Home Blog Page 13

Citadel Securities calls for Dodd-Frank component rollback

Citadel Securities
Citadel Securities

Citadel Securities has called for more scrutiny around market data fees, arguing that costs are currently “excessive”.

The company states that market data fees, which make up a large proportion of exchanges’ revenues, are inflated. This increases the barrier to entry for smaller broker-dealers, increases costs for investors and ultimately misaligns with fairness requirements in the Exchange Act, it says.

Under the Exchange Act, modified by the Dodd-Frank Act, member fee changes can be established with immediate effect once self-regulatory organisation (SRO) documents are filed. These filings do not have to be approved by the SEC to become active, and exchanges can retract and refile repeatedly until they collect the relevant fee, Citadel Securities says.

The Dodd-Frank modification should be rescinded, Citadel Securities argues, as it allows exchanges to file fee changes with impunity and without oversight.

The company’s complaint echoes the report from Market Structure Partners on data costs in Europe earlier this year.

READ MORE: Buy side cries price gouging, exchanges say it’s a smokescreen

Filings from US exchanges illustrate the growing profits being made from market data fees.

In the first three months of 2025, revenues for Nasdaq’s data and listing service was up 3% year-on-year (YoY) to US$192 million. At ICE, data and network technology revenues were US$172 million – up 6%. Cboe reported “a decline in industry market data fees” for its North American equities business in the first quarter, but reported the greatest revenue increase of the three exchanges – an 8% YoY gain, reaching US$77.8 million in market data fee revenues over Q1 2025.

24-hour trading day ends at 8pm, SIPs say—Citadel issues warnings

Jeff Kimsey, chairman, SIPs Operating Committees
Jeff Kimsey, chairman, SIPs Operating Committees

The pieces are falling into place for the US to move to 24-hour trading as major industry bodies prepare for the move. However, Citadel Securities has called on the SEC to introduce more consistent rules around the new operating structure.

Earlier this month, the transaction securities information processors (SIPs) Operating Committees announced that it plans to extend its operating hours to a 24-hour model. A ‘technical pause’ of less than an hour has been built into each 24-hour cycle, allowing all involved parties to refresh their systems at 8pm ET. As such, a new trading day will begin at 9pm ET – 2am in the UK.

Once submitted to the SEC, plans for the amendment will be accepted or rejected within 300 days.

In a recent letter to the SEC, Citadel Securities stressed that a number of regulatory and infrastructural issues need to be addressed before 24-hour trading can be effective. For the former, “handling requirements, execution quality disclosures and volatility controls must be clear, fit for purpose and consistent across venues,” it says.

On the infrastructure side, key players such as the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation’s (DTCC) National Securities Clearing Corporation (NSCC) and services including SIPs and transaction reporting facilities must be reliably available during trading hours.

SIPs have highlighted three prerequisites for their extended hours to be adopted. The first of these, for DTCC to offer clearing over the 24-hour cycle, are already in motion. Earlier this year, the group announced that 24/5 clearing for the NSCC would be effective from Q2 2026.

READ MORE: DTCC prepares for 24-hour trading onslaught

Additionally, SIPs says, processors must be technically able to disseminate all quotes and trades during the operating hours. The group intends to ask the SEC whether the extension of trade reporting facility operating hours to allow this will be a prerequisite for its 24-hour model.

Finally, the group states that the listing markets must be able to support the 24-hour model as processors will need to change symbol directory messages.

Jeff Kimsey, chairman of the SIP Operating Committees, commented: “We know the industry is eager to move toward 24-hour trading, and the SIPs are determined to make the changes necessary to make available the market data that will facilitate that.”

Dates for the 24-hour implementation will be determined once regulatory and technical requirements have been met.

Citadel Securities also emphasised the need for trade date and settlement date assignments during overnight sessions to be consistent across the market.

The SIPs Operating Committees, Cboe and NYSE declined to comment on Citadel Securities’ statements.

The drive for institutional 24-hour trading is in part the result of growing competition from retail brokers like Robinhood and Interactive Brokers, which allow clients to access US stocks on a 24/5 basis, and a comfort with 24/7 cryptocurrency trading. International investors are also keen to access the US equity market outside of standard trading hours.

READ MORE: Stocks around the clock

In recent months, Cboe, NYSE and Nasdaq have all announced plans to extend their trading hours. Challenger exchanges like 24X National Exchange have built themselves with 24-hour trading in mind.

Navigating currency risk: The evolution of FX hedging

FX Hedging

Equity traders have a significant toolkit to hedge FX risk, but which strategies are proving optimum for managing currency exposure? Gill Wadsworth reports.

The great migration of equity allocations across borders has been in evidence for decades. Investors cognisant of the risks of having too many of their eggs in a domestic basket have long sought the relative refuge of global equity mandates to bring a geographic spread to their portfolios.

And so this trend continues. According to the Schroders Global Investor Insights survey 2024, 55% of pension funds expect to increase their global equity allocation, away from pure domestic holdings, for the next one to two years.

Notwithstanding the potential exposure to a dominant handful of US stocks, opting for a global equity mandate is a neat way to access overseas return, but with this return comes currency risk as FX fluctuations can significantly impact portfolio returns.

But the decision to hedge that FX risk is not always an easy one. Equity returns are inherently volatile, and currency movements often interact with them in complex ways rather than remaining independent.

From a short-term risk perspective, it might make sense to adopt low FX hedge ratios of equities from relatively safe haven areas such as the Swiss franc, Japanese yen and US dollar which tend to appreciate during periods of equity market selloffs, providing an offsetting effect. Conversely, it is theoretically optimal to apply higher hedge ratios for currencies from relatively risky regions, as they are more likely to depreciate during market downturns.

Florent Herelle
Florent Herelle

Florent Herelle, Head of Derivative Overlay, at L&G’s asset management business, says: “Typically, the currency profile – hedged or unhedged – of an equity portfolio is inherently linked to the investment objective of that particular portfolio. For example, an index fund tracking a currency hedged benchmark will currency hedge the non-domestic equity holdings according to the benchmark index methodology.”

He continues: “We find that views on currency profile typically sit at the strategic asset allocation level – such as allocating between currency unhedged and currency hedged funds – rather than the individual portfolio level. It is common for the non-domestic equity allocation to retain a proportion of currency exposure while the fixed-income allocation is typically fully currency hedged.”

Further, as an extension of managing a strategic currency profile, investors – typically global macro funds – can also view currency markets as a standalone investable source of return to generate alpha.

Specialist support

Managing FX risk in-house requires significant expertise, and while strategies will be fully tailored and the buy side has full oversight and control, they can be a considerable operational burden to maintain.

