[ S U R V E Y
tales of performance for two EMS
providers that were acquired by
in big money deals, Charles River
and ITG, now part of State Street
and Virtu Financial respectively.
Charles River recorded the low-
est score of all profiled providers
(5.08) for the second year in a row,
also recording the lowest scores in
seven of the 13 areas of perfor-
mance, while Virtu Triton, as the
system is now called, received the
second-highest, with 6.28. Virtu’s
acquisition of ITG was only closed
in May this year and any chang-
es made to the system will take
more time to bed in, so this year’s
results should not be taken as an
example of how Triton is being
run under its new management,
although its counterpart, Charles
River has had over a year in the
State Street stable and has only
seen improvement in a few areas,
continuing to languish behind
many of its peers, according to this
year’s respondents.
The overall picture from this
year’s survey results show one
of positive improvements as the
industry looks to move further
away from the compliance-led
days of 2017 and towards greater
execution quality. While many
areas of functionality covered by
the survey have scored highly, it
would be unreasonable to expect
this trend to continue unbridled
|
E X E C U T I O N
M A N A G E M E N T
S Y S T E M S ]
Methodology
Survey respondents were asked to provide a rating for each Exe-
cution Management System (EMS) provider on a numerical scale
from 1.0 (Very Weak) to 7.0 (Excellent), covering 13 functional
criteria.
In general, 5.0 represents the ‘default’ score of respondents. In
total, around 230 individuals responded; more than 360 evalua-
tions were submitted; and more than 20 providers were evaluated.
The evaluations were used to compile the eight Provider Profiles
covering the major EMS providers based on responses received.
Each evaluation was weighted according to three characteristics
of the respondent; the value of assets under management, the
scale of business being conducted electronically; and the number
of different providers being used. In this way the evaluations of
the largest and broadest EMS users were weighted at up to twice
the weight of the smallest and least experienced respondent.
In arriving at any overall calculations, the scores received in
respect of each of the 13 functional categories were further
weighted according to the importance attached to them by
survey respondents. The aim is to ensure that in assessing service
provision the greatest impact results from the scores received
from the most sophisticated users in the areas they regard as the
most important.
Finally, it should be noted that responses provided by affiliated
entities have been discarded and that other responses, where re-
spondents were unable to be properly verified, were also excluded.
in future; EMS providers are no
doubt listening to what their
clients are asking for in terms of
functionality and performance,
but a single unexpected event or a
series of strong industry head-
winds may change that tune in
future. But for now, it’s a case of
making hay while the sun shines
for the EMS space, and moving
onwards and upwards for
execution quality.
Figure 5: Average Number of Providers by Size 2019
1.50 1.38 1.41 1.68 1.81
< $0.5 Bn
$0.5 to $1.0 Bn
$1.0 to $10 Bn
$10 to $50 Bn
> $50 Bn
Issue 61 // TheTradeNews.com // 85