Viisas Raha Magazine 08/13. Text by Maarit Bystedt.
Näkyvä ja näkymätön osakekauppa
Pörssikaupan kuuma puheenaihe on tällä hetkellä dark pool –kauppa. NASDAQ OMX Helsingin varatoimitusjohtaja Henrik Husman kertoo Viisaan Rahan haastattelussa, mistä oikein on kysymys.
Mitä on dark pool –kauppa?
Dark pooleissa käydään kauppaa valvottujen markkinapaikkojen hinnoilla yleensä kaupankäyntihetken osto- ja myyntihintojen eron eli spredin keskikurssiin. Osto- ja myyntitarjoukset sekä kaupan osapuolet pysyvät piilossa siihen asti, kunnes kauppa on tehty. Kaupan osapuolille etuna dark pooleissa on se, että hinta ei näy kauppapaikkojen tarjouskirjassa kaupankäyntihetkellä eli myynti- tai ostomääräys ei pääse vaikuttamaan osakkeen markkinahintaan. Suuret sijoittajat pilkkovat kauppansa usein pieniksi paloiksi eri markkinapaikoille, jotta saisivat pidettyä hinnan mahdollisimman hyvänä. Siksi suuret kauppaerät toteutetaan usein dark pooleissa. Toinen syy, miksi kaupat hakeutuvat välillä dark pooleihin, on keskikurssin mahdollistama hintaetu.
Säännellyillä markkinapaikoilla eli pörsseillä ja monenkeskisillä markkinapaikoilla on omia dark pooleja, joiden kaupat raportoidaan normaalisti ja näkyvästi kaupanteon jälkeen. Näin ollen osa dark pooleissa tehtävästä kaupasta on siten mukana säänneltyjen kauppapaikkojen tilastoissa. Mutta osa dark pool –kaupankäynnistä tapahtuu investointipankkien omissa ns. broker crossing systems –kauppapaikoilla. Nämä kaupat ovat OTC-kaupankäyntiä, joka ei ole tilastoissa mukana. Tulevan MiFID II-direktiivin tarkoituksena on jatkossa saada nämä kaupat julkisesti raportoitavien kauppojen piiriin.
Mikä Helsingin pörssin markkinaosuus on tällä hetkellä omien listayhtiöiden kaupankäynnistä?
MiFID-direktiivin tultua voimaan 2007 perinteisten pörssien markkinaosuudet ovat laskeneet ja Helsingissä se on nyt omien listayhtiöiden kaupasta 65 prosenttia säänneltyjen markkinoiden kaupankäynnistä.
Vielä neljä vuotta sitten lähes olematon dark pool –kaupankäynti vastaa nyt noin 4 % suomalaisosakkeiden kaupankäynnistä.
Tämän kaupankäynnin lisäksi on kuitenkin huomattava, että tällä hetkellä noin neljännes Helsingin pörssin osakekaupasta käydään OTC-kauppana, joka ei ole säänneltyjen markkinapaikkojen kaupankäynnin piirissä ja ei siis näy luotettavasti tilastoissa.
Nyt enemmän kuin 25 % kaikista EU-alueen osakekaupoista toteutuu säänneltyjen markkinapaikkojen ulkopuolella OTC-kauppoina, jotka heikentävät hinnanmuodostusta ja likviditeettiä. Paraikaa käynissä olevassa MiFID II –työssä yritetään korjata näitä valuvikoja.
Mitkä ovat NASDAQ OMX Helsingin suurimmat kilpailijat?
Suurin kilpaileva markkinapaikka on BATS Chi-X Europe, jolla on hieman yli 20 prosenttia suomalaisten listayhtiöiden osakkeiden säännellystä kaupankäynnistä. Kolmantena on Lontoon pörssin puoliksi omistama Turquoise, jonka osuus suomalaisyhtiöiden kaupankäynnistä on ollut viime aikoina noin 5 prosenttia. Sen jälkeen tulee muita monenkeskisiä markkinapaikkoja kuten Burgundy, Equiduct ja NYSE Arca Europe.
Suomalaisosakkeilla käydään dark pool –kauppaa tällä hetkellä kymmenellä markkinapaikalla. Näistä suurimmat ovat BATS Chi-X Europe, UBS MTF, Posit, Sigma, Liquidnet ja Turquoise. NASDAQ OMX:n oma dark pool Nordic@Mid tulee näiden perässä.
Miten Helsingin pörssi vastaa osakekaupankäynnin pirstaloitumiseen?
Hinnanmuodostuksen tehokkuuteen vaikuttaa markkinapaikan markkinaosuus.