For some buy-side traders it makes sense to outsource FX hedging to providers offering forward and options execution, currency overlay and custom hedging, leaving them to get on with the business of managing the stocks.

A 2024 State Street survey reveals that while fewer than one-fifth (18%) of global institutional investors currently outsource FX trading, almost three-quarters (73%) plan to do so in future.

Specialist currency overlay managers offer dedicated teams with expertise in FX dynamics, monetary policy analysis and hedging instruments. And they have access to advanced technology, algorithms and real-time data for efficient execution.

Jason Lenzo
Jason Lenzo

Jason Lenzo, Managing Director & Global Head of Trading, Russell Investments, says: “When currency hedging global equity portfolios, the choice of currency hedge ratio can be more complex than when currency hedging fixed income portfolios. Understanding embedded currency exposure in global equity portfolios and understanding the correlations between foreign equity prices and exchange rates is critical in determining optimal hedge ratios. We have developed tools to conduct this analysis as clients continue to ask for guidance in this area.”

Meanwhile Marcus Fernandes, Global Head of Currency Management, Banking & Markets at Northern Trust, adds: “We have very large clients, so efficiency is a big driver of what defines an optimal [FX hedging] solution. Hedging FX risk across portfolios with large and varied holdings requires seamless data-capture and operations as well as access to liquidity.”

Fernandes says he sees a strong demand for tech-led products with automation driving scale alongside strong real-time transparency, where clients value the ability to monitor the hedges as we manage them.

Paying it forward

Jason Fernandes
Marcus Fernandes

Derivatives play an important role in FX hedging. “We operate in the FX forward and spot markets, which are some of the deepest markets out there,” Fernades says. “These more vanilla instruments allow for efficiencies of scale when operating in size as well as lower volatility risks from having fewer moving parts.”

Forwards are a key part of the FX hedging toolkit at Schroders FX Solutions, where traders have an eye on cost efficiencies and tailored strategies. Forwards usually have no upfront premium to pay and execution costs are built into the spread, making them more cost effective than options.

Darren Bustin, Global Head of Solutions Capabilities and Insurance Capabilities at Schroders Solutions, says: “We aim to implement currency hedging programmes using liquid and cost-effective instruments. FX forwards and cross-currency swaps are the primary derivative products used to reduce foreign-exchange risk.”

He continues: “In an increasing number of situations, FX options are utilised to tailor hedges that align more closely with clients’ currency expectations and risk tolerances. Notably, to hedge illiquid private assets, we observe widespread use of FX forwards rolled at historical rates. This approach minimises the portfolio’s need for substantial cash holdings, thereby reducing the drag of such cash on performance.”

For buy-side managers that hedge FX risk in house, futures and forwards are no less important but traders obviously rely on their own internal expertise to run the strategies.

Ed Wicks

Ed Wicks, Global Head of Trading and Liquidity Management at L&G’s asset management business, says the business offers 24-hour coverage for the portfolio management five days a week, executing approximately £7 trillion across all asset classes, of which £1 trillion is FX related activity.

“We break that down to three types of FX activity: FX futures and options, so listed derivatives; the FX outright business; and the FX swap business. By far the biggest part of those three would be swaps, followed by the outright business, and then the futures business,” Wicks explains.

The outright FX business focuses on forwards, which Wicks says typically are executed via an algorithmic execution channel, leveraging broker provided algorithms. “Or we may want to transfer the risk more quickly, in which case we would use RFQ,” Wicks adds.

Meanwhile, Elke Wenzler, Head of Multi-Asset Trading Desk at MEAG, a Munich Re company with €347 billion under management where 30% of the equity portfolio is non-euro denominated, says her portfolio managers look at FX risk holistically across all asset classes.

“We are a very active, very FX intensive business which is why we don’t outsource.” She continues: “We use forwards and a lot of options as well, which distinguishes us from others.”

Elke Wenzler

Wenzler explains that MEAG combines plain vanilla options with forwards to manage FX risk across different currencies depending on the available risk budget. “We use triggers to decide which currencies are worthwhile hedging and look at what costs are involved. And then we use technical analysis to understand the market circumstances and the current risk appetite of the mandate. It is a bespoke strategy,” she says.

Technology driven

Irrespective of whether the FX is outsourced or traded inhouse, the latest technology is essential in delivering best execution.

Technological advancements have made FX hedging more precise, cost-effective and transparent. Automation, AI and advanced data analytics allow global equity investors to manage currency risk with greater speed, accuracy and scalability.

Darren Bustin
Darren Bustin

Bustin says: “Technology and automation are both key to operationally scale Schroders’ capabilities in implementing FX hedging strategies. Our ability to trade FX efficiently and efficaciously is a function of our group investment into systems and implementing straight-through processes (STP) to reduce both time and risk.”

STP in FX trading is evolving rapidly, with automation, AI, and cloud computing driving major improvements. These technologies enhance efficiency, reduce risk, and ensure that FX trades flow seamlessly from order to settlement. As more players adopt advanced STP systems, the FX market is becoming faster, safer, and more transparent.

Wenzler says: “STP significantly reduces the risks in the trading process. Options trading was always a very bespoke scene between client and counterpart, and now we have a much better and safer approach using STP.”

Wicks agrees that technology is a “huge part of all of what we do across all asset classes, including FX”. He adds: “We leverage automation technologies through our execution management systems, so low value orders can be identified, the benchmark can be identified, and they can be automatically routed to an appropriate venue and then automatically booked once they’ve been filled.”

Wicks notes that given the size of L&G’s asset management business, it operates three different trading systems which means it can avoid the major inconvenience should anything go wrong.

“We have access to three different trading systems for FX. A primary trading system, which is where the majority of our flow goes, a secondary system for backup and – given the size of our business – we maintain a third to secure operational resilience.”

Technology is also critical for Northen Trust which, like L&G, is responsible for trillions worth of assets.

Fernandes says: “The sheer size and trading volume in currency markets means that technology has a massive impact on the solutions we can provide. We are a large-scale aggregator of data in currency management, and volatility increases the potential for errors in the data. Our global technology platform enables a level of oversight, risk management and automation that was not possible a number of years ago.”

He says outsourced providers can offer different levels of automation, to match the needs of their clients, adding: “Along with technology, it’s also important to provide clients the expertise to guide them through the process of digitising, automating and optimising their FX operations.”

As FX hedging evolves from a simple execution exercise to one that offers strategic benefits, so traders need a blend of technology expertise, data-driven insights and collaborative decision-making. Whether hedging in-house or outsourcing to third-party specialists, those who can leverage automation, integrate advanced analytics and align FX strategies with broader portfolio goals deliver optimum outcomes.

