BennBridge Ltd - Top 5 Execution Venues Report for 2020
| Class of Instrument | Equities – Cash | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| < 1 Average trade per business day | N | ||
| Counterparty | Volume Traded (%) | Proportion of Orders Executed | Directed Trade (% Volume) |
| BERENBERG | 9.6% | 9.3% | 0.0% |
| PEEL HUNT | 8.1% | 7.8% | 0.0% |
| INVESTEC | 7.8% | 8.3% | 0.0% |
| LIQUIDNET | 7.1% | 9.0% | 0.0% |
| TOURMALINE EUROPE LTD | 7.0% | 6.3% | 0.0% |
| Class of Instrument | Equities – Derivatives | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| < 1 Average trade per business day | N | ||
| Counterparty | Volume Traded (%) | Proportion of Orders Executed | Directed Trade (% Volume) |
| BERENBERG | 15.9% | 19.3% | 0.0% |
| BARCLAYS | 9.2% | 10.8% | 0.0% |
| KEPLER CHEUVREUX | 8.5% | 5.4% | 0.0% |
| SANFORD BERNSTEIN | 8.1% | 4.6% | 0.0% |
| TOURMALINE | 7.9% | 7.4% | 0.0% |
| Class of Instrument | Equities – Derivatives | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| < 1 Average trade per business day | Y | ||
| Counterparty | Volume Traded (%) | Proportion of Orders Executed | Directed Trade (% Volume) |
| UBS | 38% | 33% | 0.0% |
| MORGAN STANLEY | 33% | 12% | 0.0% |
| JP MORGAN | 19% | 43% | 0.0% |
| KEPLER CHEUVREUX | 6% | 6% | 0.0% |
| PEEL HUNT | 3% | 1% | 0.0% |
BennBridge Ltd - Top 5 Execution Venues Report for 2019
| Class of Instrument | Equities – Cash | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| < 1 Average trade per business day | N | ||
| Counterparty | Volume Traded (%) | Proportion of Orders Executed | Directed Trade (% Volume) |
| INVESTEC | 15.6% | 15.2% | 0.0% |
| LIQUIDNET | 9.8% | 7.6% | 0.0% |
| PEEL HUNT | 7.2% | 5.6% | 0.0% |
| NUMIS SECURITIES | 6.7% | 6.4% | 0.0% |
| LIBERUM | 6.0% | 7.2% | 0.0% |
| Class of Instrument | Equities – Derivatives | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| < 1 Average trade per business day | N | ||
| Counterparty | Volume Traded (%) | Proportion of Orders Executed | Directed Trade (% Volume) |
| BAML | 16.3% | 11.8% | 0.0% |
| LIQUIDNET | 16.2% | 14.9% | 0.0% |
| ITG | 14.4% | 18.3% | 0.0% |
| MORGAN STANLEY | 11.0% | 8.4% | 0.0% |
| UBS | 6.1% | 1.7% | 0.0% |
| Class of Instrument | Equities – Derivatives | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| < 1 Average trade per business day | Y | ||
| Counterparty | Volume Traded (%) | Proportion of Orders Executed | Directed Trade (% Volume) |
| MORGAN STANLEY | 80.7% | 59.0% | 0.0% |
| UBS | 14.4% | 18.0% | 0.0% |
| JP MORGAN | 4.2% | 13.1% | 0.0% |
| GOLDMAN SACHS | 0.7% | 8.2% | 0.0% |
| PEEL HUNT | 0.0% | 1.6% | 0.0% |
BennBridge Ltd - Top 5 Execution Venues Report for 2018
| Class of Instrument | Equities – Cash | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| < 1 Average trade per business day | N | ||
| Counterparty | Volume Traded (%) | Proportion of Orders Executed | Directed Trade (% Volume) |
| INVESTEC | 17.2% | 10.6% | 0.0% |
| PEEL HUNT | 12.6% | 17.9% | 0.0% |
| LIBERUM | 12.4% | 5.8% | 0.0% |
| NUMIS SECURITIES | 9.9% | 7.3% | 0.0% |
| ITG POSIT ALGO DESK | 8.7% | 18.1% | 0.0% |
| Class of Instrument | Equities – Derivatives | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| < 1 Average trade per business day | N | ||
| Counterparty | Volume Traded (%) | Proportion of Orders Executed | Directed Trade (% Volume) |
| BAML | 21.6% | 16.3% | 0.0% |
| ITG | 17.1% | 24.4% | 0.0% |
| UBS | 16.5% | 4.9% | 0.0% |
| LIQUIDNET | 9.7% | 8.3% | 0.0% |
| MORGAN STANLEY | 6.9% | 1.8% | 0.0% |
| Class of Instrument | Equities – Derivatives | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| < 1 Average trade per business day | Y | ||
| Counterparty | Volume Traded (%) | Proportion of Orders Executed | Directed Trade (% Volume) |
| MORGAN STANLEY | 54.2% | 27.9% | 0.0% |
| UBS | 45.0% | 56.7% | 0.0% |
| GOLDMAN SACHS | 0.8% | 15.4% | 0.0% |
| N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
BennBridge Ltd - Top 5 Execution Venues Report for 2017
| Class of Instrument | Equities – Cash | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| < 1 Average trade per business day | N | ||
| Counterparty | Volume Traded (%) | Proportion of Orders Executed | Directed Trade (% Volume) |
| PEEL HUNT | 22.0% | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| NUMIS SECURITIES | 13.8% | 7.9% | 0.0% |
| ITG POSIT ALGO DESK | 13.6% | 28.3% | 0.0% |
| INVESTEC | 10.8% | 9.0% | 0.0% |
| BTIG | 7.2% | 4.5% | 0.0% |
| Class of Instrument | Equities – Derivatives | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| < 1 Average trade per business day | N | ||
| Counterparty | Volume Traded (%) | Proportion of Orders Executed | Directed Trade (% Volume) |
| BAML | 27.8% | 7.3% | 0.0% |
| ITG | 20.7% | 38.4% | 0.0% |
| UBS | 16.9% | 4.0% | 0.0% |
| PEEL HUNT | 7.23% | 10.2% | 0.0% |
| PEEL HUNT | 6.3% | 4.4% | 0.0% |
| Class of Instrument | Equities – Derivatives | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| < 1 Average trade per business day | Y | ||
