System and method for trade settlement tracking and relative ranking

• US 20030046219A1
• Filed: 05/30/2002
• Published: 03/06/2003
• Est. Priority Date: 06/01/2001
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (JP Morgan Chase & Co)
• Original Assignee: JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (JP Morgan Chase & Co)
• Inventors: Master, Warren, Phinney, John, Campfield, Thomas, Rosedale, Matthew P.
• Granted Patent: US 7,401,048 B2
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 705/37
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 40/00 Finance; Insurance; Tax strategies; Processing of corporate or income taxes
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 40/04 Trading; Exchange, e.g. stocks, commodities, derivatives or currency exchange

Abstract

A distributed computer system that enables end users to evaluate a broker'"'"'s trade settlement performance by market and across multiple markets in terms of how many of the broker'"'"'s trades failed. Trades are defined as having failed when the actual settle date exceeds the date on which the trade should have settled. The system analyzes trade settlement statistics about each broker within the context of a selected broker peer group, and ranks and compares a broker'"'"'s settlement performance relative to the peer group. The system also ranks the brokers based on a set of metrics relative to the selected peer group. A broker'"'"'s peer group is defined in terms of the broker'"'"'s relative size within the trade universe as determined by trade count.

Claims

1. A distributed computer system for performing analysis on trade settlement performance, the system comprising:

a data communications network;

a database connected to the communications network, wherein the database stores;

first data uniquely identifying one or more trading entities,

second data identifying one or more trades in which the trading entities engaged, and

third data describing a date on which one or more of the trades engaged in by the trading entities actually settled;

a server connected to the communications network and to the database, wherein the server is programmed to;

retrieve the first, second and third data,

use the third data to identify which of the trades included in the second data is a failed traded, wherein a failed trade is a trade that actually settles on a date beyond a settlement date, and wherein the settlement date is a date by which the trades included in the second data should have been settled, and

rank the trading entities based on their failed trades; and

a plurality of workstations operatively connected to the communication network, wherein each workstation provides a user with access to the server.

2. The computer system in accordance with claim 1, wherein the server is further programmed to filter the second data and display the filtered data to the user.

3. The computer system in accordance with claim 2, wherein the filtered data may be filtered based on one or more criteria selectable by the user.

4. The computer system in accordance with claim 3, wherein the user-selectable filtering criteria includes a criterion selected from the group consisting of:

a time period;

a transaction type;

a payment type;

a security type;

a geographic region; and

a country.

5. The computer system in accordance with claim 4, wherein the transaction type includes buys or sells or both.

6. The computer system in accordance with claim 4, wherein the payment type includes paid transactions, or free transactions, or both.

7. The computer system in accordance with claim 4, wherein the security type includes equity, debt, other security types, or all.

8. The computer system in accordance with claim 2, wherein the server is further programmed to display the filtered data organized by market.

9. The computer system in accordance with claim 2, wherein the server is further programmed to display the filtered data organized by trading entity.

10. The computer system in accordance with claim 2, wherein the server is further programmed to display the filtered data organized by ultimate parent.

11. The computer system in accordance with claim 2, wherein the server is further programmed to display the filtered data organized by parent.

12. The computer system in accordance with claim 2, wherein the server is further programmed to display the filtered data organized by principal broker.

13. The computer system in accordance with claim 2, wherein the server is further programmed to display the filtered data organized by clearer.

14. The computer system in accordance with claim 2, wherein the server is further programmed to rank trading entities in terms of a metric selected from the group consisting of:

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total trade count as compared to an aggregate total trade count for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to an aggregate total trade count for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to an aggregate total failed trade count for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to its individual total trade count;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total trade settlement amount as compared to an aggregate total trade settlement amount for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to an aggregate total trade settlement amount for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to an aggregate total failed trade settlement amount for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to its own individual total settlement amount; and

for all of a particular trading entity'"'"'s failed trades, the average number of days past the settlement date that the trades actually settled.

15. The computer system in accordance with claim 14, wherein the server is further programmed to rank trading entities in terms of a market complexity factor that represents the complexity of a particular market in which a particular trading entity has executed and settled trades.

