How Does an Si’s Order Execution Policy Directly Impact Its Regulatory Scrutiny?

Concept

The Policy as a Mirror

A Systematic Internaliser’s (SI) order execution policy is the foundational document that dictates its interaction with client flow. It is the firm’s declared philosophy on how it will achieve the best possible result for its clients, codified into a set of operational procedures. This policy is far more than an internal guideline; it is a direct statement to regulators, articulating the firm’s interpretation and implementation of its legal and ethical obligations. Every trade executed under this policy generates a data point, and collectively, these points form a pattern.

Regulators are tasked with analyzing this pattern to determine if the firm’s actions align with its stated principles and with the overarching goals of market fairness, efficiency, and transparency mandated by frameworks like MiFID II. The scrutiny an SI faces is therefore a direct reflection of the clarity, robustness, and verifiability of its execution policy.

The core of the matter lies in the principle of “best execution.” This is not a single, static target but a dynamic obligation that requires a firm to take all sufficient steps to obtain the optimal outcome for a client. The factors considered extend beyond mere price to include costs, speed, likelihood of execution and settlement, size, and any other relevant consideration. An SI’s execution policy must detail how it weighs these factors for different types of clients and financial instruments. This documented methodology becomes the benchmark against which its performance is judged.

A policy that is vague, internally inconsistent, or difficult to audit invites immediate and intense regulatory focus. Conversely, a policy that is precise, data-driven, and transparent in its logic provides a clear framework for compliance and a strong defense against regulatory challenges.

A firm’s order execution policy is the blueprint for its market conduct, making it the primary document through which regulators assess its commitment to fair and orderly markets.

From Internal Rulebook to External Signal

Under the MiFID II regime, the SI model was designed to bring activity that would otherwise occur in opaque, over-the-counter (OTC) arrangements into a more transparent framework. An SI deals on its own account, using its own capital to fill client orders. This bilateral engagement is permissible, but it comes with significant responsibilities. The execution policy is the mechanism that ensures this principal-based trading does not disadvantage the client.

It must explain, for example, how the prices quoted to clients are determined and how they relate to prevailing market prices on public venues. Does the SI reference a consolidated tape? Does it use its own internal valuation models? The policy must specify this. This transparency is crucial because it allows regulators to assess whether the SI is offering fair prices and potentially providing price improvement over what is available on lit markets.

The scrutiny intensifies because of the inherent conflict of interest. An SI is both the client’s counterparty and the entity responsible for ensuring that client’s best interest. The execution policy is the primary tool for managing this conflict. It must lay out objective, non-discriminatory criteria for how orders are handled.

For instance, the policy will dictate the circumstances under which an SI will execute an order internally versus routing it to another venue. It will also define the limits on the sizes of orders it is willing to handle. Regulators examine these rules to ensure that the SI’s decisions are governed by its commitment to the client’s best outcome, rather than by its own profitability or risk management needs. The data generated from every order ▴ executed or not ▴ becomes evidence of the policy in action, creating an indelible record for regulatory review.

Strategy

The Strategic Calculus of Price Formation

The formulation of an order execution policy is a series of strategic decisions, each with direct consequences for regulatory perception. A primary strategic pillar is the methodology for price formation. An SI must decide how it will generate the quotes it provides to clients. This is a critical choice that balances commercial incentives with the regulatory mandate for fairness.

One common strategy is to derive quotes by referencing the prices available on primary trading venues, often referred to as the European Best Bid and Offer (EBBO) for equities. This approach provides a clear, defensible, and easily verifiable benchmark. A policy built on this strategy signals a commitment to transparency and simplifies the process of demonstrating price competitiveness to regulators. The data trail is straightforward ▴ the SI’s quote can be directly compared to the public market quote at the moment of execution.

A different strategy involves using internal, proprietary models to generate quotes. This can be particularly relevant for less liquid instruments where a reliable public price may not exist. While permissible, this strategy inherently increases the burden of proof. The execution policy must meticulously detail the inputs, assumptions, and governance around these models.

Regulators will scrutinize this methodology to ensure it is robust, consistently applied, and not designed to systematically disadvantage clients. The firm must be prepared to validate its models and demonstrate that the resulting prices are “fair” within the context of prevailing market conditions. This strategic path requires a significant investment in quantitative resources and compliance infrastructure to withstand regulatory examination.

The table below compares these two strategic approaches to price formation, highlighting the trade-offs that an SI’s management must consider.

Orchestrating the Best Execution Framework

Beyond price, the execution policy must articulate a comprehensive strategy for delivering on the multi-faceted obligation of best execution. This involves defining the relative importance of various execution factors. For a retail client, the total consideration (price and costs) is paramount. For an institutional client executing a large order, the likelihood of execution and minimizing market impact might be more significant than achieving the absolute best price on a small portion of the order.

The policy must codify this logic. It should establish a clear hierarchy of execution factors for different client types and instrument classes. This documented strategy is what allows a firm to justify its execution decisions when reviewed by regulators.

The strategy embedded in an execution policy must translate the abstract principle of “best execution” into a concrete, repeatable, and auditable process.

A critical component of this strategy is the selection and monitoring of execution venues. An SI may choose to execute orders on its own book, but its policy must also consider other venues (like regulated markets, MTFs, or other SIs) where it could achieve a better result for the client. The policy must outline the criteria for including a venue in its list of approved execution locations. Furthermore, it must detail the process for monitoring the execution quality of these venues on an ongoing basis.