| Counterparty | Volume Traded (%) | Proportion of Orders Executed | Directed Trade (% Volume) |
| UBS | 100.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% |
| N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Best Execution Qualitative Information
| A summary of the analysis and conclusions the Firm draws from its detailed monitoring of the quality of execution obtained on the execution venues where it executed all client orders in the previous year | As part of BennBridge Ltd’s (“BennBridge” or the “Firm”) analysis of best execution in relation to equities, Transaction Cost Analysis (“TCA”) reports were obtained from a third party vendor. The Firm analysed the trades during the relevant period to determine whether any of the trades were greater than 100 bps from the VWAP. The reports cover slippage analysis as well as details of the Firm’s percentage of average daily volume traded. The monitoring completed confirmed that best execution was obtained consistently on the approved execution venues throughout the period. |
| An explanation of the relative importance the Firm gave to the execution factors of price, costs, speed, likelihood of execution or any other consideration including qualitative factors when assessing the quality of execution | BennBridge’s delivery of best execution is a key element in its commitment to act in the best interests of its clients, as well as being a regulatory requirement. The Firm prioritises ensuring that all sufficient steps are taken to obtain the best possible result for its clients when it executes, places or transmits orders on their behalf. This means taking into account the ‘execution factors’ such as price, costs, speed, likelihood of execution and settlement, size, nature or any other consideration relevant to the execution of the order. |
| A description of any close links, conflicts of interests, and common ownerships with respect to any execution venues used to execute orders | The Firm does not have any close links, conflicts of interests or common ownerships with respect to the execution venues it uses to execute orders. |
| A description of any specific arrangements with any execution venues regarding payments made or received, discounts, rebates or non-monetary benefits received | BennBridge has not entered into any arrangements with its execution venues regarding payments made or received, discounts or non-monetary benefits that would compromise its ability to meet its obligations in regards to best execution, conflicts of interest or inducements. When selecting execution venues for inclusion in the execution policy, the Firm does not take into account the fees and commissions that it will charge its clients, but focuses on the potential of the venues to enable the Firm to obtain on a consistent basis the best possible result for the execution of its client orders. However, the Firm does take into account the effect of its own fees and commission when choosing a venue for the execution of a particular client order. |
| An explanation of the factors that led to a change in the list of execution venues listed in the firm’s execution policy, if such a change occurred | Execution venues were added as appropriate, following the necessary onboarding due diligence. Such changes occur due to a number of factors, including the scope of financial instruments traded, consideration of commercial terms, determination of performance and providing additional venues through which to execute. |
| An explanation of how order execution differs according to client categorisation, where the Firm treats categories of clients differently and where it may affect the order execution arrangements | While BennBridge does take the characteristics of its clients into account when judging the relative importance of the execution factors, the Firm’s clients are exclusively professional clients and so are treated with a consistent approach. |
| An explanation of whether other criteria were given precedence over immediate price and cost when executing retail client orders and how these other criteria were instrumental in delivering the best possible result in terms of the total consideration to the client | The Firm does not execute retail client orders. |
| An explanation of how the Firm has used any data or tools relating to the quality of execution, including any data published under Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/575 | BennBridge compares and analyses relevant data to obtain best execution for a client, including execution quality data. The Firm transmits or places orders with other entities for execution and when the order relates to OTC products including bespoke products, checks the fairness of the price proposed to the client, by gathering market data used in the estimation of the price of such product and, where possible, by comparing with similar or comparable products. |
| Where applicable, an explanation of how the investment firm has used output of a consolidated tape provider established under Article 65 of Directive 2014/65/EU. | This is not currently applicable. |