Hunstad and Roth take investment reins at NTAM

Michael Hunstad and Christian Roth, global co-chief investment officers, Northern Trust Asset Management
Michael Hunstad and Christian Roth, global co-chief investment officers, Northern Trust Asset Management

Northern Trust Asset Management (NTAM) has named Michael Hunstad and Christian Roth global co-chief investment officers, effective 1 June.

They replace Angelo Manioudakis, who has held the role since 2021, and report to NTAM president Daniel Gamba.

NTAM holds US$1.3 trillion in assets under management, US$758 billion of which is made up of equity assets. A further US$490.1 billion consist of fixed income and liquidity assets.

The duo are responsible for NTAM’s overall investment philosophy and performance. They will manage the group’s regional chief investment officers across asset classes.

Gamba commented: “They have each made significant contributions to NTAM’s investment platform, aligned to NTAM’s core philosophy that investors should be compensated for the risks they take, in all market environments and investment strategies.”

Hunstad has been chief investment officer for global equities at NTAM since 2020, and deputy chief investment officer since 2023. Half of his more than two-decade career has been spent with NTAM, holding roles including head of quantitative research and head of global equity strategy.

Earlier in his career, Hunstad was a senior quantitative strategist at algo trading firm Breakwater Capital and head of asset allocation research at Allstate Investments.

Roth has close to four decades of industry experience, and has been chief investment officer for global fixed income at NTAM since April 2024. Prior to this, he spent almost 25 years at Morgan Stanley Investment Management – most latterly leading the fixed income markets division.

European SME definition too small, exchanges complain

ESMA
ESMA

Market participants are keen to bring more companies under the small and medium enterprise (SME) umbrella, stating that the current €200 million cap is outdated.

In its report to the European Commission, the European Securities and Markets Authority’s (ESMA) has issued a series of recommendations to support the goals of the Listing Act.

Introduced in November 2024, the listing act was designed with the intention of improving public capital market access to European companies and encouraging companies to IPO – and remain – on European markets. 

READ MORE: Listing act not enough to keep IPOs in Europe, AFME says

Following a series of consultation papers on Level 2 measures for the act, ESMA has issued recommendations around MiFID II, the Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) and the Prospectus Regulation. The Commission has until July 2026 to adopt these recommendations.

SME GMs

ESMA reviewed the requirements for multilateral trading facilities (MTFs) and segments to register as small and medium enterprise growth markets (SME GMs). This category, introduced in Article 33 of MiFID II, aims to make it easier for SMEs to access capital markets and for specialist markets catering to these SMEs to develop further.

Further clarifying how an MTF can operate an SME GM, ESMA emphasised the need for high levels of investor protection and confidence, and minimal administrative burdens for issuers.

Some responses from industry bodies noted that the determining SME threshold of €200 million under MiFID II is too low, and should be raised to include mid-cap firms. Participants stated that this could increase market attractiveness and liquidity. ESMA has recommended that the European Commission take this into consideration.

In its response, Deutsche Borse commented: “The underlying definition of an SME within MiFID II (and other regulations) should be unified and increased regarding the market capitalisation. We support raising the threshold for companies qualifying from an average market capitalisation of €200 million to €500 million.”

Euronext proposed a greater increase, to €1 billion. 

Article 78(2)(e) of CDR 2017/565 requires issuers to state whether their working capital is sufficient for present requirements. ESMA proposed that this requirement be aligned with the prospectus regulation and growth issuance prospects, specifying that working capital is applicable only for share issuances. 

This was a more contentious issue for respondents, some of whom believe that this would increase administrative and monetary costs with limited benefits and could misrepresent an issuer’s overall financial health.

MAR

On MAR, requests were made by market participants for further clarification of what ‘inside information’ means, how the delay mechanism can be activated under the new structure, and the protocol for rumours or leaks occurring before the final event or circumstance. Participants also called for flexibility in the regime, with each case considered separately.

ESMA has recommended that protracted processes are more clearly defined as “a series of several actions or steps spread in time which need to be performed, in order to achieve a pre-defined objective or result”. The category is further down into three categories with this definition, identifying the relevant time for disclosure:  (i) protracted processes that are entirely internal to the issuer, (ii) processes that involve the issuer and external counterparties and (iii) protracted processes that involve the issuer and public authorities. 

ESMA has clarified that inside information related to intermediate steps in a protracted process is not subject to delayed disclosure requirements during disclosure. 

Responding to the proposals, Nasdaq Nordics called for simplified and clarified guidance across member states when it comes to disclosing inside information in a protracted process.

“Although the establishment of the “decision to sign off the agreement” as the moment when disclosure is expected is a positive step in forming a common understanding of MAR, Nasdaq Nordic suggests ESMA to consider the signing of an agreement as the key moment instead. The “decision to sign off” could be subject to different interpretations in different member states,” it stated.

“[This is] a much more concrete event in a protracted process, where a legally binding agreement comes into existence for all parties, and thus not as open to different interpretations.” 

By contrast, Deutsche Borse suggested that stakeholders inform the market earlier – when the authority decides to begin proceedings. Opting for the time of decision to sign off on the agreement as the point of disclosure is too late, it argued.

“It does not make much sense to define the receipt by the issuer of the final decision of the authority as the final event if that final event will never be the relevant point in time of disclosure in practice. Also, for some allegations even the initiation of proceedings would represent a price-sensitive event.”

“DBG thinks that ESMA’s assumption that the management board decision already provides for a sufficient degree of certainty regarding the outcome of the process disregards the crucial role of the supervisory board as an independent body in two-tier systems. If the supervisory board approval is mandatory under statutory law, such approval requirement should be considered. We would therefore ask ESMA to please reconsider its current position.” 

The group also stated that clarification is needed to determine whether elements of protracted processes depend, at least partly, on the issuer or not. Currently, it said, the scenarios this model applies to is uncertain.

Jefferies: The next step in outsourced trading

Outsourced trading continues to grow, with an increasing number of firms opting for the strategy to build out their operations.

Dean Gray, head of international outsourced trading, and Joram Siegel, head of fixed income outsourced trading at Jefferies discuss the evolving space, what makes their offering stand out, and what comes next.

What does the current landscape look like and where does Jefferies sit amongst the outsourced trading offerings?

Dean Gray, Jefferies
Dean Gray, Head of EMEA Outsourced Trading, Jefferies International.

Dean Gray: The outsourced trading landscape has evolved into a number of differentiated offerings, all customisable to the needs of the underlying client.

