V16-022 State of The OMS Final

State of the OMS: A Time for Change?
| May 2018
State of the OMS:

A Time for Change?
V16-022 | May 2018 | www.tabbgroup.com
© 2018 TABB Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved. May not be reproduced by any means without express permission.
1
State of the OMS: A Time for Change? | May 2018
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3
A Community Under Pressure ..................................................................................... 4
How Business Pressures Are Changing Buy-Side IT ................................................ 4
Infrastructure Consolidation ......................................................................................... 5
OMS Innovation ............................................................................................................. 6
Portfolio Management & Construction System ............................................................ 6
New Liquidity Sources ................................................................................................. 6
Fixed Income ............................................................................................................... 7
Equities ........................................................................................................................ 7
Research and Unbundling ......................................................................................... 10
Analytics .................................................................................................................... 11
Market Sizing, Share, and Growth ............................................................................. 11
Geographic Focus ..................................................................................................... 13
Market Share ............................................................................................................. 15
Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 17
About ............................................................................................................................ 18
TABB Group .............................................................................................................. 18
TABB Group Equities Practice ................................................................................... 18
The Author ................................................................................................................. 18
2
Introduction
The order management system (OMS) has been the center point for buy-side equity traders since
the first buy-side OMS (Merrin Financial) was founded more than 30 years ago. Envisioned as a
central platform for connecting portfolio managers to traders, the OMS was used to stage, prioritize
and execute primarily equity orders.
Trade execution, at the dawn of the OMS era, was nothing like it is today. Order execution 30 years
ago was mostly buy-side traders talking with a host of brokers. While there was the NYSE DOT
system that delivered orders directly to specialists, there were few of what we could call today
electronic trading channels, and firms were lucky to have anything more than a consolidated top-of-
book market data feed broadcast from the two major US equity exchanges, NYSE and NASDAQ.
That changed in the early 1990s as Salomon Brothers and Fidelity developed the FIX protocol, which
electronically connected buy-side trading desks with their executing brokers. This expanded the order
management system to an increasingly electronic world, allowing brokers to send buy-side traders
indications of interest and notices of execution and facilitating the manually challenging processes of
generating average prices and managing electronic allocation and confirmation.
In 2000, Robert Algren and Neil Chriss wrote their defining paper, “Optimal Execution of Portfolio
Transactions,” which kicked off the development of execution algorithms in earnest. Add to the flight
to algorithms market structure change, decimalization, and the cost pressures associated with the
managing of money in a more competitive age, and now almost 66% of a buy-side trader’s equity
trading order flow is channeled via low-touch/electronic trading protocols across 13 US equity
exchanges, upward of 30 dark pools, and 60 or more internalizing brokers. This trend is not limited
to US equities, as it has migrated across geographies and, increasingly, across different asset
classes.
But what about the lowly OMS? Is it still the center of the buy-side traders’ world? Have they adapted?
And where is the OMS market headed?
This note will look at changes in the industry, how OMSs are keeping up, and where the OMS industry
is headed.
3
A Community Under Pressure

The money management business has become much more competitive. New money management
strategies, technologies, products, and regulatory changes are shifting not only how firms manage
money, but also how investors want their money managed.
The almost 10-year bull market has propelled the S&P 500 from approximately 675 to a high (in
January 2018) of 2,875– a 325% return. During the same period, more than US$3 trillion of assets
flowed from actively traded funds to passive funds as the growth of low-fee ETFs/ETPs escalated to
more than $3.42 trillion in assets under management at the end of 2017, according to ETFGI, an
independent ETF research and consulting firm. In addition, the MiFID II changes in Europe threaten
traditional ways of sourcing and paying for investment research, and regulatory changes on both
sides of the pond are driving up reporting and compliance costs.
This has put tremendous pressure on asset managers across all aspects of the investment value
chain, from traditional long-only managers to hedge funds, of which even the largest and most
successful are reducing their management fees; it’s only the rare outlier that can still garner the
traditional 2% AuM fee.
The push of investors from active managers to passive strategies, the introduction of low-fee asset-
allocating robo advisors, and new regulatory burdens are striating the investment management world
into providers of alpha (uncorrelated returns) and beta (returns attributable to more generic index-
based returns) – or investment strategies that can be easily copied and transitioned into an index-
driven ETF or passive strategy (beta) and those that can’t (alpha). The funds that can outperform
and find alpha-generating strategies are being rewarded with greater asset retention levels and
higher fees, while those that can’t either are quickly redefining their investment strategies, process,
technology and/or business models, or losing assets.
How Business Pressures Are