16. The computer system in accordance with claim 15, wherein the market complexity factor is calculated by:

multiplying a particular trading entity'"'"'s total trade count within a particular market by an efficiency ratio score for the particular market, wherein the efficiency ratio score is based upon an efficiency characteristic for the particular market, the efficiency characteristic selected from the group consisting of;

trade matching requirements;

a settlement type;

a securities type;

existence of a central depository or registry;

a required lag time between a trade date and a settlement date;

extent of regulatory oversight; and

a securities legal framework.

17. The computer system in accordance with claim 2, wherein the server is further programmed to rank entities in terms of a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to an aggregate total trade count for a group of trading entities.

18. The computer system in accordance with claim 2, wherein the server is further programmed to rank entities in terms of a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to an aggregate total failed trade count for a group of trading entities.

19. The computer system in accordance with claim 2, wherein the server is further programmed to rank entities in terms of a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to its individual total trade count.

20. The computer system in accordance with claim 2, wherein the server is further programmed to rank entities in terms of a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to an aggregate total trade settlement amount for a group of trading entities.

21. The computer system in accordance with claim 2, wherein the server is further programmed to rank entities in terms of a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to an aggregate total failed trade settlement amount for a group of trading entities.

22. The computer system in accordance with claim 2, wherein the server is further programmed to rank entities in terms of a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to its own individual total settlement amount.

23. The computer system in accordance with claim 2, wherein the server is further programmed to rank entities in terms of for all a particular trading entity'"'"'s failed trades, the average number of days past the settlement date that the trades actually settled.

24. The computer system in accordance with claim 2, wherein the server is further programmed to rank trading entities in terms of:

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total trade count as compared to an aggregate total trade count for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to an aggregate total trade count for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to an aggregate total failed trade count for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to its individual total trade count;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total trade settlement amount as compared to an aggregate total trade settlement amount for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to an aggregate total trade settlement amount for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to an aggregate total failed trade settlement amount for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to its own individual total settlement amount; and

for all a particular trading entity'"'"'s failed trades, the average number of days past the settlement date that the trades actually settled.

25. The computer system in accordance with claim 24, wherein the server is further programmed to rank trading entities in terms of a market complexity factor that represents the complexity of a particular market in which a particular trading entity has executed and settled trades.

26. The computer system in accordance with claim 25, wherein the market complexity factor is calculated by:

multiplying a particular trading entity'"'"'s total trade count within a particular market by an efficiency ratio score for the particular market, wherein the efficiency ratio score is based upon an efficiency characteristic for the particular market, the efficiency characteristic selected from the group consisting of;

trade matching requirements;

a settlement type;

a securities type;

existence of a central depository or registry;

a required lag time between a trade date and a settlement date;

extent of regulatory oversight; and

a securities legal framework.

27. The computer system in accordance with claim 1, wherein the server is programmed to rank the trading entities relative to a peer group.

28. The computer system in accordance with claim 27, wherein the peer group is defined by the relative size of the trading entity as measured by the number of trades in which the trading entity engaged.

29. A method of analyzing trade settlement performance, the method comprising:

retrieving first data that uniquely identifies one or more trading entities;

retrieving second data that identifies one or more trades in which the trading entities engaged;

retrieving third data describing a date on which one or more of the trades engaged in by the trading entities actually settled;

using the third set of data to identify the trades included in the second data which failed, wherein a trade failed if it actually settles on a date beyond a settlement date, and wherein the settlement date is a date by which the trades included in the second data should have been settled; and

ranking the trading entities based on their failed trades.

30. The method in accordance with claim 29, further comprising:

filtering the second data; and

displaying the filtered data to the user.

31. The method in accordance with claim 30, wherein the filtering step further comprises filtering based on one or more criteria selectable by the user.

32. The method in accordance with claim 31, wherein the filtering step includes filtering by a criterion selected from the group consisting of:

a time period;

a transaction type;

a payment type;

a security type;

a geographic region; and

a country.

33. The method in accordance with claim 32, wherein the transaction type filtering criteria includes buys or sells or both.

34. The method in accordance with claim 32, wherein the payment type includes paid transactions or free transactions, or both.