Larger players who can invest more and scale their businesses are dominating the space, enhancing the overall quality of the Outsourced Trading offering for our clients. Bigger providers are also able to attract tier-one talent to their teams which, subsequently, firms of all sizes have access to. For more sophisticated clients, affiliation to recognised brand names, like Jefferies, makes them more comfortable with outsourcing.

The desk is ring fenced within our prime services group of offerings, and that affiliation allows us to provide a number of ancillary services that increase our partnership with clients and aid their growth. These include financing, synthetics, capital introduction, trade reporting, portfolio accounting and commission management. That said, you do not need to use Jefferies as a prime broker to be a client of the outsourced trading desk – many are not.

While other participants have merged or excited the Outsourced Trading business, Jefferies has continued to invest, cementing its position as a market leader in the industry.

We have operational resilience. We’ve got robust service, technology and business continuity. Also, being part of a firm the size of Jefferies allows our outsourced trading offering to go well beyond just providing a better execution for our clients. We can give them a trading infrastructure above what others can offer.

What have been the catalysts for growth and how has outsourced trading been adopted globally? Why have we seen this growth?

DG: Outsourced trading has become increasingly utilised over the last decade. The growth of technology, and the growth of technology spend, has allowed the major players to expand their share of the market. I think Covid also helped drive some of the evolution, taking outsourced trading forward to its next chapter.

Different geographies are at varying stages in their adoption of outsourced trading. Many potential clients have already made the decision to outsource for a number of reasons, from reducing costs and improving market access, to cover in a specific region and asset class support, so it’s not always necessarily about trying to sell the concept of outsourced trading, instead you’re selling your specific offering.

Recent volatility and increased market volumes have proved challenging for many firms, which is where scalable outsourced trading solutions can really be of benefit. At Jefferies, our outsourced trading desk consists of dedicated traders, all of whom have a huge amount of experience from working on the buy side that can help clients navigate difficult markets. We understand exactly what clients’ needs are and where they’re coming from since we’ve sat in their seats for many years. Additionally, each client is allocated service representatives to support them operationally from onboarding through to trade settlement.

The industry continues to evolve. Lately, we have seen outsourced trading providers working alongside other institutional managers and bringing their desks in-house. The Jefferies model is perfectly suited to this, allowing firms to keep their access to the street whilst enjoying the benefits the Jefferies offering provides.

How is the Jefferies outsourced trading business structured?

DG: We have offices in the US, London and Hong Kong, so we can trade global markets. All of our clients get a point of contact in each region. There is a seamless transition of order flow.

As previously mentioned, our outsourced trading business is completely segregated from the rest of the Jefferies equity businesses. Any trades, any information that comes in is only ever known within the outsourced trading operation at Jefferies. That’s important to our clients. They also get the comfort that they’re affiliating themselves to a global, regulated brand. We are able to align ourselves closely with them, and that trust has really helped to drive the business.

We pride ourselves on the strength of our capabilities. The offering is well established, so clients and traders are supported by dedicated sales, specialist operations teams, and ongoing assistance throughout the whole process. Access to a robust trading infrastructure also improves the overall client experience.

What, if any, additional services do you offer clients aside from execution?

DG: There are a lot of perks that come with being part of a bigger organisation. Everything you would expect from a traditional buy side trader is something that we offer our clients here at Jefferies, as well as access to capital markets, research, corporate access, and prime brokerage services. We can also leverage Jefferies’ legal and compliance teams.

We sit within the wider information barriers of prime brokerage, which gives us access to some of their services too. What we say to clients is, when you come to Jefferies, you’re not just getting a flow trader, you’re not just getting an extension of your broker list, you’re getting two things in one. You’re getting the closest thing that I think you’ll find to a centralised buy side trading model, as well as the ability to leverage additional services, aligned to our clients’ investment processes.

Whats next for Jefferiess outsourced trading business?

DG: Jefferies is able to significantly invest in both human capital and technology so we can stay at the forefront of the industry and provide a best-in-class offering. We’re projecting growth as we expand asset classes in each of our geographies. Jefferies are fully entrenched in outsourced trading, yet continue investing, ensuring we maintain our position as market leaders.

Joram Siegel
Joram Siegel, Head of Fixed Income Outsourced Trading at Jefferies International.

Joram Siegel: We’re planning to go live with our expansion into the fixed income space later this year. As the industry has evolved, much larger asset managers have started contemplating outsourcing for some or all of their trading. They tend to be multi-asset, so being able to offer a full suite of services has become increasingly important.

The idea has always been to take the outsourced trading framework in equities, and all the benefits that come with that, and customise it for the fixed income space. There are nuances between the asset classes, and having traders with the knowledge and relationships with the market who understand that is an important selling point.

Liontrust loses McLoughlin

Matthew McLoughlin, ex-Liontrust Asset Management
Matthew McLoughlin, ex-Liontrust Asset Management

Head of trading Matthew McLoughlin has resigned from Liontrust Asset Management.

McLoughlin has been a partner and head of trading at the active asset management firm since 2016, taking on the role of chief commercial officer in 2023. Prior to this, he spent a year as a senior trader at the firm.

READ MORE: Liontrust – The trading team built for growth

Announcing his departure via LinkedIn, McLoughlin said: “It’s been a privilege to help scale one of the UK’s most ambitious investment managers. I’m now energised for the next chapter.”

In the first half of 2024, Liontrust reported a 28% decline in profits. In the six months to 30 September 2024, the firm’s most recently reported results, gross profits were £98.6 million. Assets under management were £26 billion.

READ MORE: Liontrust pivots strategy as profits drop

With more than two decades of industry experience, McLoughlin began his career in debt and reserves management at HM Treasury. Throughout his career, he has been a global equity and derivatives trader at LGIM, a senior cross-asset trader at RAB Capital, and a credit portfolio manager at AIG.

He has been a director at Plato Partnership since 2017.

Private rooms circumventing regulation, Citadel Securities claims

Citadel Securities
Citadel Securities

Citadel Securities has called for a crackdown on private rooms in its list of policy recommendations for the SEC.

The policy paper states that the growing use of alternative trading systems (ATS) in US equity markets requires a reconsideration of regulatory frameworks, arguing that protocols currently allow for a circumvention of best execution requirements. Citadel Securities particularly benefits from one such regulation, Regulation NMS, which requires brokers to direct orders to market makers.

A common complaint of ATSs is that they are overly opaque and insufficiently monitored. Citadel agrees, stating that trading protocols and arrangements with liquidity providers around private rooms are only minimally disclosed. Currently absent from reports are explanations of the processes behind private room establishment, the rationale for new order types exclusive to private rooms and how the rooms are governed, the company stated.

