that market data revenue is increasing as a % of total trading revenue and that this has risen from 17% in 2021 to 19% of total trading revenue by 2023.”

Euronext also took issue with the fact that it was not contacted for the report, that it was inaccurate as it did not reflect Euronext’s acquisition of three new markets, and that it was an incorrect representation of Euronext’s customer base.

In response to these claims, Beattie and Market Structure Partners have reiterated that the report is based off of publicly available data, that the exchange had no issue with similar figures and findings used by Oxera in their reports in 2024, and that a universal definition of a customer should be agreed upon across venues and that a customer count should be disclosed on an annual basis.

The exchange also took issue with the examples used through either suggesting they were erroneous, unrealistic or unrepresentative. MSP’s report addresses the findings and reiterates its original methodologies.

The need for industry-wide dialogue

“The intensity of debate following the report’s publication only reinforces its significance and the need for a constructive industry-wide dialogue about creating markets that work efficiently for all participants,” said Mike Bellaro, chief executive of Plato Partnership.

Plato Partnership co-commissioned the original independent study published by MSP.

Also vocal in their rejection of the February findings was LSEG’s Turquoise. The trading venue took issue with several areas, including that the report misrepresented its volumes by suggesting they had decreased, misrepresented its pricing and was “flawed” with respect to documentation published by LSEG venues, grouping Turquoise with other primary exchanges instead of other pan-European MTFs.

MSP said in its response that it had only used Turquoise market data revenue disclosure figures as it could not find LSEG ones. MSP has subsequently removed Turquoise’s disclosure information and replaced it with LSE’s 2019 – 2022 disclosures.

“As stated, exchange disclosures are hard to find and, in the case of LSE, are published two years in arrears,” said MSP.

“We have since been provided with LSE disclosures and, therefore, retract the statement that only Turquoise Europe makes reasonable commercial basis disclosures. We propose to replace the Turquoise disclosures with those of LSE, so that all exchanges are compared on a like for like basis.”

It does, however, reinstate that despite the new figures it does not change the original findings released in February suggesting “MDR [market data revenue] growth has far outstripped the changes in turnover”.

Similar to its response to Euronext, MSP has flagged that LSEG’s Turquoise did not take issue with similar figures published by Oxera in its 2024 report.

LSEG’s Turquoise also took issue with MSP’s avatar used to simulate some of its findings in its original report, suggesting that it had created exaggerated figures. It also suggested that MSP had not taken into account that Turquoise had waived certain charges including private investor data charges throughout the acclaimed period. MSP’s report addresses these claims.

FESE response

FESE’s complaints with the report included that it contained factual errors, its proprietary method had been “tweaked”, contained issues around the calculation of data fee increases and had unfounded assumptions on IT infrastructure expenditure.

The association also took issue with MSP’s insufficient reasoning for price list expansion and misleading claims of unfair behaviours against direct competitors.

MSP’s Wednesday response suggests many of these claims are “unsubstantiated noise”.

Similar to its response to Euronext and LSEG, the firm has questioned why FESE took no issue with Oxera’s findings in 2024 – also noting that these had changed significantly from 2019 without any explanation.

MSP said Oxera claimed in 2019 the MDRs were ‘stable’ at €245 million, but in 2024 it revised the MDRs up to €298 million. “This is not a small tweak. It is a 21.63% increase […] which does not suggest revenues are stable, but there was no explanation of recognition of this change,” said MSP on Wednesday.

Regulatory recommendations

Beattie and MSP have suggested a list of recommendations that regulators should implement going forward to avoid any future lack of correlation in the numbers. Namely: ESMA and the FCA should keep an up-to-date repository of all trading venue and data service provider market data disclosures for their respective regions.

Trading venues and data service providers should log their disclosures in the repository of their respective regulators and should publish disclosures as soon as their annual accounts are published for the previous year.

The report also suggests that disclosures should be checked for consistency, that the definition of customer should be agreed and that cross-referencing disclosures to annual accounts should be possible and links should be explained.

The post New report rebuts ‘unsubstantiated’ exchange responses as latest episode of market data cost saga unfolds appeared first on The TRADE.

The biggest decline was seen in firms with $10 billion – $50 billion AUM who were found to be using around one less provider – averaging four per firm.

Notably, whilst a decline was seen across the majority of AUM bands, two exceptions saw a small increase – firms with $0.5 – $1 billion in assets under management, and those with less than $0.25 billion AUM.

Demonstrably, as was the case with past surveys, there remains a strong correlation between number of providers used and a firm’s assets under management. 

