Subscribe

Futures & Options World Copying and distributing are prohibited without permission of the publisher
Email a friend
  • To include more than one recipient, please seperate each email address with a semi-colon ';'


Grob: Why Brussels was wrong on the DB/NYSE deal

04 February 2012

Did the Competition Commission misunderstand the nature of competition between Liffe and Eurex?

Read more: Deutsche Borse NYSE Euronext Liffe Eurex exchange mergers Steve Grob

Not much surprise at this week’s news that the EU Competition Commission has blcoked the NYSE/Deutche Bóirse deal, but the rationale for blocking the deal seems odd.

Firstly, and whatever they may claim, Brussels did take an overly Eurocentric view. Just call the CME in Chicago and ask where Liffe and Eurex appear on its list of major competitors.

Secondly, the Commission claims that Liffe and Eurex themselves compete but, in fact, they are effectively two ‘mini-monopolies’ operating at opposite ends of the yield curve with almost zero overlap in their products. So it’s not as if the competitive landscape for European derivatives was particularly vibrant anyway.

But the biggest issue concerns how the Commission calculated the potential market share for the combined entity. How could they exclude OTC derivatives in their sums when just along the corridor they are also introducing regulation aimed at pushing the OTC and exchange-traded worlds together?

That is not to say that the decision was necessarily wrong, but the reasoning behind it doesn’t seem to stack up. As one of our previous polls showed, the market was pretty evenly divided on the issue but with a significant number of “don’t knows”.

For these swing voters, maybe it’s all about capital efficiency. Ever since the financial crisis, capital has become an increasingly valuable commodity as market regulators around the world are steadily upping the requirements.

Would a combined entity have been able to offer more efficient use of capital through margin offsets or otherwise netting positions for traders? Or, would a combined entity have been able to drive up prices and exploit its position without exchanges like the CME or Nasdaq jumping in?

Personally, I think Brussels might end up adding this decision to the “Not sure we got it right” pile.

Steve Grob is director of group strategy at Fidessa


Comments
  • Often wrong - seldom in doubt.

    Are these the wise words of the same Steve Grob who was quote in FT, when speaking about the push for global exchange consolidation saying "The regulators have to understand that they had a big part in creating this problem because they broke up the national monopolies in the first place. You’ve got these big national stock exchanges which can’t make enough money out of their national trading franchise but seem unable to team up with other big guys."

    There are many policy issues to consider when assessing such mergers. They include not only competition, but also systemic financial risk.

    And even though Eurex and Liffe operated on different ends of the yield curve, their consolidation could make the potential competition harder.

    I don't know if the European regulators' decision was correct, but I suspect that its considerations were wider and more complex than Mr Grob suggests.

    As Harold Menken said, for every problem there is a neat and simple solution that is wrong.

    db | 07 Feb 2012

View all comments

Have your say
  • All comments are subject to editorial review.
    All fields are compulsory.

Poll

What concerns you most about the upcoming regulation changes?

Opportunity for regulatory arbitrage
13%
Impact on revenues
37%
Unnecessary complexity
10%
Workability of central clearing for OTC derivatives
11%
Workability of forcing complex derivatives onto exchanges
30%