35. The method in accordance with claim 32, wherein the security type includes equity, debt, other security types or all.

36. The method in accordance with claim 30, further comprising displaying the filtered data organized by market.

37. The method in accordance with claim 30, further comprising displaying the filtered data organized by trading entity.

38. The method in accordance with claim 30, further comprising displaying the filtered data organized by ultimate parent.

39. The method in accordance with claim 30, further comprising displaying the filtered data organized by parent.

40. The method in accordance with claim 30, further comprising displaying the filtered data organized by principal broker.

41. The method in accordance with claim 30, further comprising displaying the filtered data organized by clearer.

42. The method in accordance with claim 30, further comprising the step of ranking each trading entity in terms of a metric selected from the group consisting of:

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total trade count as compared to an aggregate total trade count for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to an aggregate total trade count for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to an aggregate total failed trade count for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to its individual total trade count;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total trade settlement amount as compared to an aggregate total trade settlement amount for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to an aggregate total trade settlement amount for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to an aggregate total failed trade settlement amount for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to its own individual total settlement amount; and

for all of a particular trading entity'"'"'s failed trades, the average number of days past the settlement date that the trades actually settled.

43. The method in accordance with claim 42, further comprising the step of ranking trading entities in terms of a market complexity factor that represents the complexity of a particular market in which a particular trading entity has executed and settled trades.

44. The method in accordance with claim 43, further comprising the step of calculating the market complexity factor by:

multiplying a particular trading entity'"'"'s total trade count within a particular market by an efficiency ratio score for the particular market, wherein the efficiency ratio score is based upon an efficiency characteristic for the particular market, the efficiency characteristic selected from the group consisting of;

trade matching requirements;

a settlement type;

a securities type;

existence of a central depository or registry;

a required lag time between a trade date and a settlement date;

extent of regulatory oversight; and

a securities legal framework.

45. The method in accordance with claim 30, further comprising the step of ranking each trading entity in terms of a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to an aggregate total trade count for a group of trading entities.

46. The method in accordance with claim 30, further comprising the step of ranking each trading entity in terms of a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to an aggregate total failed trade count for a group of trading entities.

47. The method in accordance with claim 30, further comprising the step of ranking each trading entity in terms of a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to its individual total trade count.

48. The method in accordance with claim 30, further comprising the step of ranking each trading entity in terms of a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to an aggregate total trade settlement amount for a group of trading entities.

49. The method in accordance with claim 30, further comprising the step of ranking each trading entity in terms of a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to an aggregate total failed trade settlement amount for a group of trading entities.

50. The method in accordance with claim 30, further comprising the step of ranking each trading entity in terms of a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to its own individual total settlement amount.

51. The method in accordance with claim 30, further comprising the step of ranking each trading entity in terms of, for all a particular trading entity'"'"'s failed trades, the average number of days past the settlement date that the trades actually settled.

52. The method in accordance with claim 30, further comprising the step of ranking each trading entity in terms of:

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total trade count as compared to an aggregate total trade count for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to an aggregate total trade count for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to an aggregate total failed trade count for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to its individual total trade count;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total trade settlement amount as compared to an aggregate total trade settlement amount for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to an aggregate total trade settlement amount for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to an aggregate total failed trade settlement amount for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to its own individual total settlement amount; and

for all of a particular trading entity'"'"'s failed trades, the average number of days past the settlement date that the trades actually settled.

53. The method in accordance with claim 52, further comprising the step of ranking trading entities in terms of a market complexity factor that represents the complexity of a particular market in which a particular trading entity has executed and settled trades.

54. The method in accordance with claim 53, further comprising the step of calculating the market complexity factor by:

multiplying a particular trading entity'"'"'s total trade count within a particular market by an efficiency ratio score for the particular market, wherein the efficiency ratio score is based upon an efficiency characteristic for the particular market, the efficiency characteristic selected from the group consisting of;

trade matching requirements;

a settlement type;

a securities type;

existence of a central depository or registry;

a required lag time between a trade date and a settlement date;

extent of regulatory oversight; and

a securities legal framework.

55. The method in accordance with claim 29, wherein the server is programmed to rank the brokers relative to a peer group.