Noin 65 prosentin markkinaosuudella ja siksi selkeästi suurimpana suomalaisten osakkeiden markkinapaikkana Helsingin pörssin tarjouskirjoissa on edelleen selkeästi tehokkain hinnanmuodostus ja keskimäärin yli kaksi kertaa enemmän likviditeettiä tarjolla kuin toiseksi parhaalla markkinapaikalla.
Kilpailu on aina tervetullutta, se myötävaikuttaa positiivisesti innovointiin, palvelun laatuun ja kustannustehokkuuteen. Sääntelyä purettaessa pitää kuitenkin huolehtia siitä, että kaikilla toimijoilla on samat toimintaedellytykset ja säännöt. Esimerkiksi osakekauppojen ja kurssi-informaation julkisuuden tai markkinavalvonnan tehokkuuden ei pitäisi olla yhdellekään markkinapaikalle kilpailuetu.
The rebuilding of the Icelandic corporate bond market has been equally important as the rebuilding of the equity market in the past years. The bond market has recovered slower than anticipated, mainly due to companies‘ unfinished bank settlements. However our competitive edge as an option for companies who seek capital has steadily been becoming stronger, which has shown itself in increased listings of corporate bonds as well as the large banks listing their own covered bonds. Thus, in the first seven months of this year, companies have raised around 46bn ISK with new bond issuances, compared to 20bn ISK in 2012, and 7bn ISK in 2011. We anticipate that the bond market will steadily keep on blooming in the coming years with increased participation of financial companies on the bond market as well as increased number of listings on the equity market.
- NASDAQ OMX Iceland
In this part of Derivates School, we will look at the various features on a stock exchange. Today’s post will focus on clearing, which is a function of handling trades.
The word “clearing” is very popular at the moment because of the new legislation on derivatives, which are a result of the crisis in 2008.
Clearing is a complex process where the trades are processed. A very simplified explanation of the process is that it starts at the transaction date and ends with the counterparties exchange cash or underlying stock. Trades can be done on the stock exchange or as an OTC or “Over the Counter” trade, which is then reported back to the stock exchange for clearing. Clearing is handled by a licensed and certified clearing house which is its own company and is operated separately from the exchange. You could say that the clearing house is a sort of filter between the different members and offers a more secure flow of trade. The clearing house is also responsible for the administration of a default fund - a pool with all members’ capital contributions which is designed to cover the risk that the clearing of their trades pose to the clearinghouse. If a member is declared “in default” and they cannot settle a trade, the clearing house will set in and run through a series of procedures to ensure that trades are delivered upon. Our clearinghouse will always use the collateral the defaulting member has posted in connection with the trade to make up with the other party. If that’s not enough will default fund is used.
Interview of Hans-Ole Jochumsen, NASDAQ OMX, and Andreas Preuss, Deutsche Börse.
6 Aug 2013, by Karsten Seibel - Representatives of regulated trading venues are sounding the alarm: they see their business and, along with it, that of many small companies threatened by politics.
Stock exchanges regard themselves as the pillars of stability of the capital markets. However, many politicians see them as a hotbed of speculators – and therefore hardly better than banks. Stock exchanges have a hard time fighting this image and making their voice heard, e.g. in the debate on the financial transaction tax. In this interview, the heads of the stock exchange trade organisations make another attempt: Andreas Preuss, Chairman of the World Federation of Exchanges, and Hans-Ole Jochumsen, President of the Federation of European Securities Exchanges.
Die Welt: Mr Preuss, Mr Jochumsen, the stock exchanges like to see themselves as an important part of a stable capital market, but aren’t they really part of the problem?
Hans-Ole Jochumsen: No, regulated stock exchanges are part of the solution. They have a neutral pricing function for securities, are transparent and bring together various trading interests. This is very important for companies and investors. The origin of the financial crisis, on the other hand, was in the non-stock exchange, over-the-counter markets which aren’t organised transparently.
Andreas Preuss: The investment bank Lehman Brothers had primarily invested their capital in over-the-counter markets with insufficient pricing and without hedges for its trading positions. In contrast, exchange-traded derivatives are cleared centrally, i.e. open positions are backed by collateral, either in securities or in cash. This principle of central clearing is so safe and simple that we were able to close Lehman’s open proprietary positions within a few days of its bankruptcy and transfer its commission trading to other market participants. This was an important contribution to the stability of the markets and therefore of the economy.
But the question is whether we need such a large capital market. The outstanding derivative volume exceeds global economic output tenfold.
Preuss: Nominal amounts of open derivative contracts don’t tell us whether markets are too big. Instead, it’s a matter of whether derivatives are well-regulated and safe. Exchange-traded and OTC markets differ considerably in this very area – with 90 per cent of derivatives trading taking place OTC. There are three main reasons for using financial instruments: hedging, arbitrage, i.e. exploiting price differences, and speculation. The use of hedging and arbitrage is recognised. Speculation is not automatically bad in itself. However, speculation with OTC derivatives had indeed become excessive and had reached a dangerous level for the financial system.
