06 Dec 2007
Project Turquoise is a next-generation share trading platform set up to compete with traditional Bourses such as the London Stock Exchange (LSE), helped by the EU Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID).
Turquoise is expected to launch in 2008 and Yann L’Huillier, formerly at the Boston Stock Exchange, started last week as its first chief technology officer. He talked to Computing about the challenges of the job and the central role of technology in the changing industry.
Further reading
How will Project Turquoise compete with established exchanges such as
the LSE?
There are a number of prerequisites. The platform will have to be fast,
reliable and cheap to operate. In the past, exchanges used big, expensive
systems. Now you can use better IT for less.
In terms of cost to trade, we want a total end-to-end cost that will be the
cheapest in the market. We are starting from scratch with no legacy systems, so
we can integrate things seamlessly.
Have you made decisions about specific IT systems for
Turquoise?
We are a technology firm, but we are not in business to reinvent the wheel,
so we are going to find the best-in-class suppliers to assemble the components.
Our main trading engine and front office technology will be provided by
Cinnober. And we will use Euro CCP for clearing and settlement of trades.
The third part, that we have not chosen yet, is the surveillance platform used
to monitor trading for discrepancies and insider dealing.
MiFID came into force at the start of November with the aim of
opening up Europe’s trading markets. How much difference does it make to
Turquoise?
MiFID gives us the ability to set up the exchange and compete with all the
European markets. We would have set up the project anyway, but MiFID makes it
easier because there is a framework. Without it, Turquoise would have taken
longer to establish.
Our business will come from a combination of the extra trading generated by
MiFID, and from taking market share from other destinations such as the LSE. The
point of MiFID is that a market participant has an obligation of best execution
on traders, so they will have to check against Turquoise. So if we can succeed
in being cheaper, faster and more reliable and our platform offers the best
deal then there is an obligation to use it.
One of the most challenging features of trading platforms from a
technology perspective is the variations in traffic volumes. How do you deal
with peaks in demand?
We are using best practice to establish what our capacity needs to be and we
are using the standard ratio that is, you do 80 per cent of your business
during 20 per cent of the day.
You need to have a lot of scale in your system you have to make sure you can
absorb those peaks of the market.
A technical glitch at the LSE last month interrupted trading and
closed auctions. What are the biggest IT dangers for a share exchange, and how
are they avoided?
You should never underestimate the need for change management. Outages are
most often caused by software releases, so when you are installing applications
you have to make sure not only that it is tested, but that the switchover will
not have any impact on the customer.
Human error is the second common cause of problems, either an operator taking
something down by mistake or somebody with access who should not have it.
We will have an IT security policy approved by the Financial Services Authority
to guarantee we have taken all possible steps to prevent such an error.
What is Turquoise’s biggest challenge?
The biggest challenge is to ensure that all the market participants are
connected to the platform.
Previously they did not have to have the connectivity it was not a regulatory
imperative to have best execution and so people only connected to one market.
Now they will connect to three or four, and smart order routers will find the
best deal.
A few years ago I ran a project to assess the [b]leading edge of share trading. One particular supplier had 'seen the future', having some of the best minds working on an impressive trading system. It was all very clever stuff and promised to save institutions $ millions in trading.
And it failed to get off the ground. Why? Because they failed to bring enough parties and transactions together to form a viable, liquid market. Hence, whatever savings arose because of the whizz-bang system were obliterated by the poor prices. Rumour had it that this venture cost its investors upwards of $90 million.
Of course, this doesn't mean that Turquoise will go the same way, but it is a salutory reminder that putting the IT system in place really is the easy bit.
Posted by: Rob Sucher, Armstrong Webb 10 Dec 2007
Have your say on this article
Newsletters
Latest stories from Management
Latest videos
You may also like
Management jobs
Technology Patent Wars
Case studies from large organisations across all sectors
... And rich media, and flexible working, and peaks in traffic ...
Upcoming Events
Join us for this Computing web seminar, in which the Head of BI at the Co-operative Group Nick Colebourn will be explaining just how he reigned in the Group’s sprawling database estate and how significant savings were realised and data quality improved as a result.
Date: 31 May 2012
Time: 11:00 AM
Live June 13th 11:00am: Register now. During this web seminar we will be looking at the sorts of incidents that can bring data centres grinding to a halt and what can be done about them.
Date: 13 Jun 2012
Time: 11:00 am
Receive the latest jobs direct to your inbox
Are you being paid what you are worth?