Changing Buy-Side IT
More than at any time in my 22 years of analyzing the securities and investments industry, the active
management buy-side community is under pressure. Threatened by the challenges of performance,
cost, technology, and regulation, buy-side firms only have a limited number of options: improve
performance, reduce cost, develop new products, or consolidate. While consolidation isn’t fun, and
developing a passive strategy business is tremendously competitive, most firms need to focus on
driving alpha, beating their benchmarks, and reducing cost.
4
Infrastructure Consolidation
While I would love to discuss alpha, the key to most funds’ success will revolve around efficiency –
executional, operational, and organizational, with the key to survival revolving around the order
management system (OMS).
The order management system is the platform that links portfolio managers with their traders. It is
the system that implements trading decisions, manages the pricing and allocation of orders back to
portfolio managers, and ensures that firms’ investment decisions are aligned with their investors’
constraints.
While many firms have a heterogenous best-of-breed infrastructure, we are seeing firms increasingly
work to consolidate their technology stacks, reduce the number of platforms, and even combine their
investment and trading technologies onto a single platform. While this is much easier said than done,
the firms that can make this transition not only can minimize the cost of technology licenses, they
also can reduce the number of platforms that need to be run, supported and maintained and more
easily and seamlessly aggregate their data across products and geographies.
However, the complications of mixing asset classes, products and geographies on one core
infrastructure aren’t easy challenges, as trading and processing bonds, equities, FX, and swaps
products are quite different – not to mention the challenges associated with multi-currency processing
and the integration of different jurisdictional product and process nuances.
While best-of-breed infrastructures will not disappear, we do believe that it will be increasingly difficult
for all but the largest firms to remain a best-of-breed shop. This is not only because of the cost of
licenses, integration, and support, but also because, as the industry becomes more cost-pressured,
traditionally separate groups will become more consolidated and booking these products on different
systems and subsequently aggregating the output of these systems into a seamless process or
reporting structure is incredibly inefficient.
TABB Group believes that as we move into the future, equity managers increasingly will work with
their fixed income brethren, derivatives will become a more important aspect of the money
management business, and managing money will become a more global enterprise.
As hedge funds have demonstrated, gaining exposures to various opportunities does not just lie
within one asset class. Opportunities will increasingly be found in the interplay between related
assets, such as equities, corporate bonds, sovereign debt, and/or derivatives. To harvest these
opportunities, firms will need a fully integrated environment to drive interpersonal communications as
well as the tools to efficiently harvest alpha, in all its forms.
5
OMS Innovation
To be competitive, order and execution management platforms are raising the bar. In addition to
adding robust execution management technologies and increasing asset class and geographical
coverage, we see OMS platforms improving their institutional integration, adding analytics, more fully
implementing brokers’ algorithmic suites, and adding new technologies to help traders understand
which algorithms to use for what products during which market scenarios.
Portfolio Management & Construction System Integration

