E-desk. It’s a broad term that covers a number of activities from industry-standard regional algorithms to end-to-end automated global order management.
Whatever its definition, the e-desk’s capabilities are going to extend to a broader set of market participants who are gaining access to complex automated workflows as technological developments and innovative delivery methods become more widespread.
Underpinning the global e-desk is a properly managed connectivity network that enables a firm to monitor its client network to determine which network solutions are the best from a cost perspective and to determine whether the client flow is there to justify the connection at all.
Such a centralized system, which allows firms to evaluate, cancel, add and amend client connections, is an invaluable tool and since the costs of connectivity can sometimes outweigh those associated with the order management system (OMS) itself, it is a priority area.

Firms should also have the means to properly manage the message flow in order to provide a true one-stop shop for the full range of their customers’ trading needs, from direct market access (DMA) and algorithmic orders, to derivatives and baskets. Transparent FIX middleware solutions enable firms to translate customers’ desires into appropriate instructions for the chosen destination seamlessly. If that destination is international, then the ability to queue international order flow appropriately will be required.




Innovations in Trading and Technology (
Comments | Post a Comment
2 Comments to "No Desk Left Behind: The E-Desk Is Growing":
Anonymous
19 July 2011
Given the recent activity of the UK and European Regulators perhaps the Completion Commission should now turn their attention to your statement "the costs of connectivity can sometimes outweigh those associated with the order management system (OMS) itself." The high charges from the ISVs, rather than the highly competitive telecom market, for connections or gateways is highly questionable and the more dominant the ISV the greater the problem this represents. There seems little justification for the high and charges levelled unevenly across the buyside and brokerage user base. Many ISVs apply such high charges that it is damaging to smaller brokers, limits buyside connectivity and prevents establishment of new venues competing for business. In short it constrains fair competition.
Anonymous
19 July 2011
Competition Commission not Completion Commission, sorry.