ATSs are governed by the SEC’s Rule 605, requiring them to disclose certain order execution information. However, Citadel Securities states that venues are dodging this requirement by labelling all orders as ‘not held’ and exempting them from the rule, leading to poor or absent execution quality reports. Under Rule 606, which covers order routing reports, the firm states that ATSs should be producing consistent, granular reports that explain where orders are routed within the ATS, such as to a private room.

Speaking to Global Trading earlier this year, market participants countered that private rooms make up a small subsection of overall ATS volumes, and that controversy around their opacity is disproportionate. Mett Kinak, global head of equity trading at T Rowe Price, observed: “Transparency around their size, their meaningfulness, is valuable. If people can see that an ATS has 2% of total market share, and that 2% of that share is in hosted rooms, they’d realise that there’s no big story.”

READ MORE: Behind closed doors: Slander and secrets

ATSs currently represent 10% of total market volume in US equities.

Under existing regulations, ATSs are permitted to select who can use their platforms with impunity, so long as a 5% average daily trading volume threshold is not crossed on the security being traded. Citadel argues that these are “discriminatory practices”, particularly when private rooms are involved, a subsection of ATSs which allows firms to trade with an exclusive group of counterparties.

“ATSs should only be allowed to determine execution priority based on the characteristics of an order, and not the identity of the sender,” it states. Further, there is no obligation of best execution for ATSs or executing counterparties for retail orders executed in private rooms – meaning that retail orders can be pushed to the bottom of the list.

Citadel Securities argues that private rooms do not comply with Regulation ATS, introduced by the SEC in 1998. The firm states that these rooms “closely resemble the single-dealer systems that the Commission specifically excluded from the definition of an ‘exchange’. The notion of establishing a fully-siloed single-dealer system under the umbrella of an ATS does not appear to be contemplated by the regulation.”

Despite Citadel Securities’s insistence of “the problematic growth of private rooms on ATSs”, others in the market argue that the company is running a similar operation themselves.

“They wouldn’t call themselves hosted rooms because they have their own venues, but [single-dealer platforms like Virtu and Citadel] are essentially doing the same thing, just operating the venue itself,” Kinak affirmed.

The need for speed

The need for speed

Powered by new computer chips, high-frequency trading (HFT) has reached nanosecond timescales. Fierce competition has prompted a new wave of speculative orders, prompting allegations of market abuse.

HFT used to be measured in milliseconds, with traders using microwave towers to exploit latency in exchange feeds. Those days seem quaint today.

Using a platform provided by BMLL, we analysed 6 years of data starting in February 2019. Our own analysis of 2.3 billion DAX futures orders on Eurex reveals a striking trend: the share of trades modified within one millisecond has risen from 11% in 2019 to over 17% in 2024 [see box]. At Euronext, analysis of a single stock – BNP Paribas – shows an almost threefold increase in sub-100 microsecond order modifications during the same time period.

The hardware arms race and speculative triggering

The earlier generation of HFT relied on technology such as microwave networks to reduce latency between multiple trading locations. But in a competitive environment, even microseconds proved too slow. Specialised computer chips called Field-Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) have now become the industry standard for cutting latency from microseconds to tens of nanoseconds.

As more firms entered the race, vendors stepped in offering custom integrated circuits and optimised networks. David Taylor, CEO of specialist HFT vendor Exegy explains: “Firms pushing into the 10-nanosecond realm are not just relying on FPGAs – they’re designing custom integrated circuits with breakthroughs in optical-to-electronic conversion and low-level networking to capture every precious nanosecond.”

This arms race has led to some creative tactics. Until 2018, Vincent Akkermans was a senior developer at Optiver and is now co-founder at TenFive AI, a company that develops advanced multi-agent AI applications. Before he left Optiver, Akkermans worked with the pioneers of “speculative execution” or “speculative triggering” in HFT, whereby FPGA chips allow orders to be initiated, and then, based on sub-microsecond signals, cancelled by leaving them incomplete before they have been processed by the exchange.

“Using FPGAs to begin processing and transmitting orders before the complete market message is received represents a paradigm shift in trading speed – pushing the limits of how fast orders can be executed,” Akkermans says.

“It’s crazy how much brain power is devoted to shaving off nanoseconds – showing that in a competitive market, even the tiniest advantage is pursued relentlessly.”

European exchanges have incorporated features to allow speculative execution by HFTs – within certain limits. “Speculative triggering refers to certain latency arbitrage strategies when market participants start to send an order before they have fully processed the incoming market data,” explains Jonas Ullmann, Frankfurt-based Eurex board member and COO.

High Frequency Trading charts

To exploit the strategy, HFTs have to occupy a grey area between raw messages and fully-fledged orders to the exchange, where nanoseconds count. “We’ve built in features such as the “discard IP” and “DSCP” field to prevent detrimental effects on market integrity and provide a clear technical framework. Messages sent to the “discard IP” will not reach the trading system gateway and matching engine, so this can be seen as a trash bin,” Ullmann tells Global Trading.

“These packets will be discarded at the Access Layer switch port and no other participant is influenced,” he added. “Packets sent to the discard IP address are not considered to be orders and are not forwarded to the exchange. Due to the nature of where the IP address is specified in the message, you need to decide very early whether to send it to the exchange or discard IP.”

Speculative execution has recently attracted controversy. In March, a Paris-based market maker, Mosaic Finance, accused Eurex of allowing the practice to explode on its venue. Mosaic claimed that Eurex was being flooded by millions of corrupted orders per second, in violation of its rules. HFTs were doing this in order to push their way to the front of the order queue, Mosaic complained.

Jonas Ullmann

Eurex strongly disputes the accusations. “There are strict limits in place,” insists Ullmann, highlighting the difference between raw messages and actual orders. “For instance, participants are allowed to send up to 30,000 ethernet frames per second and no more than 600,000 ethernet frames per minute across the network.” Mosaic’s allegation that it was able to breach these limits by sneaking corrupted data past Eurex’s own monitoring system is “incorrect,” Ullmann says. “The allegations from this individual trading participant are unfounded and all substantive concerns raised have been repeatedly reviewed by Eurex. None of the issues raised proved to have merit.”

Akkermans is inclined to accept Eurex’s side of this argument. “It would surprise me that if lots of invalid network traffic were sent that the exchange wouldn’t notice, although I cannot say with any certainty – I’m not a network engineer. Additionally, the discussions I heard about the speculative execution were always grounded in the desire to only send valid messages. They were well aware that it would be possible to make the message invalid at the final moment, but also that this would contravene the rules and shouldn’t be done. I do believe the culture was such that this was a genuine intent,” he says.

