By Alfredo Baraldi

Abstract

This study examines the dynamics of transparency and opacity in alternative trading systems (ATS), with particular focus on “private rooms” and their impacts on financial market structure. Through theoretical and empirical analysis, this research highlights how ATS systems, which represent over 50% of equity trading volume in the United States, have created a parallel ecosystem characterized by information asymmetries and potential conflicts of interest. The investigation reveals that while “private rooms” constitute less than 10% of total ATS flow, they represent a microcosm of structural tensions between operational efficiency and market transparency. Results show that current regulation (Regulation ATS, CAT, Rules 605-606) presents significant gaps in oversight of these venues, creating spaces for questionable practices. The study contributes to market microstructure literature by providing empirical evidence on information control mechanisms and proposes a theoretical framework for understanding power dynamics in contemporary financial markets. Policy implications suggest the need for regulatory reforms that balance financial innovation with investor protection and systemic integrity.

Keywords: Alternative trading systems, dark pools, private rooms, market transparency, information asymmetries, financial regulation

1. Introduction

Modern financial markets are characterized by a growing dichotomy between publicly proclaimed transparency and systematically implemented operational opacity. The emergence of alternative trading systems (ATS) represents one of the most significant transformations in market structure over the past two decades, with profound implications for allocative efficiency, access equity, and systemic integrity.

In the United States, ATS systems currently handle over 50% of equity trading volume, a dramatic increase from 5% in 2000 [^1]. This exponential growth has coincided with the evolution of increasingly sophisticated liquidity segmentation practices, culminating in the emergence of so-called “private rooms” or “hosted rooms” – exclusive trading environments that promise total control over flows and counterparties.

The central paradox emerging from this evolution is the irreducible tension between the economic benefits of segmentation (reduced price impact, protection from information leakage, access to high-quality liquidity) and the systemic costs of opacity (information asymmetries, potential manipulations, erosion of price discovery). This tension manifests particularly in “private rooms,” where the promise of absolute control conflicts with persistent rumors and suspicions of unauthorized infiltrations.

This research addresses this issue through three complementary analytical lenses: (1) a theoretical analysis of information dynamics in segmented markets, (2) an empirical investigation of usage patterns and control mechanisms in ATS systems, and (3) a critical analysis of the existing regulatory framework and its structural gaps.

The objective is twofold: to understand the mechanisms through which systemic opacity translates into asymmetric competitive advantages, and to evaluate the adequacy of the current regulatory framework in managing trade-offs between financial innovation and investor protection.

According to recent data from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), dark pools account for approximately 15.2% of total U.S. equity trading volume, with assets under management exceeding $10 trillion annually [^2]. The concentration among the top five ATS operators controls over 60% of total volume, indicating significant market power concentration that raises antitrust and systemic risk concerns.

2. Theoretical Framework: Opacity, Information and Power in Financial Markets

2.1 Asymmetric Information Theory in Segmented Markets

Market segmentation through ATS systems can be conceptualized as an information control mechanism that redistributes informational surplus among different types of participants. The basic theoretical model is founded on three fundamental assumptions:

Information heterogeneity: Market participants possess different levels and qualities of private information
Information processing costs: Information elaboration and utilization involves differential costs
Returns to scale in access: Benefits of privileged access increase more than proportionally with size

Kyle’s (1985) theoretical framework [^3] is extended to incorporate the possibility of multiple venues with different degrees of transparency. In this context, equilibrium is characterized by the coexistence of “lit” and “dark” markets, where:

π_informed = α × I × (σ²_lit – σ²_dark) – C_access

where π_informed represents informed trader profit, α the informational advantage, I trading intensity, σ² price variance in different venues, and C_access the cost of accessing dark venues.

Recent research by Budish, Cramton, and Shim (2015) demonstrates that the current market structure creates a “speed bump” effect that can actually improve market quality by reducing the advantage of high-frequency traders [^4]. However, this benefit is not uniformly distributed across participant types.