Since the invention of the EMS, OMS platforms have been trying to integrate EMS functionality into
the order management system. While this is possible, it isn’t easy. The order management system
connects the portfolio manager to the trader; it features, or is integrated with, a sophisticated
compliance platform; and it typically is part of the books-and-records infrastructure of the firm. This
means that the order management platform needs to have a much more robust database, transaction
history, compliance rule set, and facilities to allocate and confirm trades with brokers.
The execution platform, however, needs to integrate market-based functionalities such as algorithms
and direct market access capabilities, and it needs to be able to manage the 100/200-share fills of a
100,000-share order that is thrown off by a trading algorithm, without bogging down with compliance
checks on each of the 500 to 1,000 fills. EMSs also do not need to have histories or data permanence,
as once the trading day is over, most of the history is transferred to the OMS and the database is
flushed.
While integrated EMS/OMS platforms are becoming more popular, an increasingly popular feature
for the OMS is tighter integration with the portfolio management platform. This facilitates greater
portfolio manager and trader integration and allows more seamless communication between the
investment decision maker (the PM) and its implementer (the trader). This close relationship is
important, as the decision-making behind the order will absolutely color how the trader executes the
order; an order with a high information content will need a very different execution strategy than an
order issued on behalf of an investment of additional capital into an existing strategy. The ability to
obtain liquidity for a specific investment will also have a significant impact on a trader’s strategy and
performance, especially in less liquid investments. A close relationship and interaction between the
PM and the trader can help the PM better understand the dynamics and cost of getting into or out of
a product.
New Liquidity Sources

One of the most interesting areas for innovation is the restructuring of the trading function for many
asset managers. Historically, portfolio managers and analysts worked to select their preferred
investment strategies and the portfolio managers implemented those decisions. This began to
change for the equity side of the business a few decades ago, as the investment-decision process
6
stayed with the portfolio manager but trading was delegated to separate trading groups that could
better focus on execution. While this changed for equities, however, it didn’t for many other asset
classes, until now.
Fixed Income
One of the most interesting developments in order management is the increasing demand for fixed
income trading technology integration. Traditionally, fixed income products have been traded by
phone or through request for quote (RFQ) platforms such as Tradeweb, MarketAxess and
Bloomberg. RFQ platforms send a request for quote message to liquidity providers (typically dealers)
to obtain the price at which each dealer will execute. Once the quotes are received, investors select
a dealer and the trade is executed.
During the past decade (post the global financial crisis), the market has changed. To bolster the
economy, the Federal Reserve Bank and central banks around the world lowered interest rates,
creating an incentive for corporations to issue debt at the same time regulators have been reining in
bank balance sheets. This has changed the balance of power on Wall Street, shrinking the banks
and brokers, and leaving the buy side holding a larger percentage of assets. In a declining interest
rate environment, this isn’t much of a worry; however, as the economy improves, central banks begin
to reduce their balance sheets and interest rates begin to rise, the buy-side worry has become
palpable.
To allay these fears, an increasing array of new fixed income trading platforms and protocols has
been introduced, expanding the traditional one-way RFQ protocol from dealers to clients to a
bidirectional channel where both buy- and sell-side firms can interact with RFQs. In addition, new
and different matching mechanisms, from more traditional limit order books to auction formats and
various dark pool platforms, are being developed and launched.
For these platforms to be successful, they need to be connected to investors’ order and execution
management platforms. This connectivity facilitates the buy-side trader ability to more easily interact
with the trading platform.
Equities
While the electronification of the equities markets happened well over a decade ago, regulation still
is driving innovation in the equities market as well.
There are three major drivers changing the nature of the equities market: MiFID II in Europe, greater
transparency and better equities analytics, and the capital/balance sheet restrictions placed on the
industry by Basel III and the Volcker Rule. Regulations have forced banks to more closely manage
their balance sheets, while better execution metrics improve the performance of trading algorithms.
If these two drivers acted solely on their own, it would push more flow into dark ATSs. This has
occurred in the US, as the share of off-exchange trading has increased to record levels (almost 39.9%
7
of total equity trading volume) and the volume traded on ATSs has increased to 14.9% of total shares
traded (see Exhibit 1). Basel III and the Volcker Rule force banks both to reduce their balance sheets
and manage their capital much more judiciously. This makes it more expensive for the buy-side to
trade using the broker’s capital and pushes the buy side toward agency execution and, into dark
ATSs.
Exhibit 1: Exchange vs. Off-Exchange Volume (by Exchange Group/Independents)

