LiquidMetrix to Short Articles

14 Dec 2012

Can you hide in the dark?

Short Article(2 pages) e

Can you hide in the Dark?

MTF dark pools are playing an increasing role in European algorithmic execution strategies.

In recent years the job of effectively executing large orders and minimizing impact costs has become ever more complex. Lit markets have fragmented, trade sizes decreased and a perception has grown that market impacts are being exacerbated by the strategies of heavily ‘quant’ HFT participants.

In an ideal world, from the Buy-Side’s point of view, their larger orders would be matched with other Buy-Sides in natural crosses via an agency matching mechanism. This minimizes information leakage and so decreases the possibility of being ‘gamed’ by other market participants. In reality, creating venues that can achieve this type of match ‘immediately’ has proven difficult, and is usually arrived at through a negotiation process. So if a natural block match can’t be found quickly, larger Buy-Side orders are usually sliced, scheduled and then fed in chunks to smart order routers that will hunt for liquidity while attempting to mask the true size of the order.

Until very recently, the algorithms used to optimize trading schedules were based on the assumption that the sliced orders would be sent aggressively to lit markets and would impact the market price in a predictable way. Picking the best trading schedule becomes a job of balancing the market impact of trading too fast in lit markets versus the market risk of waiting too long.

One of the side effects of MiFID, apart from lit market fragmentation, has been the formation of a number of new ‘MTF’ mid-point matching Dark Pools. These MTF Pools are open to both larger resting orders and smaller aggressive ‘IOC’ flow and are therefore a potential additional source of liquidity.

Use of Dark Pools in Execution Strategies

How might the presence of these MTF Dark Pools affect the choice of optimal execution strategy? In theory, due to the mid-point matching nature of the dark pools and the fact they are pre-trade opaque, orders sent to - and trades executed in - dark pools should cause less (or even no) market impact compared to orders sent to lit venues. So, any part of a trading schedule that can be executed on a dark rather than lit venue would seem to be ‘cost free’ in the sense that the volume traded in the dark won’t contribute to market impact. Some researchers [e.g. Schöneborn, Kratz] have recently updated the ‘standard’ pre-trade cost / scheduling models to include the possibility of executing on Dark Pools.

However, this is all based on the assumption that trading on a Dark Pool really does have less market impact than trading on lit. It seems intuitive, but is it actually true? And are all Dark Pools the same?

We present a result here that tries to broadly answer that question based on analysing price movements following executions of a similar size on lit and dark venues where we know the side of the aggressor.

Figure 1: Adverse price movement in BPS (resting orders) Figure 2: Adverse Price Movement for different dark pools

Figure 1 shows the adverse price movement against resting orders (measured using EBBO mid-price moves) following an execution on different lit and dark venues. Price impact for the aggressor is the inverse, of course.

Looking at the results it’s clear that EBBO price movements in the direction of the aggressor following a trade on dark venue are considerably smaller than on lit. There is evidence of mean reversion in both types of venues, though reversion for the dark trades is greater leaving a much smaller lasting price impact. The impact characteristics of different dark pools varies considerably (see Figure 2).

MTF Dark pools appear to offer an opportunity to trade with less market impact (or rest passively with less adverse selection) than lit venues. For this reason, they should be part of any optimal execution strategy seeking to lower impact cost. However, impact in dark pools is not zero and different pools appear to offer quite different behaviours. As always, it’s vital that any use of these pools is based on an analysis of what actually happens when trades are sent to them as opposed to what theoretically should be the case. Also, of course, executions on a dark pool isn’t guaranteed so any modelling of their use must take into account the probability of execution.

So, whilst you can’t hide completely in the dark you can at least lower your profile.

Also published in Best Execution magazine Q4 2012 edition e

The above analysis was done using a LiquidMetrix WorkStation. Please click here to find out more.


The information contained within this website is provided for information purposes only. IFS will use reasonable care to ensure the accuracy of the information within this site. However, IFS will not be held liable for any errors in the information provided within this website or for accuracy or completeness of the information, or for delays, interruptions or omissions therein, any difficulties in receiving or accessing the website and/or for any loss direct or indirect (including without limitation, loss of profits or consequential loss and indirect, special or consequential damages) howsoever arising and whether or not caused by the negligence of IFS, its employees or agents. The information contained within this site may be changed by IFS at any time.

The information available within this website may include ‘Evaluations’ which are not reflections of the transaction prices at which any securities can be purchased or sold in the market but are mathematically derived approximations of estimated values. Nevertheless, reference may sometimes be made to Evaluations as pricing information, solely for convenience or reference. Evaluations are based upon certain market assumptions and evaluation methodologies reflected in proprietary algorithms and may not conform to trading prices or information available from third parties. No liability or responsibility is accepted (and all such liability is hereby excluded) for any information or ‘Evaluations’.

The copyright of this website and all its content belongs to IFS. All other intellectual property rights are reserved. Redistribution or reproduction of the information and data contained within this website is prohibited without the prior written permission by IFS. is an Intelligent Financial Systems Service: ©Copyright IFS 2009

Data Protection

We take our obligations under the following Data Protection legislation very seriously and have taken steps to ensure full compliance

EC Directive 95/46/EC (up to and including 24th May 2018); and
(ii) the Data Protection Act 1998 (up to and including 24th May 2018); and
(iii) the GDPR (from and including 25th May 2018); and
(iv) Replacement National Legislation; and
(v) the Privacy and Electronic Communication Regulations 2003; and
(vi) any judicial or administrative interpretation of them, any guidance, guidelines, codes of practice, approved codes of conduct or approved certification mechanisms issued by any relevant Supervisory Authority,

This is a statement of the data protection policy adopted by IFS Ltd.

As a company that spans the fields of Market Share Analysis and Sales Data analysis, IFS Ltd can be defined as both data controller and data processor. The collection of data for our own database products, plus the need to hold information about individuals, employees, clients and suppliers, defines our responsibility as a data controller. Parallel to this, the work undertaken for many of our customers requires us to hold and manipulate our clients' data. In this capacity we are a data processor.

Specifically, the Principles of the Data Protection require that personal data:
Therefore, IFS Ltd will, through appropriate management, and strict application of criteria and controls:
In addition, IFS Ltd will ensure that: