FinanceFeeds detailed review of 2017 – July to September. FinanceFeeds instrumental in NFA defense, taking a broker to task, CFD pricing, last look and London’s finest

As 2017 draws to a close, we look at the important details that shaped the industry this year, continuing with April to June as the first part in a four part series this week. FinanceFeeds remains committed to detailed reporting from within the industry’s major centers and continuing to work closely with the most important companies that shape the entire future of this business internationally.

2017 has been another very eventful year, however there have been some distinct differences between the past twelve months and the developments that have formed the commercial landscape for the majority of this decade.

In particular, the entire spectrum of the FX industry does not resemble its structure at the end of the last decade, when MetaTrader 4 was in its relative infancy and a plethora of small brokerages made their way onto the retail market, as nowadays, a combination of consumer wisdom, regulatory understanding in some of the more important regions, and a need to elevate the standard of smaller brokerages with third party solutions away from the ‘second tier’ status that they have held until now in the shadow of the large, publicly listed companies in the world’s most technologically advanced major financial centers.

FinanceFeeds has committed vast resources to reporting and conducting research from within the companies that lead this industry worldwide, a matter which we consider as vital as working with our esteemed and high level partners whose expertise and engagement assist us in providing the absolute detail on every aspect of developments in this business globally.

In this four-part series this week, FinanceFeeds takes a detailed look back at the events of the year that have been influential and changed the direction of our industry, in chronological order:

July 2017

A long used practice by Tier 1 banks which has created a polarizing of opinion between liquidity takers and liquidity providers was at long last challenged by a retail FX brokerage, albeit a very unlikely contender.

Last look, which is a practice in which Tier 1 FX liquidity providers are able to literally take a ‘last look’ at a trade that has been passed to the banks to see if they want to accept or reject it, has been a moot point among prime of prime brokerages and their retail FX broker customer base for several years.

In July this year, Alpari (US) filed a case against Citigroup Inc (NYSE:C) and Citibank at the New York Southern District Court. The Complaint, seen by FinanceFeeds, states that the case is a class action brought to recover the damages that the plaintiffs suffered as a result of the alleged practice of Citigroup of reneging on orders that it matched and accepted through its own and third-party electronic trading platforms.

The class members include “all persons in the United States who, between January 1, 2008 and June 30, 2016 (the “Class Period”), placed an order either on a Citi proprietary platform or a third party ECN that (1) was matched to Citigroup’s streaming price; (2) was rejected by Citigroup; and (3) was subsequently filled at a price less favorable than the original Citigroup price to which it was matched.”

  • Proprietary platforms

According to the Complaint, when dealing with Plaintiff and the Class, Citigroup programmed an unnecessary delay of up to several seconds into its execution algorithms. This delay has been dubbed the Last Look period. The plaintiffs allege that Citigroup first used Last Look on CitiFX at least as early as January 1, 2008, and on Velocity beginning with its launch in 2009. The complaint also states that on CitiFX, Velocity, and the rest of the Citi proprietary platforms, Citigroup further applied Last Look to all API/FIX and ECN trades, as well as a portion of those customers using Citigroup’s GUI.

In addition, Citigroup is alleged to have used the information derived from the order (quantity, buy or sell, etc.) to its trading advantage. Also, Citigroup is accused to have “significantly and artificially increased its FX trading profits at the expense of buy-side counterparties”.

  • ECN “hostages”

The plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that Citigroup used the same Last Look practices on third-party ECNs. The document says that although buy-side market participants can (and do) execute trades directly with each other on ECNs, Liquidity Providers, such as Citigroup, still act as counterparties in most FX trades executed on ECNs. According to the Complaint, as a condition of providing liquidity to ECNs open to buy-side market participants, Citigroup required ECNs to permit it to use Last Look when trading through those platforms.

“Granting such concessions to Liquidity Providers, such as Citigroup, was essential to any start-up ECN’s economic survival: ECNs were hostage to Citigroup’s demands.”

Importantly, Alpari (US) admits that it has no access to the underlying facts relating to Citigroup’s alleged improper activities. The plaintiffs note in their complaint that they believe further evidentiary support for their allegations will come to light after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.