March 2018
60.0%
49.7%
50.0%
39.6%
35.3%
39.6%
40.0%
35.3%
33.5%
30.0%
22.3%
23.0%
20.0% 20.1%
19.5%
10.0%
2.8%
0.0%
Off-Exchange Nasdaq Group NYSE Group Cboe/BATS Group Independent
Source: TABB Group
However, as the European MiFID II rules kick into gear in Europe, the use of dark pools has been
curtailed by the 4% and 8% double volume caps. While the designers of MiFID II anticipated that the
flow driven out of the dark by these double volume caps would be routed to lit exchanges, it hasn’t.
Flow, by and large, has shifted away from dark pools toward systematic internalizers, which are, for
all intents and purposes, market makers/dealers. Systematic internalizers use capital to trade directly
against investors’ order flow. The SI provides a client or agency broker with a quote, and the client
can route to the SI if it is in its best interest. Just one month after the implementation of the double
volume caps and four months since the initial MiFID II implementation, systematic internalizers have
garnered almost 15% market share in European equities (see Exhibit 2, next page).
8
Exhibit 2: European Equity Volume (notional) by Execution Venue Type
Source: TABB Group
Trading platform providers have also innovated. Cboe had developed a periodic auction while the
LSE’s Turquoise, Liquidnet and ITG POSIT have developed technologies to fit into the MiFID II Large-
in-Scale waver. After only four months, the periodic auctions have garnered 2.25% market share
(see Exhibit 3, next page).
9
Exhibit 3: Periodic Auction Volumes by Venue April 2018
Source: TABB Group, big xyt
These new liquidity sourcing mechanisms need to be integrated into new trading strategies, access
paths, analytics and metrics, which will need to be integrated into the OMS. In addition, there are a
few new matching platforms/ATSs that are launching using different and novel matching
methodology, such as OneChronos and Imperative Execution, which are attempting to use artificial
intelligence/machine learning in their matching methodology and, depending upon their structure,
may need OMS support.
The bottom line is that the relatively staid mechanism used to trade, manage risk, and match buyers
and sellers across both fixed income and equities is changing, and the platforms that can most easily
interact with these new venues will have a significant advantage, both for themselves and for their
clients.
Research and Unbundling

The unbundling of research from execution will play a major role in the deployment of technology on
the buy-side trading desk. Traditionally, execution commissions were used to compensate brokers
for their research, analyst support, conferences, and corporate access arrangements. Known as “soft
dollars,” many funds used the OMS to track these commissions and research payments. In 2001,
10
Paul Myners called upon the industry to start unbundling research payments from execution
commissions, arguing that there was an inherent conflict of interest in this payment mechanism that
incentivized giving orders to less qualified execution agents for the provision of research. This push
to unbundle was reinforced under MiFID II, which defines strict rules for the procurement of research,
allowing two payment mechanisms: paying for research out of the profits of the investment manager
or setting up research payment accounts (RPAs) for each investor, where they are required to track
and allocate commissions and research payment by account and investment strategy.
While MiFID II pushed a number of funds to pay for research out of earnings, changes to the OMS
were required to ensure that the order execution environment, compliance, and research
relationships were aligned and in compliance not only with MiFID II rules, but also with the client,
portfolio manager and the research provider.
Analytics
The integration of pre-trade TCA into order management platforms is nothing new. However, most
pre-trade TCA metrics are geared toward helping the portfolio manager and the trader think about
the theoretical cost of implementing orders in total, or at the parent level. While this helps the portfolio
manager better understand what he will be paying to get into or out of an investment, and it gives the
trader a benchmark to aim at, OMS platforms increasingly are working to help the trader actually hit
these numbers.
The next level of pre-trade equity trading analytics is helping traders select algorithms and stage,
monitor, and benchmark an in-flight algorithm’s performance against a theoretical execution curve.
This is much more difficult. It is one thing to integrate into a historical measurement and/or theoretical
benchmark based on history through a batch-like offline process that feeds an order blotter; it is quite
another to manage trades and/or performance in real time. The challenge with attempting to help
course-correct a trading model in flight is that the amount of data and analytics needed to perform
these calculations is not insignificant and the level of precision to measure an algorithm’s
performance across even 13 lit exchanges, not to mention 30-plus ATSs, is taxing.
Market Sizing, Share, and Growth