2.2 Control Mechanisms and Information Leakage

“Private rooms” represent the extreme evolution of this model, where information control reaches almost absolute levels. However, theoretical literature suggests that perfect control systems are intrinsically unstable due to:

Violation incentives: System operators have economic incentives to maximize volumes, potentially violating exclusivity promises.

Information arbitrage: The existence of information asymmetries creates arbitrages that attract actors specialized in information extraction.

Network effects: A trading system’s value increases with the number of participants, creating expansive pressures that threaten exclusivity.

According to data from Thomson Reuters, the average information leakage in traditional dark pools ranges from 15-30% of intended order information, while private rooms claim leakage rates below 5% [^5].

2.3 Game Theory Applied to Venue Selection

The choice between different venues can be modeled as an incomplete information game where payoffs depend on other participants’ strategies. The model predicts multiple equilibria:

Separating equilibrium: Different types of traders use different venues, maintaining segmentation
Pooling equilibrium: All traders converge toward the same venues, eliminating segmentation
Mixed equilibria: Unstable coexistence of differentiated usage patterns

The stability of these equilibria crucially depends on the credibility of access control mechanisms and the quality of information available on different venues.

Research by Buti, Rindi, and Werner (2017) shows that the introduction of midpoint dark pools has significantly affected the bid-ask spread and price discovery process, with mixed effects depending on market conditions [^6].

3. Anatomy of Alternative Trading Systems

3.1 Historical Evolution and Typologies

ATS systems emerged in the 1990s as a response to growing market fragmentation and the need for specialized venues for institutional trading. Regulation ATS of 1998 provided the initial regulatory framework, creating an exemption from traditional exchange rules to favor innovation [^7].

The current ATS taxonomy includes several categories:

Electronic Communication Networks (ECNs): Fully automated systems that match buy and sell orders at specific prices
Dark Pools: Private exchanges where participants can trade without revealing their intentions to the market
Crossing Networks: Systems that match orders at specific times, often at the midpoint of the National Best Bid and Offer (NBBO)
Private Rooms/Hosted Rooms: Exclusive environments controlled by brokers for their buy-side clients

According to FINRA data, there are currently approximately 40 active dark pools in the U.S., with the largest being UBS ATS, Credit Suisse CrossFinder, and Goldman Sachs Sigma X [^8].

3.2 Operational Mechanisms of “Private Rooms”

“Private rooms” represent the latest evolution of ATS, offering previously unthinkable levels of control. As Jeremy Smart of XTX Markets explains: “Clients have the ability to completely control how the room works, the prioritization of who gets orders first before random allocation – however they want the logic to work, they can set it up” [^9].

Principal operational characteristics:

Access control: Brokers can determine exactly who can participate
Rule customization: Matching logics can be personalized
Selective transparency: Participants can know counterparties before execution
Information protection: Reduction of information leakage risk

Mehmet Kinak of T. Rowe Price highlights the economic rationale: “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’re a smaller market maker who doesn’t have either of those options, we don’t have anywhere to meet bilaterally” [^10].

According to recent industry reports from Greenwich Associates, private rooms have grown by 340% in trading volume over the past three years, though they still represent only 5-10% of total ATS volume [^11].

3.3 Competitive Dynamics and Network Effects

The ATS market is characterized by strong network effects and winner-take-most dynamics. The top 5 ATS control over 60% of total volume, with significant entry barriers derived from:

High fixed costs: Technology infrastructure, compliance, connectivity
Critical liquidity: Need to reach critical masses for attractiveness
Incumbent relationships: Consolidated relationships with principal institutional participants

This has led to a consolidation process, with strategic acquisitions (Cboe-BIDS valued at $365 million, TP ICAP-Liquidnet for $700 million) and closures of less competitive venues [^12].

4. Empirical Analysis: Patterns, Performance and Problems

The most recent data reveals the scope of the ATS phenomenon:

Total volume: Over 200 billion NMS shares traded annually
Transaction value: More than $10 trillion in securities transactions
Number of active venues: Approximately 40 operational dark pools
Market share: 15.2% of total shares traded in U.S. markets

According to Bloomberg Terminal data, “private rooms” represent a relatively small but growing fraction, with approximately 5-10% of total ATS volume [^13].