The Complaint mentions similar cases involving “Last Look” practices, including the events from 2015. In March 2015, it was reported that the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission asked Barclays for information relating to BARX and its Last Look practices. In November 2015, Barclays entered into a Consent Order with the New York State and Department of Financial Services. The bank admitted it used Last Look, agreed to pay a $150 million civil monetary penalty, as well as to terminate a Managing Director and Global Head of Electronic Fixed Income, Currencies, and Commodities Automated Flow Trading.

The plaintiffs in the case ALPARI (US), LLC v. Citigroup, Inc et al, are, inter alia, seeking that the Court award Plaintiff and Class members damages, punitive damages, and/or restitution in an amount to be determined at trial.

Alpari (US) LLC was dissolved in September 2015, however FinanceFeeds demonstrated allegiance with the ideology of taking the banks to task over this practice, largely because it is a one-sided matter that is only allowable by Tier 1 banks. If an OTC firm engaged in such practice during trade execution, the non-bank regulators, and customers, would raise the proverbial roof.

FinanceFeeds had investigated the perspective within banks, regulatory authorities and trade bodies just a few months prior to this unparalleled action by Alpari (US), having reported that regulators had begun scrutinizing FX dealing platforms that contain last look, a controversial practice that enables market makers to delay or reject trades from customers after they’ve agreed to a quoted price.

In January 2016, the Foreign Exchange Professionals Association (FXPA), held a webinar on examining the implications of last look for the FX markets.

Attorneys with Steptoe & Johnson on the ‘last look’ webinar, advised market makers to be more transparent about how their last look systems operate.

“Regulators take a very dim view of institutional practices that emphasize a lack of transparency and that encourage employees to give either misdirection or less than complete information to counterparties when direct questions are asked,” said Mike Miller, litigation partner at Steptoe & Johnson, who spoke during the webinar.

In one high-profile case, a global bank used its spot FX trading platform to reject unprofitable trades. When customers asked why the trades were rejected, the bank reportedly gave “vague or misleading answers,” said attorney Jason Weinstein who analyzed the case during the webinar.

After a regulatory settlement, the bank posted detailed disclosures on its web site and also paid a steep fine, setting a precedent that could impact other banks, brokers and market-making firms.

Because the practice is not disclosed by FX trading platforms, the issue of last look has generated headline attention and worries on the buy-side over rejected trades and information leakage.

However, investors may not be able to avoid last look.

“Last look is still prevalent in the industry. In fact, it’s accurate to say that almost all single dealer platforms employ last look,” said Chip Lowry, who chairs the FXPA Professional Committee.

Vestige of an Earlier Era

However, last look is not new, noted Lowry. It originated in the early years of electronic trading in the FX market, and was originally intended to ensure the market maker’s price wasn’t based on stale market data information for the purposes of price formation and also that they had the credit available to trade with the client. As it evolved, last look has been programmed into automated FX dealing systems.

Some critics argue that banks are utilizing last look less as a risk management tool and more to generate profits as they compete against high frequency traders and other non-bank liquidity providers.

The practice has led to uncertainty on the part of buy-side customers as to why they are receiving high rejection-rates on their FX trades.

“The fact that liquidity providers can give traders orders a last look before accepting the order is something that frustrates many traders, as it can often result in a certain amount of slippage,” according to website TheFXView.com. As such, they wait for the next best price. But if a customer’s order is rejected by a number of different liquidity providers, it can experience a significant amount of slippage, noted TheFXView.

Another issue is the lack of standardization and transparency into FX trading on various platforms, noted the Financial Times. In addition to single-dealer platforms, some multi-dealer platforms also allow last look including Bats Global Markets’ Hotspot and Thomson Reuters FXAll. However, some platforms view last look as outdated.

ParFX, an FX venue owned by Tradition, does not utilize last look, the firm’s CEO told the Financial Times, citing advances in trading technology and the need for firm prices.

Pros and Cons of Last Look

FX experts contend that market makers need access to last look to protect against trading on stale prices due to latency and from high frequency trading clients that have asynchronous information advantages. Over time, last look was also a factor that allowed for non-bank liquidity providers to enter the market, noted Lowry. Some supporters contend it allowed for more liquidity and more competitive pricing.