Jochumsen: This is exactly the issue on which the G20 leaders have placed their focus. I would assume that the measures decided on for standardising and improving the safety of OTC derivatives will also lead to a decline in this market segment.
As well as the sheer quantity, the speed of trading on the stock exchange has also become unsettling. Securities change hands in milliseconds.
Preuss: This shouldn’t be unsettling. High-frequency trading is not one-sided, on the contrary. There are a lot of orders on both sides of the market, i.e. both buy and sell orders. This makes markets more liquid, and thus high-frequency trading supports efficient pricing.
So how do you explain the fact that almost all major stock market crashes have taken place in the last 25 years, i.e. since computer systems have determined trading to an increasing extent?
Preuss: The “flash crashes” all happened in the United States and not in Europe – a result of different market structures and a lack of safety mechanisms at the time, which we in Europe had already had in place since electronic trading began.
Leaps of five per cent and more in a single security used to be the exception, now they’re the order of the day.
Jochumsen: We have to take into account that today’s technology connects brokers in different countries, and also connects them to a large number of different platforms. When a new figure is published in a country, this piece of information influences prices in other markets more quickly. This increases volatility, independent of high-frequency trading.
Can you understand that what’s happening on the financial markets worries a lot of people, including policymakers?
Jochumsen: I think that politics is also partly responsible for the events of the financial crisis. For instance, Basel II, a piece of regulation which concentrated on stability, was never implemented in the US. In Europe, we are currently in the process of introducing Basel III, and require banks to have a reasonable capital buffer. It was the decisions not to regulate certain activities which were a contributing factor to the financial crisis.
You can hardly criticise policymakers for wanting to intervene more strongly now.
Jochumsen: It’s not about criticising, it’s about fair competitive conditions and minimising systemic risks in regulating capital markets.
What do you mean by that?
Preuss: Let’s take a step back. There are nuanced ways of seeing the financial sector among policymakers, and there is an understanding of the circumstances needed for markets to function effectively. On the other hand though, there are also proposals which might quickly lead to unintended consequences. Let’s take the issue of the financial transaction tax. The planned tax will not foreseeably generate the hoped-for income – especially not when you take into account evasive actions, taken e.g. by investors and issuers, and the cost of collecting the tax. This can’t be in the interests of the economies affected. We would have to expect negative consequences for the real economy and also for some private pension schemes.
Jochumsen: The European Commission was itself still assuming a negative impact on gross domestic product and economic growth in its 2011 impact assessment. Europe also needs to keep its competitiveness in mind. A financial transaction tax would, moreover, have a greater impact on the regulated, stock-exchange part of the capital markets which was stable during the crisis, than on OTC trading.
It would be a start.
Jochumsen: Well-functioning capital markets are a vital prerequisite for financing growth. Smaller companies in particular are under pressure because of political initiatives which have reduced the ability of many banks to provide loans. If nothing changes here, small companies will have problems in the medium term – unless we enable the capital market to provide these companies with the necessary funding. To do this, we primarily need to strengthen, and not weaken, the markets for equities, corporate bonds and venture capital.
So far, stock exchanges have done little to position themselves as the good guys in the public consciousness. Where were the representatives of the large stock exchange organisations at the peak of the financial crisis?
Preuss: The most important reason for our involvement in the European and global stock exchange federations is to propagate an understanding of the benefit of stock exchange marketplaces to the economy.
Isn’t part of the dilemma the fact that you need to distance yourselves from the banks to be seen as neutral players in the capital market? But the banks are your best customers.
Preuss: I don’t see it like that. Banks come into contact with stock exchange organisations in a variety of roles – sometimes as a customer, sometimes as a competitor. That’s quite normal, and we can cope well with it. Now and then some banks have even announced projects to replace regulated stock exchanges, such as the alternative trading platform Turquoise, which to date has only made losses. I think that there will always be a need for well-regulated and transparent markets and therefore for exchange organisations.
The solution could be publicly owned exchanges that have to serve everyone as neutral bodies.
Jochumsen: Our stock exchanges are profit-oriented, but that is not inconsistent with the benefit of our function for society and the economy. No stock exchange activity causes systemic problems.
The Federation of European Securities Exchanges currently has 46 members. What will that number be in five years?
Jochumsen: I think we’ll see fewer clearing houses and fewer central securities depositories. Currently there’s at least one central depository in almost every European country. That makes the infrastructure complex and expensive. The tendency will be for the industrial landscape as a whole to become leaner and more cost-effective.