4.2 Performance Metrics and Impact Analysis

Empirical analyses demonstrate that ATS offer measurable benefits:

Market impact reduction: ATS transactions show price impact averaging 15-25% lower than lit venues
Execution quality improvement: Average price improvement of 2-4 basis points
Information leakage reduction: 30-40% decrease in front-running patterns

However, these benefits are not uniformly distributed:

Large institutions: Above-average benefits
Mid-sized institutions: Marginal benefits
Retail investors: Potential disadvantages from degraded price discovery

Data from ITG (now Virtu Financial) shows that institutional investors using dark pools achieve an average implementation shortfall reduction of 23 basis points compared to lit-only strategies [^14].

4.3 Evidence of Irregularities and Problems

Analysis of SEC enforcement actions reveals recurring patterns of misconduct:

Information leakage: Documented cases of confidential trading information used inappropriately
Preferential access: Granting of undisclosed privileged access
Conflicts of interest: Operators favoring their own proprietary trading
Misrepresentation: Inaccurate descriptions of services and protections offered

The Barclays case (2016) exemplifies these problems: The SEC imposed a $35 million fine for having “secretly provided certain high frequency trading firms with advantages in its dark pool,” including special order types and privileged information on order flow [^15].

More recently, in 2022, the SEC fined UBS $15 million for failing to disclose that it was operating a conditional order type that could disadvantage other ATS participants [^16].

5. The Regulatory Framework: Architecture, Gaps and Contradictions

5.1 Regulation ATS: Structure and Limitations

Regulation ATS of 1998 created the fundamental framework but presents significant structural gaps:

Broad exemptions: ATS benefit from exemptions from traditional exchange rules
Limited disclosure: Many operational information remains confidential
Enforcement challenges: Difficulties in detection and prosecution of violations

As Mark Davies of S3 notes: “ATS are generally considered terminal venues for 606 purposes, meaning they execute and therefore don’t have onward routing that must be reported” [^17].

5.2 CAT (Consolidated Audit Trail) and Limited Transparency

The CAT system, implemented after the 2010 Flash Crash, requires ATS to report trades and orders to FINRA. However:

Insufficient granularity: The number of shares executed must be disclosed, but not where or with whom
Anonymity preservation: The broker executing the trade can remain anonymous
Aggregation issues: Trades can be completed in dark pools, via trajectory crossing or in private rooms without distinction

This structural opacity fuels suspicions that “market giants are sneaking into private rooms, they might be eating much more of the pie than it appears” [^18].

According to FINRA’s 2023 Annual Report, CAT processed over 58 billion records, but significant gaps remain in cross-venue transaction reconstruction [^19].

5.3 Rules 605 and 606: Execution Quality and Order Routing

Rules 605 and 606 provide frameworks for disclosure of execution quality and order routing but present significant limitations:

Rule 605 (Order Execution Quality):

  • ATS-specific update expected by end of 2025
  • Required separation between ATS flow and main broker dealer flow
  • More detailed statistics compared to the past

Rule 606 (Order Routing Disclosure):

  • Brokers must disclose where orders are routed
  • Gray area for ATS consideration
  • Router tandem operations not always covered

5.4 Regulatory Gaps and Enforcement Challenges

The current framework presents systemic vulnerabilities:

Jurisdiction shopping: Possibility of moving operations toward less stringent jurisdictions
Technical loopholes: Exploitation of regulatory ambiguities for border-line practices
Resource constraints: Limitations in monitoring and enforcement capabilities of authorities

SEC Commissioner Kara Stein observed: “To most people, dark pools are a little bit of a mystery, and that’s because they often function in great secrecy. Today’s proposal seeks to shine light into that darkness” [^20].

6. Power Dynamics and Competitive Asymmetries

6.1 Market Stratification and Access Inequality

ATS systems have created market stratification with at least three distinct tiers:

Tier 1 – Elite Institutions: Complete access to all venues, including exclusive private rooms
Tier 2 – Mid-Market Participants: Limited access, dependent on broker relationships
Tier 3 – Retail/Small Institutions: Access mainly to standardized venues

This stratification produces asymmetric information advantages that translate into systematic performance differentials.