“Last look came about as a protection for the banks against latency arbitrage because they didn’t have the speed of technology. The rules were you could have last look. It’s kind of morphed into some places where it’s actually a free option,” said David Ogg, CEO of Ogg Trading at Market’s Media’s Global Market Summit in December.

Yet, others question whether last look is necessary since market makers now have faster technology and sophisticated risk management systems that can automatically hedge their spot FX exposures.

Others suggest that last look is a way for the market makers to reject unprofitable trades. “All in all, the purpose of the last look equation is to eliminate unprofitable trades for the liquidity provider, to maximize profit opportunities and provide a mirage of liquidity,” said David Ullrich, Senior Vice President of FlexTrade. The footprint for last look occurs through above average reject rates and excessive holding times, he explained.

“Last look also opens up the potential for front running currency orders in the sense that the customer is sharing its intentions with the liquidity provider.  A more meaningful electronic trading process would probably widen spreads a touch, ironically improving overall liquidity due to reduced drop rates, and lessening a negative outcome for the liquidity providers” – David Ullrich, Senior Vice President of FlexTrade

Bank of England Questions Fairness

The debate over last look falls into a broader industry conversation about the fairness of wholesale markets and the regulatory push for more transparency in FICC markets.

After a series of scandals over manipulation of Libor and FX benchmarks, the Bank of England (BoE) published the final “Fair and Effective Markets Review” on June 10, 2015 with 21 recommendations to restore trust in the wholesale FICC markets and to develop a global code of conduct for FX trading. In the final report, published last March, the BoE said the global code should address the practice of last look and whether it should remain an acceptable market practice. At a minimum, the UK central banks called for clearer standards regarding the practice.

The BoE’s review also cited the lack of timestamps in FX trading. “The absence of time stamps on some client orders can make it difficult for investors to assess the efficiency of their FX executions, creating potential opportunities for abusive practices,”

The Buy-Side Speaks Up

Buy-side firms are also raising concerns about last look. In January 2015, during the consultation period for the BoE’s fairness review, BlackRock, one of the world’s leading asset managers, called the practice “problematic.”

In written comments, BlackRock drew comparison with indications-of-interest in equities, adding that in FX markets it created “phantom liquidity,” and that it would prefer “liquidity on which we can deal, even if this comes at a higher cost.” “Moving away from indications of interest to streaming prices would be fully consistent, we believe, with outcomes that are both fairer and more effective,” wrote the asset manager.

In December, Steven List, head of trading for AlphaSimplex, speaking on an FX panel at a Markets Media conference, said, “It’s an anathema to a fair market where the banks want the last look or the automated traders want the last look. I don’t see how that’s going to pass the smell test,” said List,

Unintended Consequences

Banning last look could backfire too. “Eliminating last look will effect liquidity,” warned a former e-trading professional at the Markets Media conference in December. The reason is that some bank liquidity providers are quoting prices on 20 or 30 platforms. It’s possible that one customer will try to hit their price on 10 platforms at the same price. The bank could let the customer have one or two of those trades, but “reserve the right to protect symmetrically,” said the former electronic trading executive.

 August 2017

In August this year, FinanceFeeds conducted the first ever FX industry documentary inside a prime of prime brokerage in London. Taking a detailed look inside the full operational activities, here is the documentary:

FinanceFeeds was established with a view to being the reference point for the senior executives of this industry, globally, and to be a leader in assisting the development and direction of the industry.

It is therefore one of the tenets of this company to be a source of vital information to industry leaders at the very upper end of the business structure, and to global regulators.

On this line of thinking, in August this year, the National Futures Association (NFA), referred to FinanceFeeds exclusive and comprehensive research when building defense against Effex Capital, involved in FXCM’s exit from the US market.

In an article dated August 16, 2017, FinanceFeeds stresses that “FinanceFeeds is closely examining all filings in the case, however many of the documents are sealed”.

In its filin in the case in August this year, the National Futures Association (NFA) refers to this particular remark by FinanceFeeds, as the Association seeks to keep more of the information on the case public.

“This lawsuit has gotten public attention, and Effex’s efforts to seal publicly-available information has impeded the public from learning basic facts about the case”, the NFA notes before referring to FinanceFeeds’ article.

“Effex has therefore filed an overbroad sealing request which would require NFA to seal almost everything it files”, NFA concludes.