A spokesperson from Optiver declined to comment on whether the firm still conducted speculative execution, and whether it deployed the strategy at Eurex.

The value of technology

Even so, the controversy highlights the competitiveness of the new environment.
Milan Dvorak, CEO of Magmio, an FPGA software provider, agrees that even a moderate jump in speed can bring rewards.

“By moving decision logic from software onto the network via FPGA technology, traders can reduce latency from microseconds to tens of nanoseconds, giving them a competitive edge even if they’re not the fastest in absolute terms,” Dvorak says. “There’s a market for every latency bracket. Even if you’re not the absolute fastest, having a robust strategy means you can still profit from the opportunities available at your speed level.”

Milan Dvorak

At the same time, these technologies require deep expertise. Programming an FPGA takes specialised skills, especially if you want to tweak the hardware’s logic.

According to Milan Kratka, CTO of broker Trading Block who started at Citadel in the early 1990s, “I was one of Citadel’s first quant – and that early experience taught me that in trading, speed isn’t just about quoting; it’s about being the first to respond to a market event.”

He tells Global Trading that while many traders know they must quote quickly, the real edge appears when markets suddenly shift. If you can pull or modify your quote a split-second faster, you either avoid a bad fill or seize a profitable one. Or, as he puts it: “Programming an FPGA is a rigorous process – but once optimised, it delivers decision speeds measured in nanoseconds, offering a decisive edge in today’s fast-paced markets.”

However, HFT vendor McKay Brothers warns about a level of hype over the technology. “We use FPGAs where deterministic behaviour and extremely low jitter are critical,” according to CEO Stephane Tyc. “But they’re not always necessary. An FPGA might buy you nanoseconds; good transport can buy you milliseconds. Both matter, depending on the use case.”

McKay says its approach has broadened beyond latency-obsessed clients. “Many of our recent products are built purely in software,” Tyc adds, noting that “flexibility now rivals raw speed. This isn’t a religious debate for us, it’s a question of fit-for-purpose design.”

Stephane Tyc

Hardware and Integration

There is also competition to provide specialised FPGA hardware. Chipmaker AMD has emerged as a leading provider of FPGA-based hardware, offering chips that support everything from sub-10 nanosecond trades to high-volume analytics.

AMD sales director Alastair Richardson envisions chiplet architectures enabling more modular designs: “By using a chiplet process – breaking a processor into smaller pieces – instead of the traditional large piece of silicon, monolithic method, we can build complex processors, with more capabilities and more efficiency. This includes things like 3D stacking of chips or pushing the boundaries of core counts in a single processor.”

In practice, large trading shops might combine an FPGA for the ultra-fast “tick-to-trade” loop with additional GPUs or CPUs for broader risk modelling and artificial intelligence-based prediction. The net effect is a hybrid computing approach that merges microsecond-level decision-making with bigger-picture analytics – something unattainable until recently.

Fragmented Markets and Regulatory Nuances

In the US, the Regulation National Market System (Reg NMS) has forced firms to route to the best price across multiple venues, making speed crucial for updating quotes instantly and picking off mispriced orders. Europe mirrors this fragmentation under the Market in Financial Instrument Directives (MiFID I, and II), albeit with more complexity around data fees and pan-European connectivity. Firms must link to multiple exchanges to remain competitive, each link adding cost.

According to Exegy’s Taylor: “Market fragmentation in Europe is a significant challenge, connecting to all relevant markets can be two to three times more expensive than in the US.”

Despite these hurdles, a European consolidated tape is on the horizon, potentially lowering entry barriers.

Taylor says: “The current phase of the European Consolidated Tape is just a consolidated trade report – it isn’t directly tradable yet. However, many in the industry are bullish that it will eventually evolve into a tradable tape. This would lower the cost of achieving pan-market visibility and drive more innovation.”

Fast but secure: Protecting trading DNA

Given the stakes at play, safeguarding proprietary strategies, and intellectual property is crucial for trading firms. Vendors like Exegy and Magmio emphasise frameworks that let clients deploy code without exposing it to the vendor.

David Taylor

Exegy’s Taylor says: “We empower our clients to innovate without compromising their secrets – whether through a configurable software interface or a sandboxed FPGA where their proprietary code remains completely private.”

Milan Dvorak of Magmio echoes this: “We deliver our solution as a framework without ever seeing the actual strategy. Our clients maintain full control over their code, ensuring their competitive edge remains completely confidential,”

According to former Optiver developer Vincent Akkermanns, high frequency trading firms embed structural risk considerations in their systems and their operations. Developing teams are close to traders:

“The usual routine was to get in early, listen in on the traders’ briefing, and then get to work on the market links and trading software for which I was responsible. I liaised with traders, assistants, and mid-office and compliance to get requirements. Our team sat on the trading floor, so it was easy pretty noisy, but also easy to get a sense of what was going on.”

For him, “The entire system is engineered so that every role – from the trading floor to the back office – contributes to a high level of technological sophistication, ensuring the market functions more efficiently.”

Tyc agrees: “That’s been a quiet success story over the past decade. The firms operating in these environments today have developed robust internal controls, risk frameworks, and strong engineering ethics. McKay itself is not a trading firm, but we work closely with some of the most sophisticated market participants in the world, and we see firsthand the care they take to build systems that are both high-performing and well-governed.

One of the key concepts that has emerged as a result of low latency investment is determinism. Deterministic systems – those that behave in highly predictable ways – can support more precise risk management, but like anything, too much of a good thing has trade-offs. We’ve seen exchanges that pushed determinism to extremes and inadvertently created unintended market structure effects. A small amount of jitter can help level the playing field; too much, and you get chaotic, inefficient markets. Some venues that could be extremely deterministic have chosen to introduce intentional randomness to prevent predictability from becoming an exploit.

It’s a balancing act – much like the question of private fills printing before public trades. There’s no universal answer. What matters most is transparency: clearly disclosing how systems behave and how access is granted. If disclosure is fair and access is equitable, the market can and will adapt. We don’t need to prescribe a singular model, if the rules are visible and access is open, competitive pressure will do the rest.”

When a single glitch can devastate even established firms, like was the case at Knight Capital. HFT are rightfully obsessed not just with speed but also reliability – a balancing act that shapes internal processes and controls.