56. The method in accordance with claim 55, wherein the peer group is defined by the relative size of the trading entity as measured by the number of trades in which the trading entity has engaged.

109. The method in accordance with claim 52, further comprising the step of ranking trading entities in terms of a market complexity factor that represents the complexity of a particular market in which a particular trading entity has executed and settled trades.

110. The method in accordance with claim 53, further comprising the step of calculating the market complexity factor by:

multiplying a particular trading entity'"'"'s total trade count within a particular market by an efficiency ratio score for the particular market, wherein the efficiency ratio score is based upon an efficiency characteristic for the particular market, the efficiency characteristic selected from the group consisting of;

trade matching requirements;

a settlement type;

a securities type;

existence of a central depository or registry;

a required lag time between a trade date and a settlement date;

extent of regulatory oversight; and

a securities legal framework.

111. The method in accordance with claim 110, further comprising the step of ranking trading entities in terms of a market complexity factor that represents the complexity of a particular market in which a particular trading entity has executed and settled trades.

112. The method in accordance with claim 111, further comprising the step of calculating the market complexity factor by:

multiplying a particular trading entity'"'"'s total trade count within a particular market by an efficiency ratio score for the particular market, wherein the efficiency ratio score is based upon an efficiency characteristic for the particular market, the efficiency characteristic selected from the group consisting of;

trade matching requirements;

a settlement type;

a securities type;

existence of a central depository or registry;

a required lag time between a trade date and a settlement date;

extent of regulatory oversight; and

a securities legal framework.

57. A distributed computer system for performing analysis on trade settlement performance, the system comprising:

a data communications network;

a database connected to the communications network, wherein the database stores;

first data uniquely identifying one or more trading entities;

second data identifying one or more trades, for a specified account, in which the trading entities engaged; and

third data describing a date on which one or more of the trades engaged in by the trading entities;

a server connected to the communications network and to the database, wherein the server is programmed to;

retrieve the first, second and third data;

use the third data to identify which of the trades included in the second data is a failed traded, wherein a failed trade is a trade that actually settles on a date beyond a settlement date, and wherein the settlement date is a date by which the trades included in the second data should have been settled, and

rank the trading entities based on their failed trades; and

a plurality of workstations operatively connected to the communication network, wherein each workstation provides a user with access to the server.

58. The computer system in accordance with claim 57, wherein the server is further programmed to:

filter the second data; and

display the filtered data to the user.

59. The computer system in accordance with claim 58, wherein the filtered data may be filtered based on one or more criteria selectable by the user.

60. The computer system in accordance with claim 59, wherein the user-selectable filtering criteria includes a criterion selected from the group consisting of:

a time period;

a transaction type;

a payment type;

a security type;

a geographic region; and

a country.

61. The computer system in accordance with claim 60, wherein the transaction type includes buys or sells or both.

62. The computer system in accordance with claim 60, wherein the payment type includes paid transactions, or free transactions, or both.

63. The computer system in accordance with claim 60, wherein the security type includes equity, debt, other security types, or all.

64. The computer system in accordance with claim 58, wherein the server is further programmed to display the filtered data organized by market.

65. The computer system in accordance with claim 58, wherein the server is further programmed to display the filtered data organized by trading entity.

66. The computer system in accordance with claim 58, wherein the server is further programmed to display the filtered data organized by ultimate parent.

67. The computer system in accordance with claim 58, wherein the server is further programmed to display the filtered data organized by parent.

68. The computer system in accordance with claim 58, wherein the server is further programmed to display the filtered data organized by principal broker.

69. The computer system in accordance with claim 58, wherein the server is further programmed to display the filtered data organized by clearer.

70. The computer system in accordance with claim 58, wherein the server is further programmed to rank trading entities in terms of a metric selected from the group consisting of:

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total trade count as compared to an aggregate total trade count for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to an aggregate total trade count for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to an aggregate total failed trade count for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to its individual total trade count;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total trade settlement amount as compared to an aggregate total trade settlement amount for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to an aggregate total trade settlement amount for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to an aggregate total failed trade settlement amount for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to its own individual total settlement amount; and

for all of a particular trading entity'"'"'s failed trades, the average number of days past the settlement date that the trades actually settled.