This is not a “set and forget” exercise. Regulators expect to see evidence of a dynamic review process, where the SI regularly assesses whether its chosen venues continue to provide the best possible outcomes. This strategic monitoring, often evidenced through Transaction Cost Analysis (TCA), demonstrates a proactive approach to compliance and is a key focus during regulatory audits. The absence of such a documented, evidence-based monitoring strategy is a significant red flag.

The following list outlines the core elements a regulator would expect to see in the strategic framework of an execution policy:

• Client Categorization ▴ A clear definition of how clients are classified (e.g. retail, professional) and how this classification impacts the application of the execution policy.
• Factor Weighting ▴ A detailed explanation of the relative importance assigned to execution factors (price, costs, speed, likelihood of execution, etc.) for each class of financial instrument and client type.

–

• Venue Selection Criteria ▴ Objective criteria used to select the execution venues included in the policy, demonstrating how they contribute to achieving the best possible result.
• Monitoring and Review Process ▴ A description of the procedures for regularly monitoring the effectiveness of the policy and the execution quality of the chosen venues, including the specific metrics and data sources used.
• Conflict of Interest Management ▴ A clear articulation of how the firm identifies and manages the conflicts of interest inherent in acting as a principal, ensuring client interests are prioritized.

Execution

The Anatomy of a Trade and Its Digital Footprint

The operational execution of an order by a Systematic Internaliser creates an immutable data trail that serves as the primary evidence for regulatory assessment. Every step, from the moment a client’s request for a quote arrives to the final post-trade report, is time-stamped and logged. This digital footprint is what allows regulators to reconstruct the trading process and test it against the promises made in the execution policy. The policy, therefore, must be designed with this forensic analysis in mind.

It must ensure that the firm’s systems capture the necessary data points with sufficient granularity. For example, under MiFID II, clock synchronization requirements mean that timestamps must be accurate to the microsecond level, allowing for precise sequencing of events.

When an order is received, the SI’s systems must first consult the execution policy to determine the handling procedure. If the policy dictates that the SI will provide a quote, the system logs the client request, generates a quote based on the policy’s pricing methodology (e.g. referencing the EBBO plus or minus a spread), and records the exact time the quote is sent to the client. If the client accepts, the system logs the acceptance time and the execution time. This sequence allows for a precise calculation of execution latency, a key metric of quality.

The system must also capture the prevailing market price at the time of execution to calculate any price improvement offered to the client. This entire workflow, from data capture to execution logic, is a direct implementation of the policy and is what regulators will audit.

Quantitative Expressions of Execution Quality

Regulatory scrutiny is increasingly quantitative. Regulators do not just read the policy; they analyze the data produced by its execution to measure performance. The policy must be designed to generate data that clearly demonstrates compliance with best execution obligations.

This data is often summarized in reports like the (now suspended but still influential) RTS 27 and the annual RTS 28 reports, which provide aggregated statistics on execution quality. An SI must have the infrastructure to not only produce these reports but also to perform its own internal, high-frequency analysis of its execution quality.

The following table provides a simplified example of a price improvement report that an SI would use internally and that a regulator would examine. It quantifies the value delivered to clients by executing at prices better than the public benchmark, a core tenet of many SI execution policies.

This kind of granular, quantitative evidence is the most powerful tool an SI has to demonstrate the effectiveness of its execution policy. A regulator can see, on a trade-by-trade basis, how the SI is performing against its stated goal of providing competitive prices. The policy must ensure that this data is captured accurately and is readily available for analysis.

The data generated by an SI’s execution systems does not just support the policy; in the eyes of a regulator, it is the policy in practice.

The Public Commitment of Regulatory Reporting

The final stage of execution is reporting. An SI has obligations for both post-trade transparency (reporting trades to the public) and transaction reporting (reporting detailed trade data to regulators). The execution policy directly governs what is reported.

For instance, the policy’s rules on how to handle large-in-scale orders will determine whether a trade benefits from a deferred publication waiver. Inconsistent application of these waivers, or a policy that appears to abuse them to reduce transparency, will attract negative attention.

The annual RTS 28 report is a particularly critical document. In this report, the firm must summarize the analysis and conclusions from its monitoring of execution quality and list its top five execution venues by volume for each instrument class. This report is a public declaration. It forces the SI to stand behind the strategy outlined in its execution policy with concrete data.

If a policy states that the firm prioritizes price and its RTS 28 report shows it routes significant volume to a venue with poor price performance but perhaps other benefits (like high rebates), it creates a clear contradiction that regulators will question. The execution policy and the RTS 28 report must tell the same story. A coherent narrative, backed by robust data from the execution process, is the foundation of a defensible position under intense regulatory scrutiny.

Reflection

The Policy as a System of Governance

An order execution policy transcends its function as a mere compliance document. It should be viewed as the central processing unit of a firm’s trading governance system. Its parameters define the ethical and operational boundaries within which the firm operates, and the data it produces provides the feedback loop for continuous assessment and refinement. The level of regulatory scrutiny a Systematic Internaliser endures is ultimately a measure of the integrity of this system.

A well-architected policy is not a defense against scrutiny, but a tool that welcomes it, confident in the logic and evidence it produces. It demonstrates that the firm’s commercial objectives are pursued in a manner that reinforces, rather than undermines, the health and transparency of the market ecosystem.

Ultimately, the dialogue between a firm and its regulator is a dialogue about process. The execution policy is the language in which that process is described. A firm that masters this language ▴ by building a policy that is clear, evidence-based, and dynamically managed ▴ can navigate the complex regulatory environment with assurance. It transforms an obligation into a demonstration of operational excellence.

The challenge for any SI is to see its policy not as a static shield, but as a dynamic engine of verifiable integrity. This is the core of a resilient and trusted market presence.