Larger buy-side firms are continuing to diversify more and more, moving into asset classes beyond merely equities – namely fixed income and FX in particular – in light of increasingly unpredictable markets and regulatory uncertainty, a trend showing no signs of letting up.  

This volatility has informed the increased investment in algorithmic trading providers, however the slight decline seen in the number of providers can fairly be attributed to the continually relevant topic of cost-cutting.

When it comes to the factors for algorithmic usage, The TRADE’s respondents maintained that the top motivations were ‘ease of use’, ‘consistency of execution performance’, ‘reduce market impact’ and ‘increase trader productivity’.

However, the heightened pressure on buy-side traders to lower both explicit and implicit trading costs saw ‘lower commission rates’ and ‘price improvement’ experience the highest increase in responses.

Read more – Beyond the Data: Long-only managers more optimistic than ever when it comes to their algo providers

Elsewhere, the survey found that there is a clear bifurcation in the industry between long-only firms who use five or more algo providers, and those who use just one.

Specifically, when lifting the veil of AUM, overall, 33% of firms use more than five providers, whilst 31% use just one. 

The clear assumption being that those with a smaller pool are the smaller firms with more specific trading remits, though the market norm remains that almost 70% of firms leverage more than one provider. 

Given the current state of play of the markets, despite a slight decline this time around, it is fair to infer that the average number of algos used should remain largely unchanged for the foreseeable.

The post Beyond the Data: Number of algo providers used by buy-side sees decline despite continued diversification push appeared first on The TRADE.

Andy Mahoney, Alex Harman

The new offering is the first of its kind and designed to enhance buy-side visibility of algo orders throughout the trading day, building on existing capabilities in this sphere delivered via FIX connectivity.

The service will give clients access to proprietary data on Goldman algos directly via EMS.

“When a client sends an order to a GS algo, we are providing proprietary real-time data points back to the client’s EMS, giving them greater transparency and control of their orders,” Alex Harman, managing director, head of EMEA electronic and program trading at Goldman Sachs, tells The TRADE.

“[There are] Questions that clients ask brokers across the street throughout the day, including ‘how many shares is the algo holding for the close’, ‘am I expecting a residual’, and ‘is my dark ‘I would’ completed’ – we’re now providing that data to clients directly into their EMS.”

The service is now live on FlexTrade’s EMS and is set to be expanded to other EMS’ throughout the second quarter. It will initially offer clients data across 15 metrics with plans to expand this further in the future.

“Clients either want the data to automate routing or simply to make better decisions more efficiently,” added Harman. “Having the information at their fingertips means they have more control, more information and a better experience.”

The go live is designed to improve visibility for buy-side clients and build on existing order status update offerings that are provided via FIX connectivity. The TRADE understands that there are three banks that offer this via FIX but broadly it is not offered across all electronic providers.

“Under the current workflow without any order status update, essentially once you send the order, you’re blind apart from when the executions come back,” Andy Mahoney, managing director at FlexTrade, tells The TRADE.

“The issue that EMSs, providers and brokers have found is that the delivering OSUs over FIX has certain caveats. You can’t deliver data too frequently because FIX isn’t suitable for that.”

“There are a lot of overheads in terms of protocol recovery. When you recover a FIX session, you’re recovering all the messages, including stuff that is no longer relevant. It’s essentially transient data in the form of OSUs. It also precludes you delivering any additional or interesting content. It’s very rigidly formatted.”

Mahoney confirms that the new API offering will give clients greater flexibility which can then be fed into execution decisions.

“From an EMS perspective, digesting that order status update information allows you to make automated decisions on the back of it,” he explains. “For example, if there is going to be an expected residual at the end of the order, you may want to increase your participation or change the strategy automatically.”

Goldman Sachs and FlexTrade confirmed that there is scope to add further metrics in the future and customise where necessary depending on the client. As the service is offered via API, Mahoney explains customisability is simpler and avoids a time consuming build out process.

“If you were doing this over FIX, then if Goldman wanted to send an additional tag, it would require certification, upgrades and a long process to make sure we don’t compromise the fundamental trading architecture,” he says.

“Now, given that this is a completely separate pipe, we can add new fields, remove fields, move things around, are and add additional content very easily.”

The post Goldman Sachs and FlexTrade enhance algo offering with API order status updates appeared first on The TRADE.

Robin Mess

The firm flagged concerns around the importance of a competitive process as part of the motivations behind its bid, as well as asserting it had received “overwhelming” support from the industry. 

Thus far, the only other confirmed bidder for the tape is EuroCTP, headed up by Eglantine Desautel. 