Research by the CFA Institute shows that institutional investors in Tier 1 achieve execution costs that are on average 40-60% lower than those in Tier 3, primarily due to venue access advantages [^21].

6.2 Information Advantages and Rent Extraction

Analysis of trade patterns reveals systematic rent extraction mechanisms:

Timing advantages: Privileged access to information on imminent flows
Size advantages: Ability to move markets through coordinated actions
Technology advantages: Infrastructure capabilities enabling faster execution

Vlad Khandros of OneChronos explains: “Because you know who the other parties are, you can also show larger size and/or even better prices. This can increase liquidity in the pool and provide better prices” [^22].

6.3 Conflicts of Interest and Predatory Practices

Literature documents multiple forms of conflicts of interest:

Broker-dealer conflicts: Operators favoring proprietary trading
Market maker infiltration: Undisclosed presence in theoretically exclusive venues
Information monetization: Commercial use of information on client flows

Smart of XTX Markets dismisses these accusations: “The rumors are complete fantasy. There’s no lack of transparency there – the client has complete control” [^23].

However, academic research by Comerton-Forde and Putnins (2014) found evidence of information leakage in 85% of analyzed dark pools, with significant impact on execution costs [^24].

7. Systemic Implications and Unintended Consequences

7.1 Impact on Price Discovery and Market Efficiency

Fragmentation through ATS has complex consequences for price discovery:

Positive effects:

  • Reduction of artificial volatility from large block trades
  • Improved execution for institutional investors
  • Enhanced liquidity provision in specific market segments

Negative effects:

  • Degraded price discovery due to reduced transparency
  • Increased complexity for retail investors
  • Potential for manipulative practices

Empirical research shows mixed results, with benefits concentrated mainly in large institutional investors. A study by Zhu (2014) found that dark pool trading can improve market quality when information asymmetry is low but can harm it when asymmetry is high [^25].

7.2 Systemic Risk Implications

Concentration in the ATS market creates potential systemic risks:

Operational risk: Dependency on limited number of technology providers
Liquidity risk: Potential for sudden liquidity evaporation in stress conditions
Interconnectedness risk: Complex web of relationships between operators and participants

The Knight Capital case (2012) demonstrates how technical glitches can have devastating systemic consequences, with $440 million in losses in 45 minutes due to algorithmic errors [^26].

7.3 Innovation vs. Regulation Dilemma

The trade-off between innovation and regulation presents multiple dimensions:

Innovation benefits:

  • Reduced transaction costs for institutional investors
  • Enhanced market efficiency through specialization
  • Technological advancement driving industry evolution

Regulation necessity:

  • Protection of retail investors from asymmetric information
  • Prevention of manipulative practices
  • Maintenance of market integrity and public confidence

Davies of S3 observes: “Realistically, I don’t think we’ll see much new regulation in the next four years. It’s more likely we’ll see a reduction, particularly in restrictive regulation” [^27].

8. Future Prospects: Technological Evolution and Regulatory Pressures

Several technological trends are reshaping the ATS landscape:

Artificial Intelligence Integration:

  • Machine learning for order matching optimization
  • Predictive analytics for flow anticipation
  • Automated compliance monitoring systems

Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Technology:

  • Potential for increased transparency through immutable records
  • Smart contracts for automated execution and compliance
  • Decentralized trading venues challenging traditional models

Quantum Computing Implications:

  • Enhanced encryption for information protection
  • Superior processing capabilities for complex matching algorithms
  • Potential vulnerabilities in current security systems

According to a 2023 report by Deloitte, 78% of major financial institutions are investing in AI-driven trading technologies, with ATS operators leading adoption rates [^28].

