Institutional investors face a difficult decision when it comes to trading corporate bonds: Should they be the price makers for their trades?
Actually, it is more of a rhetorical question at this point. The changes in the corporate bond market structure and financial regulations has robbed the buy side of a real choice in the matter.
Although about 80% of the daily notional turnover in corporate bonds still occurs as requests for quotes over the telephone with dealers while the rest trade electronically, a dealer’s ability to offer an accurate quote has waned as they deleveraged its balance sheet to meet its Basel regimes and Dodd-Frank requirements.
Dealers are not trading out of their inventories like they did several years ago. They are working both sides of the trade as agents instead of as principals and hoping to satisfy both counterparties with the final quote.
The proliferation of electronic trading venues has not helped institutional traders either.
As more trading venues enter the corporate bond space, they only contribute to more phantom liquidity in the market as participants seek price discovery for the same liquidity across multiple trading channels and inflating perceived liquidity.
Some institutional traders may think of turning to other instruments like bond ETFs to help with price discovery, but that also could deliver skewed pricing.
The bond ETF market is far more liquid than the corporate bond market, and its arbitrage function keeps the ETF’s price and its NAV tightly couples, except for August 24, 2015.
However, the problem is its size. It’s minuscule compared to the $3 trillion corporate bond market. Cantor Fitzgerald estimated that the bond ETF market is only 3% of the corporate bond market’s size.
Only a subset of issued corporate bonds winds up at components in ETFs.
At the end of the day, buy-side traders will need to stand before their boards and confidently state why they priced their trades as they did. If they rely on the old tried-and-true method, the results will be a continuous downward spiral.
<
NEWSLETTER SIGN UP
And receive exclusive articles on securities markets
Pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, endowments and other institutional asset owners are sitting on vast troves of data -- but extracting value from that data is more challenging than ever.
#AssetOwners #DataQuality
Technology costs in asset management have grown disproportionately, but McKinsey research finds the increased spending hasn’t consistently translated into higher productivity.
#AI #Fiance
We're in the FINAL WEEK for the European Women in Finance Awards nominations – don't miss your chance to spotlight the incredible women driving change in finance!
#WomenInFinance #FinanceAwards #FinanceCommunity #EuropeanFinance @WomeninFinanceM
ICYMI: @marketsmedia sat down with EDXM CEO Tony Acuña-Rohter to discuss the launch of EDXM International’s perpetual futures platform in Singapore and what it means for institutional crypto trading.
Read the full interview: https://bit.ly/45xRUWh
Related articles
-
The share of U.S. investment grade bonds traded electronically is closing in on 50%.
-
Collaboration aims to empower traders to anticipate market trends and mitigate credit risk.
-
The more stressed the market, the less information anyone wants to give away.
-
Technology, Street relationships can differentiate a product offering in a fast-growing space.
-
LTX focuses on innovating electronic trading for the benefit of the credit market.
We're Enhancing Your Experience with Smart Technology
We've updated our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy to introduce AI tools that will personalize your content, improve our market analysis, and deliver more relevant insights.These changes take effect on Aug 25, 2025.
Your data remains protected—we're simply using smart technology to serve you better. [Review Full Terms] | [Review Privacy Policy] By continuing to use our services after Aug 25, 2025, you agree to these updates.