The current market for order management platforms is large and growing. TABB Group estimates
that the global market for buy-side execution infrastructure is approximately $5.5 billion, including
proprietary software development. This is primarily comprised of EMS, OMS, and transaction cost
analysis spending. We believe that this market segment will grow at a rate of approximately 4.95%
CAGR over the next 3 years. This is in relation to a 3.6% CAGR during the same period for total buy-
side spend (see Exhibit 4, next page).
11
Exhibit 4: Buy-Side Trading Technology Spending
Source: TABB Group
Spending for EMS/OMS technology will start shifting across asset classes, from predominantly
focusing on US equities toward other geographies and other asset classes. The biggest cross-asset
class shift we see is the push toward connecting foreign exchange and fixed income trading desks.
The EMS and the OMS have traditionally catered to the equities market, as equity trading has
become a centralized function and has moved from portfolio managers trading their own positions to
professional buy-side equity traders aggregating the flow from multiple portfolio managers and
executing them electronically over a fragmented and very complex execution network. This is also
starting to occur within the foreign exchange and fixed income markets. Foreign exchange was
historically traded by the custodian, not by the money manager, as more of an operational function.
After a few high-profile lawsuits and scandals, however, this began to change. Increasingly, FX is
being traded by the asset manager, and more precisely by FX trading professionals. Like FX, fixed
income desks are beginning to learn the power of centralized trading. Whether this is being driven
by efficiency, performance, operational risk, or the increasing electronification of the fixed income
markets, we see fixed income products (credit and rates) as the next product to spur EMS/OMS
growth.
With this conversion, we see the FX and fixed income EMS/OMS markets growing at a 3-year CAGR
of 4.9% and 8.2%, respectively, while the global equities EMS/OMS market will grow at only a 2.8%
pace and US EMS/OMS spend will decline by 0.3% a year over the next three years (see Exhibit 5,
next page).
12
Exhibit 5: EMS/OMS by Asset Class
Source: TABB Group
Geographic Focus
While the focus of OMS/EMS clients is in the US, we believe that Europe and Asia will grow at a
faster clip, with European and Asian markets growing at approximately a 6.3% CAGR, compared to
only 2.3% in the US. European trading technology growth is outpacing the US based on changes
needed to comply with MiFID II, while the growth of an investor class, the inclusion of China A shares
in the MSCI index, and the increasing sophistication of the Asian investment class is jump-starting
buy-side IT spend in Asia (see Exhibit 6).
Exhibit 6: EMS / OMS by Geo
Source: TABB Group
13
While the EMS/OMS world is significant, it cannot be looked at without including connectivity
spending. Many EMSs and OMSs require connectivity to execution venues and their brokers’ trading
platforms. While these costs are typically paid for by the brokers, they are heavily influenced by the
buy side. Many order management platforms actually own their own networks or work closely with
network providers – such as ITG and Charles River.
The cost of connectivity to these platforms is not insignificant and adds an additional $1.6 billion to
the $5.5 billion buy-side EMS/OMS trading technology budget. If included in the buy-side trading tech
category, the cost of connectivity (though paid for by the sell side) increases the spending into this
category to $7.1 billion globally (see Exhibit 7).
Exhibit 7: EMS/OMS Spending and Growth
Source: TABB Group
Spending on trading infrastructure is fairly well diversified across North America, Europe and Asia;
however, spending on network infrastructure is much more heavily aligned toward North America,
where the US connectivity spend is double the spend in Europe or Asia.
The US connectivity spend is higher most notably because the US business is more reliant on
electronic connectivity. Virtually all buy-side firms are connected to most, if not all, of their brokers,
and many firms have redundant networks to aid in their business continuity initiatives.
European connectivity spend is lower than in the US, as the price of connectivity is more competitive
in Europe. In addition, there are fewer managers, managing fewer assets. However, many of the
connection points are pan-European and cross telcom boundaries and national lines, making the
process of connecting more challenging.
14
Asia spends less in network fees than the US, but for a different reason than Europe. The Asian
telcom market is more expensive than the US because the distances are generally greater and the
markets are more fragmented. While there are a number of pan-Asian brokers, the bulk of markets
are more local. The preponderance of local brokers, vast geographical distances, and expensive
telcom fees pushes the execution to be more local and less electronic. Buy-side firms connect to
larger global brokers, located in major financial centers, but much of the local investment is managed
by smaller firms via traditional interpersonal channels. The larger global banks have an outsized
electronic presence and the local players continue to trade in more traditional ways.
Market Share
TABB Group, on an annual basis, interviews approximately 100 head and senior buy-side traders
from institutional asset managers; many of these firms are the largest and most sophisticated asset
managers on the globe. As part of this year’s study (executed from December 2017 through March
2018), we inquired about the funds’ OMS and EMS platforms. Currently, and for the past few years,
Charles River Development has led the field as the most utilized OMS – by 30% of the 95 firms
interviewed. This was followed by Eze Software, with an 18% share, and Advent Moxy, with 14%.
Charles River Development’s top spot was predominantly driven by its lead in servicing traditional
asset managers. If we compare platforms by firm type, 67% of the hedge funds we interviewed used
Eze Software and 13% developed their own proprietary solution. Only 7% of hedge funds we
interviewed selected Charles River, which tied with ITG Macgregor XIP. On the long-only side, ITG
MacGregor XIP garnered 35% share and Advent Moxy captured 17%, followed by Bloomberg, which
was utilized by 13% of the traditional asset managers we interviewed (see Exhibits 8 and 9)
Exhibit 8: OMS Usage 2016 vs. 2017
Source: TABB Group
15
Exhibit 9: OMS Usage 2017 by Firm Type
Source: TABB Group
While the EMS and OMS spaces overlap, they have a very different set of vendors. In our discussions
with the 95 head and senior US equities traders, Bloomberg’s EMSX was the most extensively used
platform. It was deployed by 27% of the firms we interviewed. ITG Triton was No. 2 after Bloomberg,
followed by firms not using an EMS, and Instinet Newport and Charles River were next. When split
by fund-type, Bloomberg EMSX and ITG Triton tend to be more evenly used by both asset managers
and hedge funds, while Instinet Newport and Charles River tended to be favored by asset managers,
and Factset/Portware and Eze Software’s EMS tended to be favored by hedge funds (see Exhibits
10 and 11).
Exhibit 10: EMS Usage 2017 by Asset Managers
Source: TABB Group
16
Exhibit 11: EMS Usage 2017 by Firm Type
Source: TABB Group
Source: TABB Group
Conclusion
The order management platform of the future will be a fully integrated, cross-asset, multi-
geographical and cross-functional platform. It will be modular, built on a multi-platform infrastructure
that will take the best of the EMS, OMS and portfolio management platform environments. This new
platform will enable the trader, no matter what asset class or geography, to seamlessly trade across
multiple markets, and brokers. Depending on the regulation and demand, it may also trade crypto. It
will facilitate all (or most) trading protocols, from DMA, streaming quote, algorithm, crossing and
auctions, to request for quote. It either will calculate or integrate real-time analytics on the fly and
enable traders to select the appropriate tools/algorithms for the right liquidity profiles and guide the
user toward the best providers of those services.
The platform of the future will also more seamlessly tie together the buy-side trader with the portfolio
manager. As markets become more competitive, the ability to harvest every bit of alpha out of an
idea becomes even more critical, as it will help portfolio managers model liquidity to ensure they are
choosing the right products, and help traders know more about what the PM is trying to accomplish.
Compliance, both regulatory and with investor mandates, will be another critical aspect of the
platform, as ensuring the appropriate assets are selected for the right accounts at the appropriate
levels will be critical for servicing an increasingly more discerning client that, given the increasing
penetration of ETFs, will have to be given higher levels of service for the same or even lower fees.
In a few words, the buy-side infrastructure will need to be more connected, more seamless, and more
straight-through; and it is the OMS that increasingly will be looked to as the pivot point enabling asset
managers to capture alpha and execute on their investing visions.
17
About
TABB Group
TABB Group is a financial markets research and strategic advisory firm focused exclusively on capital
markets. Founded in 2003 and based on the methodology of first-person knowledge, TABB Group
analyzes and quantifies the investing value chain, from the fiduciary and investment manager to the
broker, exchange, and custodian. Our goal is to help senior business leaders gain a clearer
understanding of issues and trends within financial markets, so they can better grow their businesses.
TABB Group members are regularly cited in the press and speak at industry conferences. For more
information about TABB Group, visit http://www.tabbgroup.com/.
TABB Group Equities Practice

