header background

LMAX Group blog - FX industry thought leadership

header background
  • Growth in retail FX brokerage

    Little noticed by BIS, retail investment regulators, and the public at large, retail FX volume has surged in the past 10 to 12 years to reach an impressive US$280 billion per day, roughly 6% of the overall FX market and 18% of the spot FX market. This buzzing market grew on the opaque OTC side of the market, with a few hundred FX brokers of various sizes growing their business purely online and with the help of introducing brokers and Web affiliates. While a good number of these specialist brokers only offer spot FX, an increasing number of them promote various forms of FX (spot FX, contracts for difference [CFDs], FX options, and binary options) and have added other asset classes such as equities, commodities, and fixed income products.

    David Mercer, LMAX Exchange CEO, shares insights.

  • UK share of global FX went up to 39% in 2013

    Global FX volume traded on OTC markets for the 1995-to-2013 period saw tremendous growth overall, but the share from the top 10 nations remained intact at roughly 88%, following a dip to 84% during the 2001-to-2004 period. Certain factors, such as the emergence of the euro in 1999, the rise of high frequency trading in the mid-2000s, and the ensuing race toward creating low-latency environments, did create change within the share of top 10 nations. During the 18-year period from 1995 to 2013, the U.K. raised its market share in FX markets by 5.3% points, while Japan’s share fell by 4.1% points and the combined share of Germany and France dropped by 3.6% points based on FX client flows.

    Volume by Region

    UK-share-of-global-FX

    Source: Aite Group ‘Global FX Market Update 2013: Increased Market Transparency, More Competition’, June 2013

  • New FX Venues Emerge

    Challenging the establishment – new FX venues emerge. David Mercer, LMAX Exchange CEO, shares insights.

    The first generation of FX electronic trading venues initially emerged in the interbank market in the early 1990s. Both Reuters and EBS have remained traditional powerhouses in the electronic FX market since their launches, supported by the dealing banks that relied on the two venues to manage their risk in a timely manner.

    The second wave of significant changes in the electronic FX market occurred during the late 1990s, when numerous electronic platforms surfaced to address trading issues in the client-to-dealer market. While most of those venues, such as Atriax, Lava, and FXMarketspace, ultimately ceased operations due to lack of market adoption, the few that survived, including Currenex, Hotspot FX, and FXall, form the backbone of today’s established FX ECN players.

  • Banks are no longer the largest counterparty in the FX market

    One of the most significant changes that the FX market is currently undergoing is the substantial increase in trading activities from “other financial institutions” —included in this group are retail aggregators, high frequency trading firms, and smaller (Tier-2, Tier-3) banks. Banks with an FX expertise (dealers, reporting dealers) accounted for 64% of all trading in 1995, but that figure declined to less than 40% by 2010. Non-financial customers (primarily corporate clients) as a group have more or less kept pace with growth in the FX market and held on to a 13%-to-18% share of FX volume. Trading from non-bank financial institutions (such as high frequency firms, smaller banks, and retail aggregators) increased from 20% in 1995 to 48% in 2010, thereby becoming the largest counterparty in the FX market. Principal reasons for this large jump in activity follow:

    • The growth and popularity of electronic trading platforms that started in equities markets two decades ago has gravitated to the FX market.
    • The lack of steady, profitable returns from traditional asset classes such as equities and fixed income have propelled FX and commodities as the new alternative asset classes, thereby attracting fresh investor money flow into the FX market itself.

    Volume by Market Participant Type

    Substantial increase in trading activities from non-bank financial institutions

    Source: Aite Group ‘Global FX Market Update 2013: Increased Market Transparency, More Competition’, June 2013

  • The rise of “prime of prime” brokerage firms

    In the institutional market, credit lines or credit limits are the lifeblood that enables two parties to engage in the principal-to-principal, bilateral nature of FX trading in the OTC marketplace. When credit was easy to obtain and credit limits were generous, such as seen in the early part of this new millennium up to the global credit crisis of 2008 and 2009, large banks and their customers were both quite content to trade liberally both directly with each other and also via ECNs (the latter for those that are technologically advanced for electronic FX trading), backed by generous credit limits granted by these same banks’ prime brokerage units.

    Then came the global credit crisis, the ensuing bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, and the near collapse of AIG and many other large banks and global financial institutions that were all thought “too big to fail.” If it were not for the government-engineered rescues of these venerable institutions, many of them would not be around to conduct their business today. What did result from this dramatic event, however, was a dramatic tightening of credit conditions around the world—gone are the generous credit lines and limits that allowed FX market participants, banks and their clients alike, to trade freely with each other.