Lawsuits and regulatory filings reveal how fiercely competitive the sector is. Consider the lawsuit by Skywave Networks against leading HFT players Virtu and Jump Trading that alleged fraud in the use of experimental shortwave licences (the defendants dispute the allegations). Or the complaint by McKay Brothers against Nasdaq, which forced the exchange to stop offering preferential low latency access to high-paying clients. All market participants are racing to compete.

Can the market keep up?

Proponents argue that high-speed competition narrows spreads, boosting liquidity and benefiting all investors. Critics label it an expensive arms race, with diminishing returns and potential negative externalities when markets become “too fast.” Regulators in the US and Europe have taken incremental steps – such as imposing licensing for HFTs, demanding kill switches, or endorsing “speed bumps” in certain venues – but nothing has fully reversed the move to ever faster speed.

The future may see more frequent usage of AI. Although neural networks can be too heavy for the tightest loop, they can assist in slightly upstream decision-making or in scanning large data sets for predictive signals. Meanwhile, talk of quantum computing hovers at the edge of possibility, but immediate breakthroughs remain speculative.

Alastair Richardson

AMD’s Richardson hints that more integrated hardware solutions – combining FPGAs, GPUs, specialised network adapters, and even novel high-performance computing (HPC) techniques – will likely define the next wave.

“We’re now witnessing a new latency race that involves AI, with some tasks still best served by a dedicated FPGA or ASIC, while others lean on CPU’s, GPUs or NPU’s to do more complex AI inference.”

If anything can slow the chase, it might be the laws of physics. Market data cannot traverse distances faster than the speed of light, leaving only network design and extremely clever hardware optimisations to squeeze out incremental gains. Still, as the last decade has shown, major leaps – from microwave relays to shortwave transatlantic signals – can arise when profit potential is high enough.

Exegy’s Taylor points to the stratification forming in this space: “While the top-tier HFT players operating at nine nanoseconds are few and stable, the dynamic next layer – trading at deep sub-millisecond speeds across multiple assets – is where fierce competition and innovation are truly unfolding.”

Most technology vendors are pushing in this direction, Tyc tells us that McKay has been working with exchanges like Euronext to allow firms to reroute connectivity with no hardware changes, “a seismic shift,” as Tyc puts it, in how infrastructure is accessed.
He adds, “That plug-and-play simplicity destroys the barrier to entry,” Tyc says.

Even if the absolute fastest tier remains exclusive, broad adoption of low latency technologies – from microwaves to FPGAs – has high-speed tactics permeating all corners of trading. And that reality, though it continues to spark debate, is almost certain to persist. As innovations, from AI integration to chiplet architectures, make once-exotic technology more widely accessible, the race to zero won’t be stopping anytime soon. Speed, in all its minute increments, has become part of the market’s DNA.

 

Behind closed doors: Slander and secrets

Venues

The use of alternative trading systems (ATSs) has increased drastically over recent years, now accounting for more than half of US equity trading volume. Lately, these platforms have begun to offer a new service, allowing brokers to create closed trading pools for their buy-side clients. These private rooms – also called hosted rooms – allow brokers to internalise their flows without having to create their own dark pools and go through the burdensome technical and regulatory workload this would provoke.

These venues also minimise the market impact of larger trades, with prices remaining steadier than they would on a lit venue.

It all sounds appealing – until you hear whispers that these rooms are not as private as they seem, and that market makers are being let in on the sly to snap up order flow.

Reports of this nature have been swirling for a number of years now, popping up at conference panels and in quiet conversations – although there is hesitancy among individuals to be too vocal about their concerns. For some, this has given private rooms a sordid edge, the platforms looked down on as illegitimate intruders.

Global Trading spoke to buy-side participants to get to the root of the rumours.

Pool party

Mehmet Kinak, global head of equity trading at T Rowe Price, explained how private rooms are filling a gap in the market. “If you run an ATS, I can interact with your liquidity in that dark pool. If you run a single dealer platform, I can interact with you there. But if you are a smaller market maker that has neither of those options, we have nowhere to meet up bilaterally. The easiest solution for us to be able to interact bilaterally is to find each other in a hosted pool,” he said.

Market makers are attracted to private rooms because of their perennial fear of adverse selection in public venues by participants possessing market-moving information. “When trading on exchange, flow is an aggregate of many different market participants with both benign (non-directional) flow and directional flow,” according to Jeremy Smart, Head of Distribution at XTX Markets. “As a result, market makers will provide liquidity that reflects the average of the flow profile. Because of this, the benign flow does not attract the liquidity that it could achieve.

Mehmet Kinak

“If a client has really good flow, it makes sense to go to a hosted room to get some of the best, highest quality liquidity,” Smart adds. “They allow for interactions on a more bespoke basis, without the need to connect to 10 different liquidity providers and for 10 different FIX connections.

“It’s more direct, more disclosed, and can facilitate really strong direct relationships.”

“Because you know who the other parties are, you can show even larger sizes and or even better pricing,” explained Vlad Khandros, CEO of OneChronos Capital Markets, referencing the company’s Nexus platform. “That can increase the liquidity in the pool and provide better pricing. If people know who they’re trading with, they can further lean in.”

There’s a reduced risk of information leakage when private rooms are used, an appealing prospect for buy-side traders desperate to avoid competitors frontrunning them. A limited number of counterparties cuts down the chance of information revealed, deliberately or inadvertently, being used against room participants, allowing them to be bolder in their actions.

“Clients have the ability to completely control how the room works, the prioritisation of who gets the orders first before random allocation – however they want the logic to work, they can set it up,” Smart added.

Jeremy Smart

“Whether you’re a retail broker or a long-only buy-side trader or a systematic hedge fund, it doesn’t matter. Whatever type of client you are, you’re in complete control of who is in the pool, the attributes of the pool and ultimately therefore the liquidity you can access.”

The private room concept is not exclusive to ATSs, according to Kinak. “Single-dealer platforms like Virtu and Citadel are running similar services,” he said. “They wouldn’t call themselves hosted rooms because they have their own venues, but they are essentially doing the same thing, just operating the venue itself.”

Those names have cast a shadow over the space, with rumours that the market makers are being let into hosted rooms and nabbing flow without the knowledge of other participants.

Uninvited guests

Providers, of course, are keen to dispute the claims, defending the security of their systems and the resilience of their compliance.

“You can’t just invite someone randomly into one of our rooms without the sponsor of that room knowing,” Khandros said. “Each side opts in and can know who’s on the other side of the fill. There’s complete control and transparency. We’ve built it with the customer in mind. Giving our customers the option of that full control, we think, is a good thing.”

Vlad Khandros

Among other market participants, those with less skin in the game, the sentiment is similar. Smart is direct: “The rumours are complete fantasy. There’s no lack of transparency there – the client is in full control.”