NFA notes that some of the exhibits that Effex is trying to seal have been publicly available for months and will stay there. Second, the couple of paragraphs in the NFA Complaint against FXCM from February 6, 2017, which allegedly reveal Effex’s trade secrets, are dubbed insufficient to justify a blanket sealing order on everything NFA will file in the case. Then, there is the administrative burden on the court and NFA as a result of reviewing each document with regard to its possible sealing/unsealing.

NFA refers to Hicklin Eng’g, L.C. v. Bartell, 439 F.3d 346, 348–49 (7th Cir. 2006):

“What happens in the federal courts is presumptively open to public scrutiny. . . Any step that withdraws an element of the judicial process from public view makes the ensuing decision look more like fiat and requires rigorous justification.”

Of course, it is not a part of professional journalism to take sides when covering a legal action. However, providing a comprehensive picture of a legal action is an essential part of professional journalism. The fact that a substantial portion of the documents in this case are sealed prevents a journalist to provide the public with impartial and detailed coverage of the legal matters at hand.

Even more stunningly, the large majority of documents filed in this case are all related to requests/motions for sealing (and leave to file sealed) exhibits. As NFA puts it:

“This case is about the exhibits that Effex seeks to seal—specifically, whether NFA’s publication of those exhibits is defamatory, tortious, or a due process violation.”

One question to consider is whether this sealing drive does not deflect the court and the public attention away from the real problem at hand – the nature of the business relationship between Effex Capital and FXCM and whether this relationship justified the mentioning of Effex’s name in the NFA public releases dated February 6, 2017. This matter is now drowning in motions to seal/unseal exhibits.

FinanceFeeds is committed to assisting the longevity of this industry by ensuring detailed and accurate reporting that can be used in developing the business and furthering its cause.

August this year was a month during which litigation plagued another high profile firm, this time Smartstream Technologies.

The company, which provides institutional software and managed services has been engulfed in a legal fight with former CEO Philippe Chambadal over trade secrets, confidential information and compensation payments.

The legal action which names Philippe Chambadal as Defendant, seeks injunctive relief to enforce an agreement containing a return of information and confidentiality clause and to enjoin Defendant from further misappropriation or dissemination of SmartStream’s trade secrets and confidential information.

The company alleges that Mr Chambadal who was provided with a 90 days’ notice of termination of his contract with SmartStream on January 5, 2017, retained corporate property and access to confidential information after this notice was issued. In particular, the company states that Mr Chambadal did not return a computer and a phone provided by his employer within the time frame requested. Furthermore, he made visits to cloud storage, used TimeMachine and deleted files on the computer after having been given notice of termination from SmartStream.

Following notice of termination, Mr Chambadal is also alleged to have threatened to “destroy the company’s market position and pipeline” by issuing disparaging letters to SmartStream’s clients.

Mr Chambadal, of course, has a different story to tell. In his response to the Complaint, he has denied all claims against him made by SmartStream and has filed a Counterclaim, seeking damages in the amount of at least $25,000,000, saying that this sum represents the total value of the granted, earned and unpaid awards and equity based options due to be paid to him, plus attorney’s fees and costs.

Mr Chambadal insists that he was refused proper compensation because of the intentions of SmartStream, Khalifa Daboos (chairman of SmartStream) and ICD to maximize returns from an anticipated sale of the company. “Upon information and belief, Daboos and ICD have decided – as of late 2016 – to sell SmartStream in 2017, and are currently preparing to SmartStream for the sale to a strategic buyer for $500 million”, the document filed by Mr Chambadal says.

Haytham Kaddoura, who succeeded Mr Chambadal, as a CEO of SmartStream, is labelled by Mr Chambadal as “a figurehead, sycophant, and “yes man” for Daboos”. “Kaddoura was a cheap placeholder until Daboos decided to sell SmartStream”, he says.

Earlier this week, SmartStream responded to the Counterclaim filed by Mr Chambadal, saying that his unpaid award claims are futile, because awarded options cannot be exercised unless and until a specific “Exit” triggering event (i.e., an acquisition or initial public offering of the company) has occurred. And no such triggering exit event has taken place when Mr Chambadal purported to exercise Plan options on January 23, 2017. Furthermore, even if a requisite triggering exit event had occurred, the Plan states an individual’s options lapse as soon as he is given notice of termination of his employment.

