As I understand it, for retail market participants, the concern of dark trading venues is at least twofold:
1. With some brokerages, retail orders are prioritized for dark venues over lit ones (i.e., first routed to see if they can be fulfilled on dark venues, otherwise, then route to lit ones) where they are essentially trading against more knowledgeable participants. A common argument in favor of this, oft cited by dark pool operators and affliated brokerages is that on average, historically, better prices for all participants have been attained with the assistance of dark pools.
Relatedly, on many trading venues, even lit ones, trade orders are demarcated to distinguish between retail and non-retail – a feature visible to larger participants like MMs and one would imagine high volume participants – which is essentially extra information to a subset of participants that indicate that an order is safer to trade against.
2. Dark venues operate outside the standard public exchange framework. Trade orders are not _as_ visible to the broader market. This lack of transparency can disadvantage retail, who don’t have equal insight into the supply or demand of shares. This opacity possibly hinders price discovery of the "real" price.
"There are myriad reasons why users may opt for private rooms. Take the case of CastleOak Securities, a New York-based minority-run brokerage. The firm wants to trade with similarly minded businesses, so it uses a private room provided by the ATS operator OneChronos."
Wow, at first I assumed that you were wrong and "minority owned" meant like "minority shareholder" or some economic thing, but Claude seems to agree with your interpretation.
That just seems... wild. We are talking about something as fungible as money (or shares), and we are literally saying that we prefer for trading of those monies to come from people who have a certain racial or ethnic background. I'm genuinely surprised that this isn't somewhat illegal?
I suspect that I am misunderstanding something though.
Could you clarify what the “oh boy” is for? Is it something to do with the minority run aspect, like they were doing something illegal with other minority run firms?
As I understand it, for retail market participants, the concern of dark trading venues is at least twofold:
1. With some brokerages, retail orders are prioritized for dark venues over lit ones (i.e., first routed to see if they can be fulfilled on dark venues, otherwise, then route to lit ones) where they are essentially trading against more knowledgeable participants. A common argument in favor of this, oft cited by dark pool operators and affliated brokerages is that on average, historically, better prices for all participants have been attained with the assistance of dark pools.
Relatedly, on many trading venues, even lit ones, trade orders are demarcated to distinguish between retail and non-retail – a feature visible to larger participants like MMs and one would imagine high volume participants – which is essentially extra information to a subset of participants that indicate that an order is safer to trade against.
2. Dark venues operate outside the standard public exchange framework. Trade orders are not _as_ visible to the broader market. This lack of transparency can disadvantage retail, who don’t have equal insight into the supply or demand of shares. This opacity possibly hinders price discovery of the "real" price.
"There are myriad reasons why users may opt for private rooms. Take the case of CastleOak Securities, a New York-based minority-run brokerage. The firm wants to trade with similarly minded businesses, so it uses a private room provided by the ATS operator OneChronos."
Oh boy.
Wow, at first I assumed that you were wrong and "minority owned" meant like "minority shareholder" or some economic thing, but Claude seems to agree with your interpretation.
That just seems... wild. We are talking about something as fungible as money (or shares), and we are literally saying that we prefer for trading of those monies to come from people who have a certain racial or ethnic background. I'm genuinely surprised that this isn't somewhat illegal?
I suspect that I am misunderstanding something though.
Could you clarify what the “oh boy” is for? Is it something to do with the minority run aspect, like they were doing something illegal with other minority run firms?
> were doing something illegal with other minority run firms?
At face value it raises the question: do we want securities traded on the basis of race.
More pragmatically: let's assume we do. This isn't the administration under which I'd be voluntarily drawing attention to that.
https://archive.ph/Xfk2V
Of course absolutely no risk that this is used for collusion or to execute backroom deals. Nope, nothing to see here...