“These ideas are being pushed by those who want interactions to happen on their terms,” he argued, noting a historical trend of suspicion towards any changes in market structure.

“We’ve heard some negativity from people who wanted to launch a platform and didn’t, or who aren’t being invited to these rooms,” a source familiar with the issue corroborated.

“Conspiracy theories are always running rampant in our industry,” Kinak agreed. “Traders are generally sceptical around how things work. They’re paranoid.”

However, he acknowledges that there is a kernel of truth in some of these concerns.

“It’s true that private rooms are not as transparent as the lit market. Segmentation, by definition, is going to limit people’s participation. But that’s one of the main reasons we use ATSs,” Kinak said.

“I try to dispel the negative connotations around private rooms,” he added. “Lots of people think mysterious things are going on in them, but they’re just a solution to help with segmentation.”

Worries about who else is in a private room are not without precedent.

“When the national market system (NMS) regulation was introduced in the US, there were a couple of scandals about players allowing people into their dark pools without disclosure,” one market participant recalled. “Sometimes it was market makers, sometimes principal flow from their own shops. They were fined and suffered reputational damage.”

“I can’t imagine anyone doing something like that now. It’s so baked in that you have to be clear about how your platform operates,” they mused – but fears of a potential recurrence are high.

“People are concerned whether they can genuinely know who the counterpart is in that hosted room. And the thing is, you don’t know,” Kinak observed. “You have to believe that the venue operating the hosted room is doing things appropriately and legally.”

While that might make the prospect of a private room seem more risky, it’s no different from the situation in any ATS or dark pool. “I find it funny that there’s this narrative of deception in private rooms, because it can happen anywhere. You just have to trust the operator,” Kinak observed. “If I go to the largest ATS, request to only interact with a particular group of market participants, and they tell me they’ve codified it that way, I just have to believe them. There’s no way to verify what they’re telling me.”

Clearer waters

As such, uncertainties around private rooms are fuelling a wider conversation – ATS regulation as a whole. Currently, in the US, ATSs are obliged to report all trades and orders to FINRA under the CAT regulation. CAT was designed to prevent manipulative trading strategies and tactics, Mark Davies, CEO and co-founder of S3, explained, seeking to provide a clearer, more transparent picture of the market after the 2010 flash crash.

The number of shares executed must be disclosed, but not where or who with. As such, the broker actually doing the trade can remain anonymous – and may be far more present in a certain stock or market than they appear to be. This has been used as a reason to illegitimise private rooms, driving concerns that if market giants are sneaking into private rooms, they could be eating up much more of the pie than it seems.

Mark Davies

However, this is part of broader ATS regulation rather than the small private room subsection – regulation that many players have less issue with when it comes to dark pools.

Platforms are also subject to Rule 605 and 606. The former, an order execution quality requirement, is receiving an ATS-specific update at the end of 2025. “Previously a firm like UBS didn’t have to separate out their ATS flow from their main broker dealer flow or their STP flow. Now that has to be reported independently, and there are quite a few more statistics than there used to be,” Davies explained.

Rule 606 obliges brokers to disclose where orders are routed to. This is a hazy area for ATSs, Davies said. “An ATS is generally considered a terminal venue for 606 purposes, which means it executes and therefore they don’t have any onward routing that needs to be reported.

“However, a lot of the ATSs have routers that they run in tandem. If an order is sent to an ATS or private room as an execution venue via a router, then the firm would have to disclose that. The ATS, in turn, would not have to disclose any onward routing.”

When ATS trades are reported, it is not specified where the execution took place. It may have been completed in a dark pool, via trajectory crossing or in a private room – no one, aside from those taking part in the trade, can say for sure. This is one of the transparency hangups people have with hosted rooms and ATSs as a whole, arguing that the non-granular reporting practices are wilfully opaque.

With all the furore around private rooms, it could easily be assumed that they are taking a significant chunk of the flow. That’s the opposite of the case, according to the IntelligentCross spokesperson. “It’s a single digit percentage of our overall volume,” she said, while Kinak cited a less than 10% figure for the amount of ATS flow going through private rooms.

“It’s not significant, but they’re willing to be transparent about it,” he said.

Under the SEC’s ATS-N filing requirements, providers do not have to answer questions about private rooms they provide. The number of rooms on offer, the counterparties involved, fees, and volumes can remain under wraps.

“Transparency around their size, their meaningfulness, is valuable,” Kinak said. “If people can see that an ATS has 2% of total market share, and that 2% of that share is in hosted rooms, they’d realise that there’s no big story. On the other hand, if half of that market share is made up of private room volumes, that changes the narrative. People generally want to concentrate their orders in venues where liquidity is accessible.”

Whether ATSs and private rooms should be more regulated and transparent is a contentious issue. Some argue that more transparency is always a good thing. “I absolutely support additional transparency and regulation around how private rooms are operated,” Kinak asserted, “and I don’t think anyone would be opposed to that. Both the venue operator and the person hosting the specific room would be happy to provide transparency, because they’re not doing anything sinister. They’re hosting the room so they can interact with certain people or a specific segment of the market.”

Others, though, don’t see it the same way, arguing that greater disclosure demands would go against the point of the format. “We can’t necessarily see where flow is coming from,” one person familiar with the subject said, “but that’s by design – we’re not supposed to know. The breakdowns within individual pools are in the hands of the subscribers, not us. People are looking for data on this, on things like retail versus institutional participation, but that’s not consistent or available.”

This is not an opacity issue, the IntelligentCross spokesperson asserts. “Hosted rooms are another tool in the trader’s toolbox in their efforts to access liquidity but not move the market.”

Smart does not see the need for anything to change. “ATSs are perfectly within their rights to create segmented pools of liquidity. Hosted rooms exist in plain sight, in a regulated environment,” he said.

Building trust

Although the amped-up rumours about private rooms are unfounded, they point to a wider demand for transparency – and a lack of trust in the industry. While some are calling for the introduction of new or more comprehensive regulation across alternative trading systems, it is likely that any changes will be put on ice for now.

“Realistically, I don’t think we’re going to see a lot of new regulations in the next four years,” Davies commented. “We’re more likely to see a reduction, particularly in restrictive regulation.”

As market participants continue to seek out alternatives to the lit market, new ways to avoid information leakage and access to the best liquidity available to them, the emergence and popularity of systems like private rooms will inevitably grow. Whether the industry will learn from past mistakes, keep a close eye on platform regulation and play nice is less certain.

It’s a thorny issue, but one thing’s for sure: don’t believe every rumour you hear on the street.