Assamese’s Weblog

April 13, 2008

Hedgefund Technology Landscape

Filed under: Uncategorized — assamese @ 11:38 am

“Prime brokers, fund administrators and technology providers are converging on hedge fund managers. The three groups are eagerly adding ancillary services or launching new or enhanced solutions for the hedge fund community. All three are encroaching on each other’s traditional service or solution areas,” states an earlier Celent report, “A Cottage Industry Goes Mainstream: Hedge Fund Technology in the Spotlight.”

Traditionally, prime brokers’ core business has focused on trading, clearing and settlement, and custody facilities, as well as the more lucrative aspects of financing and securities lending. However, prime brokers are offering a growing list of additional services, notes Valentine, including portfolio systems, partnership accounting, portfolio risk analytics, margin and cross margin, and aggregated reporting. But, she adds, “Many of these additional services can be duplicated by fund administrators, technology providers and even outsourcing firms.”

Certainly, fund administrators are seeking to provide an evolving array of value-added services. Four or five years ago, all a third-party administrator did were month-end net asset values (NAV), while hedge fund managers looked to their prime brokers for portfolio reporting, risk-management systems, performance measurement and attribution systems, according to Stephen Hixon, chief operating officer for North America with BISYS Hedge Fund Services. “That is significantly changing,” he says. “What you need to do now is provide what we call daily P&L, where you are posting all the trades on a daily basis, reconciling positions and cash every day, and pricing securities every day.”

The driver, Hixon explains, has been the trend among managers to use more than one prime broker. Whereas prime brokers used to provide a lot of information, managers now are unable to get all the information they need from a single broker, so they are looking to their administrators instead, he relates.

“Hedge funds rely on four key service providers: TPAs, prime brokers, attorneys and accountants. Each delivers distinct services,” he relates. “While TPAs have expanded their offerings to include some services offered by prime brokers, they are generally operational in nature.”

Seth Weinstein, president of the newly launched Morgan Stanley Fund Services and a former senior member of the firm’s prime brokerage business, makes a similar point: “The two, while sharing many synergies, are stand-alone businesses,” he says. “In many ways, the TPA picks up where the prime broker leaves off,” he continues. “The market differentiation, from both sides, is in how well the respective services are integrated.”

One area in which prime brokers continue to predominate, though, is in the servicing of start-ups. If you are working with start-ups, the idea is to get to market quickly, according to Celent’s Valentine. The idea that a prime broker can offer a one-stop shop – office staff, administration, a room in a building, phones, a trading terminal – has been very attractive, she relates.

And other areas of prime broker service differentiation remain. “There is the balance sheet, the financing, the stock lending, the credit intermediation piece, which is still going to be the domain of the prime broker,

fund administration is central to the operation of a fund in terms of having responsibility for gathering all the fund’s data, reconciling positions and holdings, and reporting the fund’s NAV. Administrators are also in a better position to offer middle-office, risk and consolidated positions compared to brokers, he adds. “With so many hedge fund managers using multiple brokers and counterparties, only the administrator is in a position to see everything that is happening,” Schultz explains.

OMS/EMS Technology

Filed under: Uncategorized — assamese @ 11:38 am

OMS performs vital functions such as allocations, position management, and communication between portfolio managers and traders.
And because splitting trades across multiple venues is such a big part of trading today, many buy siders have multiple EMS screens on their desktops.
“If you require significant automation of your trading and the ability to really customize that [such as customizing algorithms], you need an EMS,” Johnson continues. “If you need workflow management between portfolio manager and trader, and extensive compliance functionality — including pre-trade compliance reviews — and accounting functions for multiple geographies, you need to get an OMS.”
A trader who participates heavily in intraday trading and employs arbitrage strategies also likely will need an EMS, adds Sang Lee, managing partner with Aite Group. But traders who primarily deploy long-only investment strategies usually are well-served by an OMS, he says.
Order management systems are typically on-site installations that reach deep into the organization. They were designed to help the buy side manage workflow and hold down operational costs — in many cases before the rise of ECNs and fragmented markets — and were pressed into handling increasingly complex trading functions for which they were not originally designed.

The EMS platforms are generally newer and were specifically built to manage electronic trading across multiple venues and deliver algorithms and charting functions to the trader. Many are delivered remotely on an application service provider (ASP) model, so integration between an EMS and OMS is not a fait accompli.
Although the prevalence of FIX and recent developments such as the FAST protocol aid integration between the EMS and OMS, it is common for information entered in one system not to appear in the other, due to syntax disagreements or timing miscues. This can cause expensive errors, such as exceeding buy limits on a certain security that were entered into the OMS but did not populate the EMS data fields.

“Combining the two different architectures is difficult,” TABB Group’s Johnson says. “Your EMS basically is a [thin] client … that can be run on a desktop,” he explains. As a result, EMSs often are delivered remotely via ASP. “An OMS architecture is a very heavy-client, database-centric architecture” that traditionally requires local installation and tight database and systems integration. “If you are doing compliance, you need to be able to lock that stuff down. You cannot have the same level of speed as an EMS,” Johnson notes.

