The past year has seen me become increasingly irritated by platforms answering my call to help police bad behaviour in the Global Code era by saying either it’s not their responsibility or it’s an impossible request - so here's one area they can do something about. There are reasonable reasons for asymmetric price improvement data and - at a stretch - for asymmetric last look policies. But asymmetric response times? That's a whole different matter and something needs to be done now.
I fundamentally believe that last look remains the biggest threat to the industry’s development and recovery from past ills, and to help build understanding further you have five weeks or so to submit your feedback as requested by the Global FX Committee on the language in Principle 17. I suspect I may have some bad news for the GFXC, though, because while there is consensus around the specific language, there also seems to be a consensus that it does not cover the subject in enough depth.
We’re back on asymmetric response times because I have new data from another platform that highlights the absolute – and to me mystifying – divide in the industry over how much longer it takes to accept or reject a trade. I am really confused over how 16 LPs can take much longer to reject a trade than accept, while another 16 take longer to accept than reject. Someone out there must have a reasonable explanation but I’m blowed if I can come up with one.
As often seems the case when the emotive subject comes up, Thursday’s column on one aspect of last look prompted my messaging channels to go into meltdown. Amongst the feedback were a few suggested answers to my question that asked why there would be asymmetric response times from a small number of LPs and I thought, today being a UK holiday and likely to be quiet, I would share these and let the readership decide for itself what it thinks.