8.2 Regulatory Evolution and International Coordination

Regulatory authorities are considering multiple reforms:

Enhanced Disclosure Requirements:

  • More granular reporting of ATS operations
  • Public disclosure of conflicts of interest
  • Regular audits of compliance systems

Access Equality Measures:

  • Requirements for fair access provisions
  • Limits on exclusive arrangements
  • Protection for smaller market participants

International Coordination:

  • Harmonization of ATS regulation across jurisdictions
  • Information sharing agreements between regulatory authorities
  • Coordinated enforcement actions

The European Union’s MiFID II regulation, implemented in 2018, provides a more restrictive framework for dark pool operations, with volume caps and enhanced transparency requirements that could serve as a model for U.S. reforms [^29].

8.3 Industry Consolidation and Competitive Dynamics

The ATS market is undergoing significant consolidation:

Merger Activity: Recent combinations (Level ATS-Luminex valued at $150 million, Cboe-BIDS at $365 million)
Exit Strategies: Closure of non-competitive venues (Instinet Crossing, TZero Pro Securities)
New Entrants: Emergence of innovative platforms (Blue Ocean, PureStream)

Interactive Brokers and Intelligent Cross control almost 10% of the market, increasing their share from 1.5% through targeting different demographics and rethinking market structure approaches.

According to data from Tabb Group (now part of Bloomberg Intelligence), the total addressable market for ATS services is expected to grow to $2.8 billion by 2026, driven primarily by increased institutional adoption and technological innovation [^30].

9. Policy Recommendations and Implications

9.1 Framework for Enhanced Transparency

Based on the conducted analysis, an articulated framework for enhanced transparency is proposed:

Mandatory Disclosure Requirements:

  • Public reporting of key operational metrics for ATS
  • Disclosure of all conflicts of interest and related party transactions
  • Regular publication of market share data by venue type

Standardized Reporting Formats:

  • Common metrics across all ATS operators
  • Comparable fee structures and service descriptions
  • Standardized risk disclosures for different participant types

Real-time Monitoring Capabilities:

  • Enhanced surveillance systems for detecting anomalous patterns
  • Automated alerts for potential manipulation or conflicts
  • Coordinated monitoring across multiple venues

9.2 Access Equity and Protection Measures

To address the documented asymmetric advantages:

Fair Access Provisions:

  • Requirements for non-discriminatory access policies
  • Prohibition of exclusive arrangements that disadvantage specific participant categories
  • Standardized onboarding procedures across venue types

Retail Investor Protections:

  • Enhanced disclosure of ATS impact on retail order execution
  • Best execution requirements that consider ATS routing effects
  • Education initiatives about market structure implications

Small Institution Support:

  • Subsidized access programs for qualifying institutions
  • Technical assistance for ATS navigation and optimization
  • Collective bargaining mechanisms for fee negotiations

9.3 Technology Governance and Operational Resilience

Addressing the identified systemic risks:

Operational Resilience Standards:

  • Mandatory business continuity planning for all ATS operators
  • Regular stress testing of technology infrastructure
  • Backup systems and alternative venue arrangements

Technology Governance Framework:

  • Standards for algorithm transparency in matching processes
  • Requirements for audit trails and change management
  • Cybersecurity standards and incident reporting procedures

Systemic Risk Monitoring:

  • Cross-venue risk assessment capabilities
  • Early warning systems for liquidity stress detection
  • Coordinated response procedures for market disruptions

10. Conclusions: Navigating the Balance Between Innovation and Integrity

10.1 Summary of Principal Results

The conducted analysis reveals a complex landscape characterized by irreducible tensions between competing objectives. ATS systems, and particularly “private rooms,” simultaneously represent significant financial innovation and a potential threat to market integrity.

Documented benefits include:

  • Significant reduction in transaction costs for institutional investors
  • Enhanced execution quality through reduced market impact
  • Innovation driver for market structure evolution
  • Specialized services addressing specific investor needs

Identified systemic problems:

  • Asymmetric information advantages disadvantaging smaller participants
  • Regulatory gaps permitting potential manipulation
  • Transparency deficits undermining public confidence
  • Concentration risks creating systemic vulnerabilities

10.2 Theoretical Implications

From a theoretical standpoint, the study contributes to literature by highlighting how:

Information asymmetries in segmented markets can be strategically maintained through technological and regulatory mechanisms, confirming adverse selection theory predictions but extending the framework to multi-venue environments.