Robin Mess, co-founder and chief executive of big xyt, explained: “We believe that competition in this selection process is essential to delivering the best possible outcome for all market participants. Our independent approach ensures that the resulting consolidated tape will serve the entire market fairly while advancing the regulatory goals of improved transparency and efficiency. 

big xyt highlighted that their bid specifically addresses the key industry concerns of: data quality, cost, and independence – allegedly free from any bias or impartiality.

Its solutions include granular level 3 analytics, real-time trading analytics with nanosecond operation, and comprehensive pre- and post-trade analytics. The firm also offers data normalisation, harmonisation and quality assurance, as well as a cloud-native proprietary technology stack. 

“After careful consideration and in response to strong encouragement from our partners throughout the financial ecosystem, we are stepping forward to offer the market an independent consolidated tape solution,” added Mess.

“Since 2014, we have set the highest standard possible for transparency across markets. By building our own tape, we’ve created the foundation for best-in-class pre- and post-trade analytics. This capital-efficient solution not only enhances the quality of our insights but also reinforces our ongoing commitment to market integrity and accessible, high-quality information.”

The post big xyt enters equities consolidated tape race appeared first on The TRADE.

Paul Humphrey

The two firms began their partnership in Q3 2023 with the release of Exegy’s latest ticker plant platform.

Paul Humphrey, chief executive of BMLL, said: “This [partnership] means that if clients are backtesting historical data and find alpha, they can quickly and efficiently replicate that format in the real-time world.
 
“We are very excited to join forces and match Exegy’s real-time expertise with BMLL’s historical capabilities. Jointly we are offering a unique transformational product to market participants, helping them understand liquidity dynamics and make better-informed trading decisions at speed and scale.”

The unified stream that bridges Exegy’s real-time OPRA data and BMLL’s historical market data, enabling users of Exegy’s conflation algorithm to benefit from streamlined data alignment. 

The move is set to reduce engineering complexity and accelerate time-to-market for critical trading strategies, according to the businesses.

“BMLL’s use of our trusted real-time OPRA data in its historical dataset underscores the quality and reliability of our solutions. We look forward to continuing our collaboration, empowering clients with robust tools for comprehensive research, back testing, and more informed trading strategies,” said David Taylor, chief executive, Exegy.

This update follows news from November 2024 wherein BMLL unveiled the availability of 6 years’ historical, nanosecond unconflated OPRA options data in a cloud-based environment (AWS) – available via BMLL Data Lab and BMLL Data Feed.

In the rest of 2025, Exegy and BMLL are set to continue to deepen their integration by incorporating the BMLL Data Feed into Exegy’s XCAPI API, enabling mutual clients to “seamlessly” transition from historical research to real-time production.

The post BMLL and Exegy partner on unified data stream appeared first on The TRADE.

Among the successful parties are Etrading Software and BondTape, The TRADE can reveal. 

In December 2023, Etrading Software confirmed plans to bid to become the consolidated tape provider (CTP) for both the UK and EU.  

“I am delighted to confirm ESMA has invited Etrading Software (ETS) to participate in the second stage of their Bond CTP Selection and Award process.  We are very much looking forward to having the opportunity to present our solution – ETS Connect – for this important and transformative service,” James Haskell, chief operating officer, Etrading Software, tells The TRADE. 

BondTape is the partnership made up of Propellant and FINBOURNE, with the firms having also confirmed plant to compete to become the UK’s bond consolidated tape provider. 

“We are very happy to progress as the tenders gather pace in both jurisdictions. As speed of delivery will be key, the experience the Bondtape partners already have in delivering production-quality, consolidated market data to banks, asset managers, hedge funds, trading venues and academics differentiates our offering,” said Neil Ryan, CEO-designate at Bondtape. 

ESMA communicated its decision directly to the relevant bidders, The TRADE understands. 

In addition, the fairCT consortium, co-ordinated by Ediphy, confirmed its intention to bid for the European fixed income tape in September 2024, as well as also gearing up to apply in the UK.  

The fairCT consortium consists of Google Cloud, UBS, TP ICAP, Cboe Global Markets, FactSet, and Norges Bank Investment Management. Whether they have been invited to proceed to the next stage is unconfirmed. 

ESMA launched the first stage of the selection procedure for the bond consolidated tape provider (CTP) in January of this year, with interested parties invited to submit by 7 February 2025. 

The watchdog has now assessed these requests against its ‘exclusion and selection criteria’ before informing successful candidates today that they may participate in this second stage. 

As previously communicated, ESMA is set to appoint a CTP by early July 2025, with the successful applicant invited to operate the consolidated tape for a five-year period. 

Read more –  Consolidated tape: Avoiding a ‘garbage in and garbage out exercise’ 

ESMA had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publishing. 