    Although the economies of many nations around the globe have recovered a fair amount since then and a “business-as-usual” mentality has returned to Wall Street and global financial centers elsewhere, one direct consequence of the credit crisis is that the two parties entering a given bilateral dealing (e.g., an FX transaction) are now much more cognizant of the potential credit risk that each side brings to the table. This cautious approach toward credit stems from banks and clients; hence, each bank or client has potentially reduced the total number of counterparties that it is willing to deal with as well as the amount of FX exposure per transaction (with each counterparty) that it is willing to bear until the trade is settled.

    Although large banks and prime brokerage units may still grant the largest multinational corporations, asset managers, ultra-high-net-worth individuals, or hedge funds generous credit limits to do FX trades, the same cannot be said of small to midsize banks, proprietary trading firms, asset managers or hedge funds, CTAs/CPOs, or active retail traders. Our conversations with industry veterans in the FX prime brokerage community indicate that in today’s environment, FX credit limits and terms have tightened by as much as one-third from the pre-crisis days of more than five years ago.

  • Average Trade Size Declines for Spot FX

    A key insight from semi-annual surveys by the London Foreign Exchange Joint Standing Committee (FX JSC) and U.S. Foreign Exchange Committee is that the average trade size for parts of FX markets is decreasing over time. Lower currency volatility, the rise in interest for HFT, and fierce competition in the FX liquidity part of the market have reduced the average size of spot FX trades two- to threefold, to around US$1.1 million in both the United Kingdom and the United States. The average trade size of other FX products is much higher than that of spot FX, however—outright forwards currently sit at US$3.0 million, FX options at US$25.1 million, and FX swaps at US$47.1 million. With expected continued growth in HFT volume and increasing market participation by retail traders, the average trade size of spot FX is expected to decrease even more in coming years.

    Average Trade Size Declines for Spot FX

    Average Trade Size Declines for Spot FX

  • 4 key fundamentals to consider when choosing an FX venue

    While FX as an asset class might be straight forward, customers that play in the FX market have different needs and requirements.

    For those corporations and traditional asset managers that view FX transactions as a byproduct of their core business (e.g., cross-border transactions), for example, overall costs associated with execution might be less of an issue; these customer segments would also view access to large size as important, leading them to trade on RFQ-based MDPs and SDPs. On the other hand, statistical arbitrage and actively trading hedge funds and HFT firms might care more about cost of execution since they deal with smaller-sized but more frequent transactions, leading them to use ECN/MFT-type execution venues.

  • What will drive further adoption of electronic trading?

    Electronic trading execution methods (as defined by BIS) account for 55% of all spot trading, represented collectively by electronic broking (interbank), MDPs, and SDPs. Of the three electronic execution methods, interbank systems (i.e., EBS and Thomson Reuters) have one of the largest shares of the spot FX market, at 26%.

    Retail aggregators do not appear on this execution venue list because they are counted as bank clients in this BIS survey. Inter-broker dealers like ICAP and Tradition capture 47% of FX swap business (voice broker plus inter-dealer direct percentages) as well as 35% of FX options volume.

    When looking at electronic trading platforms, both single- and multibank platforms compete actively in two markets: FX spot and outright forward markets.

  • Is the growth in Spot FX expected to continue?

    According to the recently published report by Aite Group ‘Global FX Market Update 2013: Increased Market Transparency, More Competition’, June 2013, the spot FX volumes will continue to grow on the back of prime-brokered clients (retail FX brokers and hedge funds/HFT firms) for the foreseeable future. Other FX products not impacted directly by regulations, such as outright forwards and FX swaps, should experience similar growth trajectory. Aite Group expects the spot FX market to reach US$2.2 trillion in daily turnover by 2016, up 35% from 2010 levels.

    The largest daily trading volume in foreign exchange has traditionally come from the FX swap part of the market, but there are clear signs that new regulations on both sides of the Atlantic— particularly related to higher margin requirements for OTC FX swaps—will temper volume growth as market participants unable to secure margin to maintain or roll FX swaps choose to let them expire or look for alternative hedges on the futures/on-exchange side of the market, something that is now being termed “the futurization of FX swaps.”

Sign up for Global FX Insights, the daily market commentary from LMAX Group

Your information will not be distributed or shared with third parties