[This message was posted by John Harris of BondMart Technologies, Inc. <[email protected]> to the "General Q/A" discussion forum at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/22. You can reply to it on-line at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/117fd991 - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
Gentlemen, When I became a registered representative of Shearson Lehman Hutton in 1988, the FIX Protocol did not exist and to my knowledge, neither did electronic order matching. Electronic order routing did exist, however, as did electronic display systems for quotations and trade reports. In that primitive world, however, believe it or not, we did have "cross trades." A cross is a type of transaction that pre-dates electronic trading, just as "market" and "limit" are types of orders that pre-date electronic trading. We wrote our customer orders for listed stocks on paper tickets and handed those tickets to a wire clerk, who would send them electronically to an exchange for execution. The paper tickets had the equivalent of radio buttons and check boxes for mutually exclusive and potentially-additive order parameters and conditions, respectively. A ticket could be marked just one of "Buy," "Sell," or "Sell Short." It could be market just one of "Market" or "Limit." But, one could designate multiple conditions such as "At the open" and "Do not reduce." Some conditions were mutually exclusive. A ticket could not be marked both "Fill or Kill" and "Do not reduce," for example. Part of what all new brokers had to learn was what were allowable order parameters and what weren't. One of the options on the ticket was "Cross." One would never hand a wire clerk a single Cross ticket. Doing so would be as non-sensical as handing the wire clerk a ticket without a symbol or quantity. Cross tickets were always conveyed in pairs, one representing the buyer's interest and the other the seller's interest. That is because cross trades were always pre-arranged, off-exchange trades, using exchange prices for reference (because the broker was still responsible for ensuring that the execution price was reasonable in relation to prevailing market conditions). Several days ago I provided a definition of a cross trade, as follows: +++++++++++++++ A cross is a trade effected by prior arrangement between buyer(s) and seller(s), on the basis of a dynamic reference price agreed upon by them in advance, through the agency of a third party acting in the capacity of broker or riskless principal and who impartially establishes the actual execution price. +++++++++++++++ I assert that this definition is rigorous and that any transaction not fitting the definition is something other than a cross. We are free to call pears "apples" and leopards "lions," but that does not make them so. Yes, the meanings of terms can change over time and terms can become imbued with new meaning. I am well aware that exchanges and routing networks have come to use the term "cross" to describe all manner of order types and execution arrangements, but I assert that they do so either out of ignorance, sloppiness, or a willful intent to confuse or deceive. Hanno is right, Girish, that your example amounts to a type of internalization protocol. That is, before exposing a received order to the market at large, the DEALER - not broker - seeks to match the order against others he holds. (Brokers acting as such do not have inventories.) Such an execution framework contains elements of a cross (as I defined above). We go down a slippery and potentially dangerous slope if we allow ourselves to be less than rigorous in our use of trade language. For example, a cross is a form of pre-arranged trade. It happens to be an ethical and legal form of pre-arranged trade (though may violate the rules of some exchanges). Other forms of pre-arranged trades are neither ethical nor legal. Markets would be far less efficient, to the detriment of all, if a "market order" could mean anything at all, or a "limit order" could mean anything at all, or if we fail to appreciate the difference between "broker" and "dealer," or "route" and "match," or "order" and "trade." A cross is as I've defined it. Everyone in our business should be able to explain why that definition is rigorous. > > Hanno, > > Cross trade doesnot only refer to the trade which are subimitted by > single buy side, the orders will come from different buyside side firm > and then it get internally matched with the sell side hub, if this > matched then the trade will get executed with out reporting to exchange. > > For example, If A,B,C,D are the buy side firm using E as their sellside > firm for executing the orders then A may send a buy order which matches > with the sell order of B, so in this phase the E sellside broker matches > this order internally and send the ER to both the counter parties. > > Regards, Girish > > I have a different view and would call what you describe > > "internalization". The definition you give is confusing for me as it > > does not seem to fit with the way it is used by FIX. I thought that > > cross trades were when both sides of a trade come from a single > > submitter. That would only fit if the sellside internally "matches" > > two orders and then sends both sides to an exchange for execution. In > > this case the sellside is the single submitter. > > > > FIX provides messages NewOrderSingle and NewOrderCross and I see the > > difference on the input side (providing one or two sides) and not on > > the execution side (match internally or forward to an exchange). > > > > NewOrderCross allows to send in both sides within a single message, > > i.e. you provide a potential match. Regulatory rules for exchanges > > might require the exchange to make this public before executing it so > > that others can step in. If nobody steps in (no other qualifying > > orders), the cross can be executed as provided. Wouldn't the buyside > > typically only send in one side (using NewOrderSingle), asking the > > sellside to look for the best execution? In that sense, the buyside > > cannot "send in a cross trade", it can only send in an order and it is > > the sellside that makes this into a cross trade when it comes up with > > the other side (and sends this to an exchange). > > > > Regards, Hanno. > > > > >Guys, > > > > > > Just to simplfy the answer, Cross trade means, it is the trade which > > > is sent by buyside to the sellside were the sellside will try to > > > match the order internally with in their inventory and if the order > > > matches then he will execute this internally and will not send to > > > exchange. In other case if the order parameter are not matching with > > > the internal orders then the sellside firm will send the order to > > > exchange. > > > > > > Correct me if i am wrong. > > > > > > Regards, Girish > > > [You can unsubscribe from this discussion group by sending a message to mailto:[email protected]] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Financial Information eXchange" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/FIX-Protocol?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