TABB Group’s Equities Research Practice covers market structure, trading, regulatory and
technology issues impacting global equity markets. TABB research is a critical decision-support tool
that provides financial institutions and the support ecosystem with proprietary data and analysis on
trends within our community of equity capital markets professionals. Our clients include asset
managers; hedge funds; brokers and banks; hardware, software and services vendors; and
regulators globally.
The Author
Larry Tabb, Founder & Research Chairman
ltabb@tabbgroup.com
Larry Tabb is the founder and Research Chairman of TABB Group. He has published industry
research analyzing both US and European market structure; central clearing, credit default swaps,
fixed income, equity and foreign exchange trading; financial markets trading and processing systems;
analytical trading tools; financial markets infrastructure, including grid and cloud computing; and
foreign and emerging market technologies. Larry has written extensively on the changing market
structure, exchanges and regulatory issues, as well as new technology trends in high frequency
trading, market data, risk management, order management, best execution, algorithmic trading, dark
pools, multi- and cross-asset trading, liquidity management, FIX connectivity, custody, and advances
in emerging technologies.
Larry is quoted extensively and in virtually all industry and general news publications. He has been
cited in The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, the Associated Press, The New York Times,
CNN, Bloomberg, CNBC, Reuters, Dow Jones, Barron’s, Forbes, Bloomberg Businessweek,
Financial News, WatersTechnology, Computerworld, eWEEK, American Banker, The Banker, Hedge
Fund Review and Wall Street Letter. He continues to be a featured speaker at major industry and
business conferences throughout the United States, Europe, Asia, and Canada.
18
www.tabbgroup.com | New York +1.646.722.7800 | London +44 (0) 208.133.5022

