“Our dilemma is that we hate change and love it at the same time; what we really want is for things to remain the same but get better.” – Sydney J. Harris
“I cannot say whether things will get better if we change; what I can say is that we must change if things are to get better.” – Georg C. Lichtenberg
By now, anyone who is remotely involved in the corporate bond market has found oneself in the middle of a conversation whose sole purpose is to explore and explain the dramatic change that is currently underway. After several years of debate focused on Dodd-Frank, derivative reform, and SEFs, last year appeared to bring the conversation back to cash corporate bonds.
The movement of execution from the traditional voice-based model to electronic platforms has been underway since 2002. Progress has been significant, with around 20% of the market utilizing some form of electronic execution to transfer risk. Despite this electronification, the structural makeup of risk transfer in corporate bonds remains unchanged. While retail investors have utilized executable liquidity pools and the agency model for years, the request-for-quote (RFQ) protocol and the principal-based model remain the dominant choices for institutional market participants.
As institutional investors increasingly express frustration over the ability to find “immediacy” (the ability to transfer risk on-demand), and traditional liquidity providers are handicapped by regulation and the increasing cost of capital, the need for alternatives is undeniable. The current narrative surrounding the growth of electronic trading is somewhat disingenuous, since the trend is to simply electronify the RFQ, a protocol that naturally relies on the current principal-based model.
Cornerstone Resources takes a look back into 2013, highlighting some of the events in the corporate bond market that will undoubtedly have an impact moving forward into 2014, as the market seeks to identify the problems, develop solutions, and shape the conversation.
The question remains – will traditional asset managers begin to change their behavior and augment their workflow, embracing a new market structure and alternative trading protocols? To date, the answer has been a resounding “no”, as investors continue to demand immediate risk transfer from traditional liquidity providers. Some are leading the innovation charge, but is change their ultimate goal?
We suspect a structural change is required. To what degree has yet to be determined. With several catalysts at work, the outcome is far from clear. The one certainty is the fact that simply moving execution from the phone to an electronic platform, while utilizing the same trading protocol, will not solve the issue of a contracting universe of immediacy providers.
“Change before you have to.” – Jack Welch
Cornerstone Resources Consulting LLC is an independent advisory and consulting firm focused in the areas of fixed income market structure, Dodd-Frank Title VII, and electronic trading.