Darker Than a Dark Pool? Welcome to Wall Street's 'Private Rooms'
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
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.
Oh boy.
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.
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.
What this firm is doing is far less extreme.
Black banks especially were chartered to support African Americans who were not allowed to be involved with mainline banks.