Is there an order option to prohibit wholesalers from trading before you?
Basically any time you send a "smart" routing order, it is actually the least smart thing to do (unless you REALLY need the liquidity). Your trade order gets sent to all the exchanges, and ah I don't really feel like explaining it.
tl;dr Someone intercepts your data packet to one exchange, and alters the liquidity on the other exchanges, so you get a partial fill and then adjust your order at the slightly worse price.
In the scenario presented, the wholesaler receives your order, then executes its own orders, then fills your order based on its own executions (which you are unaware of).
How can a wholesaler guarantee the exchange price in the face of disappearing orders?
I don't think they can. Instead, the wholesaler fabricates an order at the limit of your order, then reports the sale to you.
Edit: [rate-limited] Reply to tptacek comment below:
> I can't even tell if you're talking about market or limit orders.
Can you view the context of this thread? I am talking about the explicit steps listed in the comment I first replied to. Specifically, step 3 [0].
In chollida's description the orders are limit.
Step 3 appears to be, exactly, front-running as explained in my post [1] immediately above this one.
I asked if anyone could explain how that behavior was not front-running. You responded; indicating that the behavior was according to regulation.
You claim that the wholesaler must give you the best "exchange price", but I claim that such a guarantee is generally impossible to fill (time-distance-information problem), and that in the specifics of chollida's described scenario, the wholesaler is actually front-running you by examining your unfilled (limit) order and then filling it at the limit (as in, calculus) with it's own fabricated (perhaps, synthetic, but front-ran, nonetheless) order.
If such a guarantee is generally impossible, then the wholesaler must be cheating, the law is incompetent, or, both.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11668835 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11669193
T0: Bob->Schwab: Market BUY 100 ISSX
T1: Schwab->Citadel: Forward Market BUY 100 ISSX
... and so on? I can't even tell if you're talking about market or limit orders.
You aren't entitled to a better price than your limit. If you think you are, can you provide a sequence of trades in which someone else captures a premium where they don't take downside risk?
The fact still remains that the wholesaler has fabricated an order on the knowledge of a customer's pending order, which affected the execution price of the customer's order, before the customer could even know that it happened.
Even if the wholesaler sent their order to an exchange and still matched with their customer, it is still front-running, as the wholesaler is using knowledge of their customer's order to, essentially, eliminate all possible price improvements.
So, what is being called a "limit order" is just code for "we might just fill your order at your limit [when there are no market orders], if we think we can make money off [front-running] your order with our own".
It would perhaps be acceptable if the wholesaler offered some kind of kick-back on any profits made, but that would need to be a different kind of order and I'm not aware of anywhere that does it.
1) match the order with the NBBO. 2) send the order to the exchange.
If your limit is better than the NBBO, then they are required by the law to price improve it. Further, the nature of their agreements with your broker are such that they are required to maintain a price improvement level (that should be better than NBBO compliance). That is, incidentally also largely the requirement the exchanges operate under as well.
A limit order doesn't have anything to do with the existence or non-existence of market orders, it has to do with your limit and the NBBO. The way they make money is not by changing the market against your interests, but instead booking the spread (and in fact the reason they like retail order flow is that it is naturally uncorrelated so the spread is more even).
The customer does in fact know that this is happening as it is a regulatory requirement that they disclose it.
I suspect that lots of whole sellers would be happy to kick back profits, if the retail customer was also on the hook to back the losses. Instead, they aren't and they get heavily discounted (to the point that it is now free to trade) trading costs instead.
>In the scenario presented, the wholesaler receives your order, then executes its own orders, then fills your order based on its own executions (which you are unaware of).
>The way they make money is not by changing the market against your interests,
Oh, but they do. They fabricate an order in response to yours. If they did not act, your order would not have filled at $0.001 under your limit.
>but instead booking the spread (and in fact the reason they like retail order flow is that it is naturally uncorrelated so the spread is more even).
You can call it whatever you want, the wholesaler is manipulating the market to their advantage. The wholesaler knows the price is likely to improve, so it arbitrarily truncates your order and infills its own account with the improvements.
Is it limited risk? Of course, that's their job.
Finally, I'd ask, what is your point? That the law is flawed? OK, then work to change it. But know that lots of people have done their own research and come down in favor of the execution cost benefits of wholesellers.
Of course they are. Had they not acted, you would have had a chance at price improvement. Instead, they took your chance for a token payment.
> Wholesaler sells short remaining 1300 shares at $10.0290
whereby the wholesaler takes a speculative position wrt the original order?
Are you suggesting that the wholesaler giving you 0.0010 profit on your trade guaranteed, is working against you? Without regard to your execution costs?
Can you suggest a single chain of messages where you make money on that trade? What are the chances where that chain of messages is likely?
The wholesaler is making off-market trades and treating them as if they are on-market. The wholesaler would not trade, if it did not think it would profit. The wholesaler's profit is the difference between their buy-price and what they actually paid you.
Are you suggesting that if the wholesaler wasn't interdicting orders the average price improvement for these orders wouldn't be close to the average profit the wholesaler makes on each instance of such a trade?
They do this because they are taking on the risk that the market will eventually allow them to work out of their short position at a better price than they paid you. But they don't know that it will do that.
One of the reasons they pay for retail flow is that it on average goes back and forth, making it more likely that this trade works to their advantage.
None of the profit of that trade came from you the limit order provider. It came entirely from the average spread.
Or, you know, improve beyond the $0.001/sh the wholesaler paid.
At the point that they filled you at 10.299, the market is set at 10.30. 1 of 2 things can happen. Either there is enough volume to fill you at 10.30 that your order is fully filled at 10.30 (worse than the wholesaler gave you) or there isn't and some of your order fills at 10.30 (worse than the wholesaler gave you) and you have now set the new market level and rest your order. Once your order rests, it will not be improved and will either fill at 10.30 (worse than the wholesaler gave you) or it will be cancelled (you didn't get what you wanted).
Most people placing a limit order like that would prefer the outcome that the internalizer provides, if you don't, great use a broker that allows you to route direct. But its certainly not front-running because the internalizer acted directly in your stated interests, not against them.
Then again, this discussion is on a thread about the US DoJ investigating wholesalers for potentially breaking the law when it comes to what price the required to provide (though apparently a different requirement than the NBBO, specifically, the "best execution reasonably available".)
A legal requirement doesn't mean its going to happen in practice, it means that there is, at least in theory, a remedy available if it doesn't.
(Then again, not meeting or beating the NBBO seems a bit more obvious than not providing the best execution reasonably available, so I'd be somewhat more surprised if this wasn't happening simply because it would seem hard to get away with except in some extreme edge cases.)