71. The computer system in accordance with claim 70, wherein the server is further programmed to rank trading entities in terms of a market complexity factor that represents the complexity of a particular market in which a particular trading entity has executed and settled trades.

72. The computer system in accordance with claim 71, wherein the market complexity factor is calculated by:

multiplying a particular trading entity'"'"'s total trade count within a particular market by an efficiency ratio score for the particular market, wherein the efficiency ratio score is based upon an efficiency characteristic for the particular market, the efficiency characteristic selected from the group consisting of;

trade matching requirements;

a settlement type;

a securities type;

existence of a central depository or registry;

a required lag time between a trade date and a settlement date;

extent of regulatory oversight; and

a securities legal framework.

73. The computer system in accordance with claim 58, wherein the server is further programmed to rank entities in terms of a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to an aggregate total trade count for a group of trading entities.

74. The computer system in accordance with claim 58, wherein the server is further programmed to rank entities in terms of a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to an aggregate total failed trade count for a group of trading entities.

75. The computer system in accordance with claim 58, wherein the server is further programmed to rank entities in terms of a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to its individual total trade count.

76. The computer system in accordance with claim 58, wherein the server is further programmed to rank entities in terms of a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to an aggregate total trade settlement amount for a group of trading entities.

77. The computer system in accordance with claim 58, wherein the server is further programmed to rank entities in terms of a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to an aggregate total failed trade settlement amount for a group of trading entities.

78. The computer system in accordance with claim 58, wherein the server is further programmed to rank entities in terms of a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to its own individual total settlement amount.

79. The computer system in accordance with claim 58, wherein the server is further programmed to rank entities in terms of for all a particular trading entity'"'"'s failed trades, the average number of days past the settlement date that the trades actually settled.

80. The computer system in accordance with claim 58, wherein the server is further programmed to rank trading entities in terms of:

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total trade count as compared to an aggregate total trade count for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to an aggregate total trade count for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to an aggregate total failed trade count for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to its individual total trade count;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total trade settlement amount as compared to an aggregate total trade settlement amount for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to an aggregate total trade settlement amount for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to an aggregate total failed trade settlement amount for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to its own individual total settlement amount; and

for all of a particular trading entity'"'"'s failed trades, the average number of days past the settlement date that the trades actually settled.

81. The computer system in accordance with claim 80, wherein the server is further programmed to rank trading entities in terms of a market complexity factor that represents the complexity of a particular market in which a particular trading entity has executed and settled trades.

82. The computer system in accordance with claim 81, wherein the market complexity factor is calculated by:

multiplying a particular trading entity'"'"'s total trade count within a particular market by an efficiency ratio score for the particular market, wherein the efficiency ratio score is based upon an efficiency characteristic for the particular market, the efficiency characteristic selected from the group consisting of;

trade matching requirements;

a settlement type;

a securities type;

existence of a central depository or registry;

a required lag time between a trade date and a settlement date;

extent of regulatory oversight; and

a securities legal framework.

83. The computer system in accordance with claim 57, wherein the server is programmed to rank the trading entities relative to a peer group.

84. The computer system in accordance with claim 83, wherein the peer group is defined by the relative size of the trading entity as measured by the number of trades in which the trading entity engaged.

85. A method of analyzing trade settlement performance, the method comprising:

retrieving first data that uniquely identifies one or more trading entities;

retrieving second data that identifies one or more trades, for a specified account, in which the trading entities engaged;

retrieving third data describing a date on which one or more of the trades engaged in by the trading entities for a specified account actually settled;

using the third set of data to identify the trades included in the second data which failed, wherein a trade failed if it actually settles on a date beyond a settlement date, and wherein the settlement date is a date by which the trades included in the second data should have been settled; and

ranking the trading entities based on their failed trades.

86. The method in accordance with claim 85, further comprising:

filtering the second data; and

displaying the filtered data to the user.

87. The method in accordance with claim 86, wherein the filtering step further comprises filtering based on one or more criteria selectable by the user.