This perhaps explains why about 80 percent of buy-side firms have more than one trading platform — either a combination of EMSs and an OMS or multiple EMSs — on their desktops, according to a TABB Group report released in December 2006. About 10 percent use an EMS only and another 10 percent use an OMS only.

Case study on Integrating OMS to an EMS : http://www.advancedtrading.com/blog/archives/2007/08/linedata_goldma.html

OMS – Prime-Broker Integration
http://www.wallstreetandtech.com/exchanges/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=AZDSKJVTPXT0OQSNDLRSKH0CJUNN2JVN?articleID=56900724&_requestid=459648
In the race to get their algorithms online and accessible to institutional customers, many brokers are eager to put their logos on the desktops of order-management systems (OMS).

“Obviously, we always have a queue of brokers banging on our door to do more business,” says Eric Bernstein, vice president, product management, at Linedata Services, which owns Longview Trading. So far, Longview has built about a dozen interfaces to leading brokers such as Banc of America Securities, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Securities.

Brokers supply the vendors with specifications to create customized FIX tags, based on the Financial Information Exchange (FIX) protocol. The vendors use the FIX tags to create order tickets. “We make sure we’re reading the tags properly and passing the orders to that destination,” says Bernstein.

OMS/EMS Market Players

Filed under: Uncategorized — assamese @ 11:36 am

BEST BUY-SIDE OMS
Bloomberg Manages a Win

1st Bloomberg (27.1%)
2nd Charles River Development (26.5%)
3rd Reuters (11%)

Buy-side providers dominated the 2005 order management system award, with Charles River Development leading the pack, attracting almost twice the number of votes of its nearest competitor, Bloomberg. This year, the category has been split, but the names in the buy-side category remain the same. The order, however, has changed. Bloomberg took the lead with 27.1 percent of the vote, while Charles River came in a close second with 26.5 percent, and Reuters came third with 11 percent.

Bloomberg’s order management offering consists of four products. The Portfolio Order Management System (POMS) is a front-end asset management tool with pre-trade, trade and post-trade analytics and compliance functions, including an array of global compliance templates. A version of POMS for alternative investments, POMS-AI, is also available and it emphasizes analysis over execution. Bloomberg Trade and Order Management System is a comprehensive trading system that incorporates pricing and offering engines, liquidity platforms, auto-execution, position management, and compliance modules for broker-dealers. A sell-side OMS for equities, SSEOMS, completes the set.

Bloomberg’s reputation as an OMS provider has vaulted the vendor over Charles River Development, which led by a significant margin in the 2005 OMS category. This may reflect a greater affinity for the company on the buy side than on the sell side. Bloomberg’s gain appears to be to the detriment of Reuters, which has lost favor. In 2005, Reuters was less than half of a percentage point behind Bloomberg.

A significant increase in Bloomberg’s global fixed-income clients may have narrowed the gap between Bloomberg and Charles River, which has continued to win clients, including the start-up hedge fund ClariVest; Metropolitan Asset Managers, a South African company; and White Mountains. The Charles River Investment Management System (IMS) remains popular due to its connectivity with more than 300 brokers, ECNs and ATS platforms, and the consequent benefits to trade execution.

BEST EXECUTION MANAGEMENT
Bloomberg Rules the Roost

1st Bloomberg (37.4%)
2nd Lava Trading (18.3%)
3rd TradingScreen (8.4%)

The readers of Waters have spoken: When it comes to execution management, Bloomberg is the best. By winning this award, Bloomberg becomes only the second vendor in rankings history to win a hat trick, with IBM being the first in 2004. Bloomberg received more than twice the votes of second-place winner Lava Trading and four times the votes of third-place finisher TradingScreen.

Launched in the beginning of 2005, Bloomberg Execution Management System (EMS) provides Bloomberg users with a multi-broker global equity and fixed-income trading tool that combines data, trade-blotter analytics and extensive order routing options free for all Bloomberg subscribers.

Buy-side traders can create their own custom trading blotters as well as use the wealth of real-time pre-trade, working and post-trade analytics that can be custom designed, or rely on the vast library of pre-defined benchmarks. The platform also provides a real-time sorting and filtering option that enables traders to identify orders that need special handling versus the selected benchmarks. Orders can be routed to more than 1,000 broker-dealer destinations globally that are on Bloomberg’s Global Order Routing network, or to other third-party broker-dealers’ algorithmic trading offerings or block trading desks.

By offering a no-cost solution that ties data, analytics, and execution routing together into one ubiquitous platform, Bloomberg has won the hearts of asset managers large and small.

list of OMS/EMS vendors:
http://i.cmpnet.com/financetech/download/NOM_EMP_Ind_NEW.pdf
http://www.wallstreetandtech.com/story/supp/WST20030416S0004

Fixed-Income OMS Vendors: http://www.wallstreetandtech.com/operations/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=177105472&pgno=2

April 9, 2008

Broker & Dealer

Filed under: Uncategorized — assamese @ 3:02 pm

A dealer differs from an broker in that a dealer acts as a principal in a transaction. That is, a dealer takes ownership of assets and is exposed to inventory risk, while a broker only facilitates a transaction on behalf of a client/trader.

Blog at WordPress.com.