As part of our responsibility toward good practice, FinanceFeeds took retail FX brokerage AvaTrade to task in August this year over an email sent to its affiliate network in which a competitor and its service provider were the subject of derision in an attempt to onboard clients. In a victory for transparency, the company responded and has made steps to rectify the matter.

One of the key aspects of detailed research within all sectors of the FX industry that is performed by quality FX industry news sources is the increased transparency between B2B partners, this being a very central part of FinanceFeeds ethos globally.

On August 21, FinanceFeeds reported that the affiliate marketing department of European division within retail FX brokerage AvaTrade had made an attempt to onboard strategic partners and affiliates by way of an email circular which bashed a small, Cyprus-based brokerage, cast doubt over the business environment in Cyprus and also made negative references to the broker in question’s service provider.

To read the full account, click here.

As a result of FinanceFeeds having brought this to the attention of senior management at AvaTrade, at the company’s head office in Ireland, the company has addressed the matter at board level and has taken mitigating steps in order to minimize impact on any affiliate networks.

The company today addressed its affiliate network, denouncing the initial communication, as follows:

Dear Partner,

Yesterday you received an email in which one of our representatives informed you about rumors about a competitor StockSTP, a client of Leverate Financial Services Limited.

This mail does not reflect in any way the opinion of the AvaTrade Group, which has always strived to maintain its mission and policy to act as a regulated and respectable broker, this applies to our competitors, customers, & partners.

We apologize on behalf of AvaTrade and hope to continue working together.

In a telephone conversation on August 21 between a senior executive at AvaTrade and FinanceFeeds, it was conveyed that the company does not support the type of competition-bashing that had been perpetrated in the initial communication to affiliates.

The member of senior management explained to FinanceFeeds “The email sent by one of our Affiliate Managers does not reflect the opinions of AvaTrade and we do not seek to compete with other Brokers in this manner. As a side point the email was not sent to a Database but rather a small list of partners that the Affiliate Manager was in contact with, and we are shortly issuing a formal apology to that same list.”

Affiliates are of very significant value to AvaTrade, its roots being firmly planted in the affiliate marketing sector, as defined in FinanceFeeds original article today on the matter.

This response represents the professional method of dealing with an internal and potentially damaging matter, and although competition-bashing is a rare occurrence in this business, demonstrates greater mettle than some of the other firms that have taken this line in order to attempt to onboard clients.

In the case of OANDA Corporation’s similar diatribe in the aftermath of FXCM’s high profile exit from many regions apart from China where it flourishes, when FinanceFeeds approached OANDA Corporation’s at the time newly instigated CEO Vatsa Narasimha in order to reproach the company with regard to its vulgar attempt to jump on a competitor rather than demonstrate its value proposition, the firm upheld its stance right through the ranks of all operational sectors spoken to by FinanceFeeds.

On this basis, FinanceFeeds continues to maintain that a genuine business environment should be paramount among all aspects of the industry, whether it be the conduct of news and research portals, banks with their last-look execution procedures on single dealer platforms, affiliate marketers with regard to intellectual property, and of course retail brokerages competing for market share in the MT4 white label arena in which over 1230 similar offerings exist.

There is no excuse for infantile misconduct, and thankfully it is usually only expected of one-man-band entities in remote, irrelevant geographical regions, and therefore FinanceFeeds considers this to be an upstanding outcome by one of the larger retail FX brokerages.

September 2017

From China to the world, and back again.

www.financefeeds.cn

In a world first, FinanceFeeds  accomplished a milestone in FX industry research, resourcing and value provision to the entire global FX industry in September this year.

FinanceFeeds China officially went  into service, with www.financefeeds.cn having gone live, representing the opening of our office in Shanghai.

The very first ever B2B FX industry resource to have successfully registered a .cn top level domain (TLD) via the Chinese government, FinanceFeeds is proud to be able to assist the global FX industry in its endeavors to work closely with critical Chinese partners across all sectors of the industry, and to bring the Chinese FX industry, which is the way of the future, to you and your company.

