[ S U R V E Y | 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 ]
the 2019 result . In all other AuM categories , the average number of providers was down , with the largest decreases occurring in the larger AuM range of more than $ 10 billion . It would seem that even the larger buy-side firms with often more complex strategies and more resources behind them , are also becoming more comfortable with a smaller number of EMS providers . This presents certain opportunities for vendors who are able to meet the demands of larger buy-side firms .
When it comes to evaluating EMS providers , ten firms received sufficient responses from buy-side users to garner a profile in this year ’ s survey results . As with previous years , Charles River recorded the lowest score of all profiled providers with 5.05 – down from 5.08 in 2019 – while also recording the lowest scores in nine of the 13 areas under evaluation . Meanwhile Virtu Triton received the highest average score with 6.20 . Interestingly , both companies have been recently involved in M & A activity , demonstrating the appetite for consolidation in the historically fragmented trading industry . Charles River was bought by State Street in October 2018 and Virtu bought rival agency brokerage ITG in March 2019 . Yet disparity between their performances would indicate that Virtu
Methodology Survey respondents were asked to provide a rating for each Execution 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 ( Good ) represents the ‘ default ’ score of respondents . In total , over 350 individuals responded ; 495 evaluations were submitted ; and more than 20 providers were evaluated . The evaluations were used to compile the overall market review information as well as ten 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 respondents were unable to be properly verified , were also excluded . We hope that readers find this approach both informative and useful as they assess different capabilities in the future . As with this year ’ s Algorithmic Trading survey , analysis for the EMS survey was carried out by Aite Group .
has certainly been more successful at leveraging their recent expansion .
In response to whether or not firms had plans to implement additional EMS providers to their existing set-
Figure 4 : Average number of providers by AuM , 2020
1.33 1.33 1.45 1.41 1.64
< $ 0.5 Bn
$ 0.5 to $ 1.0 Bn $ 1.0 to $ 10 Bn $ 10 to $ 50 Bn > $ 50 Bn
Issue 65 // thetradenews . com // 71