The post ESMA invites successful bidders to participate in next stage of EU bond tape tender appeared first on The TRADE.

Specifically, scores decreased only slightly when it came to opinions on EMS providers from the record results of 2023. The 2024 iteration saw an overall survey average of 5.91, which was only 3 basis points less than the record setting overall average of 5.94, which was achieved in 2023.  

This was echoed by only subtle changes in almost every single category that was assessed by the survey.  

However, notably, respondents highlighted that the largest pain point was product development – the lowest scoring category in the survey last year. 

Product development was also the category which saw the largest year-on-year decline in rating, dropping from 5.66 in 2023 to 5.52 in 2024.  

The buy-side told The TRADE that their providers have significant opportunities to enhance their solution capabilities and improve their products, with this being highlighted as a key area for improvement among providers. 

The second lowest score in last year’s survey was overall cost of operation, which was down from 5.71 to 5.65 in 2024; emphasising the growing concern over cost that traders face with increasing demand to cover multi-asset trading and investments with tighter budgets.  

The third lowest score was ease of integration to internal systems, totaling 5.70 in 2024. However, it is worth noting that even though this was the third lowest score overall, this category was up from 5.62 in both 2023 and 2022, suggesting improved satisfaction from buy-side users.  

Read more: Beyond the Data: No let-up on buy-side frustrations over EMS integration  

Looking at the more positive results of the survey, reliability and availability remained the highest rated category last year, achieving the exact same score of 6.38 when compared to 2023.  

Elsewhere, among the ‘Very Good’ ratings – with scores above 6.0 – were FIX capabilities (6.18), latency (6.13), breadth of broker algorithms (6.05) and client service personnel (6.01). 

The largest overall increases in scores year-on-year were seen in ease of integration to internal systems (+0.08) and breadth of asset class coverage (+0.03). It is worth highlighting the growth in ease of integration to internal system score, especially given that in the 2023 iteration of this survey, it was the lowest rated category overall.  

The improvement could also be attributed to the trend of buy-side firms looking to more efficiently integrate their front-to-back transactional systems. 

Despite overall satisfaction among the buy-side over their EMS providers, the survey does suggest areas of improvement. To remain ahead of the pack, cost and product development have been highlighted as key areas of improvement to continue to meet buy-side expectations. 

The TRADE’s annual EMS Survey focuses its profile on buy-side respondents with hands on experience with trading technology. The mix of traders, portfolio managers and technology personnel provide a rich perspective on the use of EMS solutions and the impact on the overall front-office business. 

The full 2024 survey can be accessed here. The 2025 edition will launch participation on 1 May. 

The post Beyond the Data: Though buy-side largely satisfied with EMS providers there’s still considerable room for improvement appeared first on The TRADE.

George Rosenberger

Named NYFIX Algo Co-Pilot, the new product uses AI to build a picture of fils in the market to better inform traders when they look to select an algorithmic strategy, all in a bid to reduce the implicit cost of trading. Broadridge has partnered with Babelfish.com to power the AI element and Google for the cloud requirements.

“This is the first time we’re really seeing AI in practice in trading. Everyone’s talking about use cases but here’s a scenario where it actually works,” says George Rosenberger, general manager of NYFIX, Broadridge, speaking to The TRADE at the FIX EMEA Trading Conference 2025.

“Implicit costs are 85% of the cost of trading. Our goal is to reduce that implicit cost of trading by using these recommendations based on our understanding of how brokers source liquidity from each strategy. We’re using AI to look at all of the dark fils that are going off in the market.”

The co-pilot segments algo offerings in liquidity buckets based on the correlation of how specific securities trade. Within each bucket, it ranks the broker algos based on historical near time performance.

“Think of it like sonar for ships. It takes physical things to figure out a location,” explains Rosenberger.

“It’s the same with dark pools. You can’t see the liquidity but when there is a fil we know the broker and the dark pool it came from. We use AI to match that information up with prints on the tape. With 90% precision we’re able to say what fil came from which dark pool so we know how much liquidity is sitting there.”

The new product will initially float beside the buy-side OMS, however Broadridge plans to integrate it like a blotter in the future – when a trader clicks on a strategy it’ll automatically launch the algo ticket in the OMS.

Unlike an algo wheel or switching engine, the offering will only inform traders as opposed to making a recommendation or automatically routing to a particular broker.

The offering will also monitor changes in the market and update information for the trader accordingly so they can change strategies if necessary.

“Algo wheels are prescriptive and have static rules. This [NYFIX Algo Co-Pilot] allows the buy-side to dynamically make changes based on what is going on in the market,” says Rosenberger.