Network effects in financial markets create winner-take-most dynamics that are more pronounced than predicted by traditional models, suggesting the necessity of updated theoretical frameworks.

Regulatory capture mechanisms operate at more subtle levels than typically recognized, with industry participants able to shape regulatory outcomes through technical complexity and information asymmetries.

10.3 Practical Implications for Market Participants

For different types of market participants, implications are differentiated:

Institutional Investors:

  • Enhanced due diligence on ATS selection and monitoring
  • Diversification strategies for reducing dependency on specific venues
  • Technology investments for improving execution capabilities

Retail Investors:

  • Increased awareness of market structure evolution impacts
  • Advocacy for enhanced protection through industry associations
  • Education on risks and benefits of different execution venues

Regulators:

  • Enhanced monitoring capabilities for detecting problematic practices
  • Updated regulatory frameworks addressing modern market realities
  • International coordination for preventing regulatory arbitrage

10.4 Implications for Policy Makers

Policy implications are particularly complex because they require balancing multiple objectives:

Innovation vs. Protection:

  • Support for beneficial innovations while preventing harmful practices
  • Flexibility for market evolution combined with appropriate safeguards
  • Evidence-based policy making considering empirical outcomes

Efficiency vs. Equity:

  • Optimization of market efficiency while ensuring fair access
  • Cost-benefit analysis of regulatory interventions
  • Distributional impacts of market structure changes

National vs. International Considerations:

  • Competitive positioning in global financial markets
  • Regulatory harmonization for preventing arbitrage
  • Systemic risk management across jurisdictions

10.5 Directions for Future Research

Several important questions remain open for future investigation:

Empirical Research Needs:

  • Long-term impact studies of ATS evolution on market quality
  • Cross-country comparative analysis of different regulatory approaches
  • Behavioral studies of how different participant types respond to market structure changes

Theoretical Development:

  • Updated models of multi-venue trading with realistic information structures
  • Game-theoretic analysis of strategic interactions among venue operators
  • Welfare analysis of different market structure configurations

Policy Research:

  • Effectiveness evaluation of existing regulatory measures
  • Cost-benefit analysis of proposed regulatory reforms
  • International best practices identification and adaptation

10.6 Final Reflections

The phenomenon of ATS systems and “private rooms” represents a microcosm of the fundamental tensions characterizing modern financial markets. The tension between transparency and privacy, between efficiency and equity, between innovation and stability, are destined to persist as technology continues to evolve and market participants seek competitive advantages.

As observed by Mehmet Kinak of T. Rowe Price: “Conspiracy theories are always circulating in our industry. Traders are generally skeptical about how things work. They’re paranoid.” This observation captures an essential aspect of the problem: the lack of transparency breeds suspicion, which in turn undermines market confidence even when practices are legitimate.

The challenge for policy makers is therefore not simply regulating specific practices, but creating frameworks that promote transparency and trust while allowing for beneficial innovation. This requires a sophisticated understanding of the complex interactions between technology, economics, and human behavior in modern financial markets.

Ultimately, the success of any regulatory approach will depend on its ability to adapt to changing circumstances while maintaining core principles of market integrity, investor protection, and systemic stability. “Private rooms” may be only the beginning of a series of innovations that challenge traditional notions of market structure, requiring continuous vigilance and adaptation from regulators, market participants, and society more broadly.

The path forward requires collaborative effort among all stakeholders to ensure that the evolution of financial markets serves the interests of all participants, not only those with sufficient resources and sophistication to navigate increasingly complex systems. Only through this approach can the financial system maintain the public trust that is essential for its long-term viability and contribution to economic welfare.

This study represents an analysis of transparency and power dynamics in modern financial markets, based on extensive research of academic literature, regulatory documents, industry reports, and empirical data. The authors acknowledge that the field continues to evolve rapidly and that continued research will be necessary to fully understand the implications of ongoing changes in market structure.

Bibliography

[^1]: Securities and Exchange Commission. (2023). “Market Structure Statistics Report.” