The TRADE 63 - Q1 2020 | Page 38

[ THOUGHT LEADERSHIP | THE SWISS STOCK EXCHANGE] market data processing systems and workflows, launching the MDDX feed. The Swiss Stock Exchange improved its market data offering with more granular timestamping up to the microsecond; enhanced the accuracy of its machine time management by synchronising its computer systems against an atomic clock; adopted the unified UTC time-zone when allocating execution/publication timestamps and improved overall content through the implementation of MMT (Market Model Typology) trade flags. Improving data standards Comprehensive data standards are absolutely pivotal insofar as they help facilitate interoperability between multiple counterparties in complex chains of computer systems across several legal entities. In turn, this minimises industry costs by reducing the overall development and integration effort. This also mitigates the risk of erroneous information interpretation, which could otherwise lead to potentially incorrect transaction processing and/or compliance breaches . ESMA ordered the mandatory use of a broad set of existing ISO standards across MiFID II implementation regulation. As part of broader post-trade transparency requirements, the EU Regulator has been very demanding on the unambiguous identification of trades that would do not originate from transparent lit trading venues. Such identification methods are known as trade flagging, and there was until recently no standard around this activity. Trade flags are crucial for post- trade transparency purposes. They are embedded in execution messages and provide vital 38 // TheTRADE // Spring 2020 information about the nature of price formation; the availability of pre-trade transparency; the immediacy of publication; the validity of the trade details and the uniqueness of the specific pricing information. Prior to MiFID II, individual venues generated their own proprietary trade flags without any coordination. It was therefore difficult for end-users to assess the meaning, reliability and true origin of the flags. MiFID RTS1 and RTS 2 prescribe a detailed list of trade flagging obligations, all listed in a sequential manner. FIX transformed them into a well-structured, logically hierarchised and fully documented data standard named Market Model Typology -MMT. MMT v3.04 is an effective operational solution for complying with MiFID trade flagging obligations. It is optimised for efficient implementation in data feeds, display services and databases. Today, approximately 80% of all equity trade messages in Europe carry MMT codes, although this is expected to rise to 95% by the end of 2020. The industry is looking at widening the use of the existing MMT trade flagging standards into non-equity markets such as fixed income. Challenges to be resolved The role of trading venues in generating reliable market data cannot be understated. Trading venues have an end-to-end insight over the order-transaction lifecycle. This gives them an informed view on how to deliver a fully compliant, immediate and meaningful data output, including the correct allocation of the appropriate trade flags on public trade messages. Moreover, the industry’s long-held tradition of embracing common data standardisation initiatives has also played a crucial role in ensuring reported data is of excellent quality. However, the situation is less straightforward for SI/OTC trade reporting activities. This is because the regulatory guidance on the issue has been quite limited. It is unlikely that identical OTC/ SI trade scenarios would result in similar trade flags on outgoing market data messages. Unlike trading venues, downstream APAs (approved publication arrangement) and data vendors do not have a full oversight over the order-transaction lifecycle, meaning it is harder for them to validate the quality of the data. A potential future Consolidated Tape would face the exact same challenge. To solve this data quality issue, the industry needs to; document the valid trade reporting scenarios; agree on appropriate trade flagging conventions; make sure there is broad acceptance and understanding of the proposed solution; and cooperate with regulators in order to achieve data excellence. The industry has already started some initiatives in this space. FIX recently created dedicated working groups to identify and document the most frequent OTC/SI trade reporting scenarios. In addition, FIX working groups will submit a view on the appropriate post- trade transparency processing, including a suitable trade flagging recommendation. In short, data integrity remains a challenge under MiFID II/ MIFIR. While we have improved the granularity and accuracy of data originating from venues, more coordinated industry effort is needed to bring OTC/SI data quality up to the same standards.