With over 250,000 initial unique viewers per month in mainland China, all of which are key members of the FX industry’s massive community in China, garnered via several years of detailed research and relationship building by FinanceFeeds CEO Andrew Saks-McLeod in China alongside critical Chinese leaders throughout the entirety of the country, FinanceFeeds China is a resource that is now positioned as a mainstay of the FX industry’s reporting entities.

FinanceFeeds will put YOU in front of the right partners across China, generating revenue and value like no other

Since inception, FinanceFeeds has become synonymous as a detailed research resource, with a very comprehensive insight into China.

The completely Chinese method by which FinanceFeeds China is structured involves 4 full time contributing editors based in Shanghai, all of whom have substantial FX industry experience within mainland China, and the site hosted on Chinese servers and operating with Baidu and WeChat distribution channel and search engine technology means that it is a completely Chinese entity, the site and operations overseen by FinanceFeeds China’s in-house web development team in Shanghai.

In Chinese, reports from inside and outside China will be published every day, on an ongoing basis, and your company can advertise legitimately on the site without any risk of being blocked by the government firewall, in accurately formatted system that is synergic with Chinese media and to a vast audience and is authorized and supervised by the Chinese government.

Together with our ability to organize bespoke and exclusive events which put YOU in front of key partners and can literally place $1 billion in assets under management in one room as a captive audience, an example being our IB symposiums which can be produced across the country, our detailed presence within the offices of important Chinese firms and our ability to bring Western firms with Chinese presence closer to their customers, FinanceFeeds is positioned as the only resource in the world which specializes in China.

Our WeChat channel pushes advertisements, news, editorials, research and event participation directly to the senior executives of Chinese firms, empowering you and placing your business in a unique position, a function that can only be performed by FinanceFeeds. This week, we will provide the QR code so that you can join our Chinese network via WeChat.

Also in September, North American FX industry stalwart OANDA Corporation became involved in a litigious matter, led by a customer.

OANDA Corporation and its former Chief Executive Officer Edmond I. Eger, III (Ed Eger) had until September 15, 2017, to file their answers in a civil case brought by one of their customers – Antonio Medina. The information is contained in court filings, seen by FinanceFeeds.

Back in 2005, Mr Medina was solicited by OANDA to make use of its FX services, with the broker advertising that it would offer a competitive spread and that it would not charge any commission.

According to Mr Medina’s complaint, OANDA charged him with fictitious interest for non-existing money and failed to provide competitive spread that it promised, but instead increased it beyond the competition’s.

Starting on or around August 2015, the complaint says, the Defendants have failed to provide competent service, failing to follow Mr Medina’s trade instructions. Plaintiff received either no response or unresponsive emails, when he tried to contact the broker.

In addition, Defendants promised that OANDA’s exchange prices, quotes and spread were transparent and that they would provide historical data with at least one minute accuracy spanning many years back but allegedly failed to do so.

Mr Medina says he had a trading strategy that would have generated him profits had it not been for OANDA’s false representations and uncompetitive spreads.

The complaint accuses OANDA et al of: (1) breach of warranty; (2) false advertising; (3) breach of oral contract; (4) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (5) breach of fiduciary duty; (6) fraud; and (7) infliction of emotional distress.

With regard to the last charge, Mr Medina claims that:

“As a proximate result of the Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiff suffered mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress, and has been injured in his mind and body as follows: Plaintiff has lost sleep, become ill, developed anxiety, and gastralgia…”

Mr Medina is seeking punitive and compensatory damages, and demands OANDA to stop with the allegedly false advertising.

The Defendants have sought to dismiss the case. With regard to naming Ed Eger among the defendants, their counsel argues that:

“Nowhere in the amended complaint did Medina plead the existence of a contract into which he entered specifically with Edmond Eger, nor that Eger owed any special duty to Medina. Consequently, the causes of action against Eger fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.”

Regarding the other allegations in the complaint, the Defendants at the time saw no facts to support any of Mr Medina’s seven causes of action. They argue that Mr Medina pleads no facts establishing any oral contract, the terms of any such contract, or any warranty that was breached. The complaint does not plead how statements made by OANDA, its employees, or Edmond Eger were allegedly false, misleading, or had the likelihood to deceive or confuse the public.