“We are not making the recommendation on which broker to route an algo to, we are just informing to the buy-side of the choices that they have – this is the optimal strategy for the name they’re trading but ultimately it’s the buy-side directing the order.”

The post Broadridge’s new algo co-pilot: The first tangible use case of AI in trading? appeared first on The TRADE.

Lessons to be learnt 

Specifically, five points were highlighted by Market Structure Partners (MSP) as key areas where both the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority and the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) should intervene when it comes to exchanges’ data reporting processes.

The suggested changes to disclosures – which includes the public information on trading activity, pricing, volumes, among other things – included reference to the frequency of publishing, where information is accessed (and potential for all to be compiled), obligations for trading venues to keep the market apprised of changes, and to set out disclosures by asset class.

So far this year, the conversation around rising data costs has been tense to say the least, with a research report entitled ‘there is no market in market data’ published by MSP last month labelling the increases “inexplicable”. 

Read more: Some exchanges pocketing nearly £5 billion from ‘inexplicable’ market data price rises, finds report

The findings have sparked ongoing discussion across the industry, wherein exchanges subsequently fired back at the so-called “inaccurate” and “misleading” accusations around market data costs. 

“The data presented in the report contains multiple errors and does not accurately present Turquoise’s trading volumes and market data costs,” said a spokesperson for the London Stock Exchange Group (LSEG) at the time.
 
Addressing this during the Plato Partnership virtual event, Niki Beattie, chief executive of MSP, acquiesced that the rebuttal from LSEG around the use of Turquoise data as opposed to LSE data was valid.

“We’ve been criticised by Turquoise for not having LSE figures in there. We made a statement in the report saying that LSE did not have to make reasonable commercial basis disclosures and we used Turquoise data instead. We actually agree that statement is incorrect. The LSE does in fact make disclosures and we’re going to replace these with the LSE ones.

“[…] The main reason this happened was that we couldn’t find any disclosures beyond 2021 and thought they had stopped making them post-Brexit.” 

Subsequently, MSP has recommended that both the FCA and ESMA keep a repository of all disclosures in one place going forward so they may be easily be found, in addition to ensuring that exchanges advise the watchdogs of any changes to their disclosures.

Furthermore, Beattie addressed the fact that some fixed income information was included as part of revenue figures in the original report – pointing to Nasdaq Nordics and Euronext specifically.

“A final lesson for regulators is it would be really helpful to make sure that these disclosures were clearly set out by asset class,” asserted Beattie 

Read more: Exchanges hit back at ‘inaccurate’ and ‘misleading’ accusations around market data costs

Passing on the efficiency baton 

Beattie also highlighted the lack of ‘competitive tension’ across the market as a result of the current state of play, specifically referring to the notion of market data revenues offsetting overall income decline.

Notably, wherein the trend of exchanges losing market share is not being addressed as venues lack the motivation to grow the total market, supplementing dwindling equity market revenues and volumes with pricing hikes. 

A statement from Euronext published today, 4 March, bit back at claims that exchanges have offset declining equity trading revenues by increasing market data prices.

“The report claims that the share of market data revenues over the total revenues of Euronext has increased from 11% to 19%, when in reality this ratio remained stable over the period at 11%.”

It also addressed claims that it had underinvested in its equity markets, pointing to investments made by the exchange in recent years aimed at upgrading its equity markets, including the upgrade of Optiq, the clearing migration, and data centre move to a new ‘green’ facility.

The exchange further added that “Euronext’s parallel diversification into new asset classes and services has had no impact on its continued investments in equity markets.”

Overall, MSP indicated exchanges had generated £4.93 billion in surplus revenues in its initial report, with the increase occurring despite there being no “specific costs for producing market data” – the report also highlighted that the costs of running a trading platform was either stable or declining.

Speaking at the virtual event, Beattie asserted: “What we’re seeing is efficiencies are not being passed on to the market. We saw LSE’s costs have gone down, but it’s not clear that those have been passed on and at the same time market participants are unable to capitalise on investments in automation. We’ve seen restricted dissemination of data and obfuscation of the total market liquidity as a result of the current contracts.”

“[…] Exchanges may wish to reinvest their profits to grow other non-equity businesses rather than invest in their equity businesses. And this is resulting in higher than necessary costs for other competitors as well who may be more willing to invest in equity markets. What we’ve seen is the role of equities is diminishing exchanges.” 

LSEG and NASDAQ declined to comment when approached by The TRADE.

The post Data debate continues as MSP’s Niki Beattie recommends regulators pay greater attention to pricing criticisms appeared first on The TRADE.