Bond World Grows Less Opaque – Bloomberg Gadfly
July 15, 2016 \ 3 Comments
Full Article: Bloomberg Gadfly
Starting Monday, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority will include more information in its Trace bond-price reporting system to give a clearer sense of how much investors are paying traders in commissions for each transaction and the proportion of trades executed on electronic systems.
Mother, mother ocean, after all these years I’ve found
My occupational hazard being my occupation’s
just not around.
Isn’t it wonderful that the regulators want a component of market structure without really understanding the true impact?
This article is one big bowl of assumptions, wrapped in a candy coated shell of myth topped with a cherry of a conclusion: Transparency is good for electronic trading, bad for big dealers. It is not the author’s fault, this is generally the feeling amongst many traditional market participants as well, even if the evidence is to the contrary. Here is the thing, if your business model is reliant on mark to market sorcery to create paper profits, then absolutely, transparency hurts that shell game. However, one argument that never gets made in support of transparency is that it allows… Read more »
More data in 1s and 2s won’t change the real structure of the market. This is noise rather than progress.
Blackrock’s Richard Prager: The Liquidity Is Out There – Institutional InvestorMarch 18, 2016
Everyone is Worried About the Thing Markets Need Most, But They’re Not Asking the Right Questions – Business InsiderMarch 25, 2016
US Companies Overpaying for Bonds; Banks May Be to Blame – ReutersMarch 31, 2016