The claim for infliction of emotional distress is barred by well-settled law, the Defendants said at the time.

Earlier that week, the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis for purposes of settlement. If the parties wish to proceed without settlement, they have to follow a schedule stipulated by the court. The parties must be ready for trial on 48 hours notice on or after February 23, 2018. The estimated trial time is 5 days, and it will be a jury trial.

The case is captioned Medina v. OANDA Corporation (1:17-cv-02316).

On a very positive note, one of the world’s most well renowned FX and electronic trading companies introduced a very important new entity – that being the genuine ability to price CFDs, that being CMC Markets.

The company stands in a unique position among its peers which adorn the ultra-modern financial district that lies within a few footsteps of Liverpool Street Station, in that unlike some of London’s retail market specialists, CMC Markets has a very international and all encompassing institutional division, hence the company’s senior talent understands the relationships with Tier 1 providers, and clearing venues that are required in order to correctly price its range of instruments.

The majority of equity CFD providers look to offer a relationship along the lines of a traditional brokerage, acting as an agent on behalf of their clients. In other words, they are not risk-takers but instead look to hedge their CFD transactions in the underlying cash market.

So if a client was, for example, to submit an order to buy 10,000 CFDs in a company’s stock, the provider would simultaneously enter the market, buy 10,000 shares in that particular company as a hedge, and write a CFD to the client at the same price.

In this way, the client receives the position that he wants, namely long 10,000 CFDs in that particular company, while the provider has hedged his short CFD contract with the client by buying stock in the market. Although counterparties to the CFD transaction, the fact that the CFD provider is hedging means that any price improvement can be passed on to the client, who as a result pays the best cash market price.

For this reason, the relationship between the client and CFD provider is crucial, as traders need transparent prices that track the cash market without any delays, and with firms that do not have specific relationships with institutional providers, pricing what can be construed as an off-exchange futures contract is a very significant challenge.

Richard Elston, Head of Institutional, CMC Markets

CMC Markets has considered the need to provide a fully comprehensive order execution management solution for CFDs, and has during the past few months concentrated on expanding its ability to provide full pricing information to clients.

In September, CMC Markets entered into a strategic partnership with FlexTrade, a company whose FX execution management system accesses more than 70 liquidity providers.

Operating with banks, ECNs and exchanges, FlexTrade is a broker-neutral, execution and order management trading systems for equities, FX, options, futures and fixed income securities. Last year, FlexTrade opened an office in Sydney Australia, in the heartlands of another major market center for CFDs.

To detail this partnership comprehensively, FinanceFeeds spoke today to Richard Elston, Head of Institutional at CMC Markets.

When asked what the partnership will do to enhance the trading environment, Mr Elston explained

“The partnership has been designed to ensure clients – like aggregating brokers and smaller, emerging hedge funds – have the best possible access to the widest range of asset classes. Forex has always been well established, but we’re now in a position to offer our Indices, Commodities and Treasuries CFDs to institutional clients right alongside currencies. This affords clients real flexibility” – Richard Elston, Head of Institutional, CMC Markets

The decision to partner with FlexTrade was a matter of interest, in which Mr Elston stated “FlexTrade is a well-respected brand with a solid product offering. Not only does this make our decision to work with them an easy one, but this pedigree also affords end-users the confidence they need.”

Clearly, CMC Markets occupies a somewhat unique position in that many CFD companies globally do not have the ability or remit to access real market liquidity, and favor the b-book, generating their own prices.

With regard to CMC Markets’ connectivity to live markets and its in-house institutional and prime of prime division, FinanceFeeds asked whether CMC markets is looking to become the CFD liquidity provider of choice across markets where direct market acces (DMA: is important.

“CMC Markets is in the rare position of being able to deliver tier one liquidity in both FX and CFDs through a combination of the institutional relationships supported by our strong balance sheet and also the liquidity which is delivered by our own clients. We see this as being a core component of our market-leading proposition” – Richard Elston, Head of Institutional, CMC Markets

“Also, will CMC markets look to establish itself as the CFD liquidity provider across UK, Australia, China, HK and other very important markets where DMA is very important” explained Mr Elston.

“CMC Markets is looking at this from a global position so Flextrade’s presence in the major data centres will ensure seamless connectivity for clients worldwide” he confirmed.