19

V16-022 State of The OMS Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

V16-022 State of The OMS Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

State of the OMS: A Time for Change?

State of the OMS:

V16-022 | May 2018 | www.tabbgroup.com

A Community Under Pressure

How Business Pressures Are

Portfolio Management & Construction System Integration

New Liquidity Sources

Exhibit 1: Exchange vs. Off-Exchange Volume (by Exchange Group/Independents)

Off-Exchange Nasdaq Group NYSE Group Cboe/BATS Group Independent

Source: TABB Group

Exhibit 2: European Equity Volume (notional) by Execution Venue Type

Source: TABB Group

Exhibit 3: Periodic Auction Volumes by Venue April 2018

Source: TABB Group, big xyt

Research and Unbundling

Market Sizing, Share, and Growth

Exhibit 4: Buy-Side Trading Technology Spending

Source: TABB Group

Exhibit 5: EMS/OMS by Asset Class

Source: TABB Group

Exhibit 6: EMS / OMS by Geo

Source: TABB Group

Exhibit 7: EMS/OMS Spending and Growth

Source: TABB Group

Exhibit 8: OMS Usage 2016 vs. 2017

Source: TABB Group

Exhibit 9: OMS Usage 2017 by Firm Type

Source: TABB Group

Exhibit 10: EMS Usage 2017 by Asset Managers

Source: TABB Group

Exhibit 11: EMS Usage 2017 by Firm Type

Source: TABB Group

Source: TABB Group

TABB Group Equities Practice

www.tabbgroup.com | New York +1.646.722.7800 | London +44 (0) 208.133.5022

You might also like