88. The method in accordance with claim 87, wherein the filtering step includes filtering by a criterion selected from the group consisting of:

a time period;

a transaction type;

a payment type;

a security type;

a geographic region; and

a country.

89. The method in accordance with claim 88, wherein the transaction type filtering criteria includes buys or sells or both.

90. The method in accordance with claim 88, wherein the payment type filtering criteria includes paid transactions or free transactions, or both.

91. The method in accordance with claim 88, wherein the security type filtering criteria includes equity, debt, other security types, or all.

92. The method in accordance with claim 86, further comprising displaying the filtered data organized by market.

93. The method in accordance with claim 86, further comprising displaying the filtered data organized by trading entity.

94. The method in accordance with claim 86, further comprising displaying the filtered data organized by ultimate parent.

95. The method in accordance with claim 86, further comprising displaying the filtered data organized by parent.

96. The method in accordance with claim 86, further comprising displaying the filtered data organized by principal broker.

97. The method in accordance with claim 86, further comprising displaying the filtered data organized by clearer.

98. The method in accordance with claim 86, further comprising the step of ranking each trading entity in terms of a metric selected from the group consisting of:

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total trade count as compared to an aggregate total trade count for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to an aggregate total trade count for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to an aggregate total failed trade count for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to its individual total trade count;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total trade settlement amount as compared to an aggregate total trade settlement amount for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to an aggregate total trade settlement amount for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to an aggregate total failed trade settlement amount for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to its own individual total settlement amount; and

for all of a particular trading entity'"'"'s failed trades, the average number of days past the settlement date that the trades actually settled.

99. The method in accordance with claim 98, further comprising the step of ranking trading entities in terms of a market complexity factor that represents the complexity of a particular market in which a particular trading entity has executed and settled trades.

100. The method in accordance with claim 99, further comprising the step of calculating the market complexity factor by:

multiplying a particular trading entity'"'"'s total trade count within a particular market by an efficiency ratio score for the particular market, wherein the efficiency ratio score is based upon an efficiency characteristic for the particular market, the efficiency characteristic selected from the group consisting of;

trade matching requirements;

a settlement type;

a securities type;

existence of a central depository or registry;

a required lag time between a trade date and a settlement date;

extent of regulatory oversight; and

a securities legal framework.

101. The method in accordance with claim 86, further comprising the step of ranking, each trading entity in terms of a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to an aggregate total trade count for a group of trading entities.

102. The method in accordance with claim 86, further comprising the step of ranking each trading entity in terms of a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to an aggregate total failed trade count for a group of trading entities.

103. The method in accordance with claim 86, further comprising the step of ranking each trading entity in terms of a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to its individual total trade count.

104. The method in accordance with claim 86, further comprising the step of ranking each trading entity in terms of a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to an aggregate total trade settlement amount for a group of trading entities.

105. The method in accordance with claim 86, further comprising the step of ranking each trading entity in terms of a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to an aggregate total failed trade settlement amount for a group of trading entities.

106. The method in accordance with claim 86, further comprising the step of ranking each trading entity in terms of a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to its own individual total settlement amount.

107. The method in accordance with claim 86, further comprising the step of ranking each trading entity in terms of, for all a particular trading entity'"'"'s failed trades, the average number of days past the settlement date that the trades actually settled.

108. The method in accordance with claim 86, further comprising the step of ranking each trading entity in terms of:

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total trade count as compared to an aggregate total trade count for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to an aggregate total trade count for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to an aggregate total failed trade count for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade count as compared to its individual total trade count;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total trade settlement amount as compared to an aggregate total trade settlement amount for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to an aggregate total trade settlement amount for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to an aggregate total failed trade settlement amount for a group of trading entities;

a particular trading entity'"'"'s individual total failed trade settlement amount as compared to its own individual total settlement amount; and

for all of a particular trading entity'"'"'s failed trades, the average number of days past the settlement date that the trades actually settled.

113. The method in accordance with claim 85, wherein the server is programmed to rank the brokers relative to a peer group.

114. The method in accordance with claim 113, wherein the peer group is defined by the relative size of the trading entity as measured by the number of trades in which the trading entity has engaged.