Most certainly FinanceFeeds concurs that with regard to the ability to price CFDs, CMC Markets is well-known in the industry for its transparency in pricing.

FinanceFeeds looks at CMC Markets’ $100 million Next Generation proprietary trading system at the firm’s head office in Houndsditch, London

Using market data from the relevant exchanges, CMC Markets derives the most accurate prices for clients to trade against. The execution process is further enhanced by the availability of tier one liquidity across both FX and Indices, Commodities and Treasuries CFDs.

This ethos was exemplified in July this year, when Andrew Wood, CMC Markets’ Business Development Manager in Australia explained to FinanceFeeds during a meeting in Sydney that for those OTC instruments listed on MT5, the depth of market measure has to work differently by proactively allowing resting stop and limit orders to be placed.

Mr Wood explained that this enables users to take full advantage of price movements, rather than just seeing orders rejected in full, owing to insufficient market depth.

Mr Wood was indeed referring to the recent launch by CMC Markets of market depth information against CFD products on its Next Generation trading platform and that the company has now uniquely incorporated that its our API for those simply looking to tap into the liquidity feed.

With the burgeoning popularity of the MT5 platform amongst brokers based in the Asia Pacific region, it would seem as if more CFD providers will be offering this functionality in due course – although for now anyway, CMC Markets is the only liquidity provider offering this functionality.

Thus it’s not only a case of the availability of market depth information giving CMC’s own clients a better trading experience, but it also means that those signed up to brokers using MT5, trading on-exchange products and who in turn are taking liquidity from CMC, will also now have an extra layer of transparency on hand.

It is clear that the method by which CFDs are provided to clients is one that must be evolved, and it is partnerships like this one between CMC Markets and FlexTrade that serve to do exactly that.

Read this next

Digital Assets

Meet Grand Time: The Community-Driven Web3 Platform Where You Can Tokenize Your Time

Community-driven Web3 platform Grand Time is on a mission to help people enter the crypto market by providing the necessary resources through its multifaceted platform and native token.   As a fully decentralized and community-oriented platform, Grand Time is empowering people worldwide to become financially independent through its two-sided GIG marketplace. Unlike most Web 2.0 […]

Digital Assets

FTX US adds stock trading, fractional shares to crypto platform

FTX US, the American subsidiary of crypto exchange FTX has kicked off stock trading feature to its customers in an effort to compete with popular platforms such as Robinhood and eToro.

Industry News

UK FCA empowered to remove brokers’ permissions in 28 days

Businesses with permissions they don’t need or use, risk misleading consumers. These new powers will enable us to take quicker action to cancel permissions that are not used or needed.

Industry News

CFTC charges $44m Ponzi scheme but millions may have fled to foreign crypto exchange

The CFTC alleged that defendants transferred millions of dollars to an off-shore entity that, in turn, may have transferred funds to a foreign cryptocurrency exchange. None of these funds were returned to the pool.

Technology

Saxo Bank deploys Adenza to address Basel and EBA requirements

The integration of ControllerView will enhance Basel-driven capital calculations and reporting at Saxo Bank in support of the bank’s multijurisdictional capital and liquidity reporting requirements throughout Denmark, Switzerland and UK, with plans to expand into the Netherlands.

Executive Moves

ComplySci appoints CTO, CPO, and CLO to further regtech’s product expansion

ComplySci offers compliance software used by more than 1400 global institutions to identify risk and address regulatory compliance challenges.

Digital Assets

Thailand closer to launch digital asset exchange “to serve the needs of younger generations”

TDX is a subsidiary of the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) and its incorporation is part of the group’s strategic position to connect capital markets, open opportunities for the business sector in raising funds and cater to investment demand of new generations.

Digital Assets

Russia to legalize cryptocurrency payments as sanctions bite

Russia could soon be the latest country to lay down ground rules for legalizing cryptocurrencies as a means of payment, a sign that governments around the world are realizing that digital assets are here to stay.

Institutional FX

XTX Markets UK reports lackluster results for 2021

The UK business of XTX Markets, a non-bank FX liquidity provider and market maker, has reported its financials for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2021. The report showed impressive metrics after seeing revenues and customer activity increase even as the pandemic trading boom fizzled out.

<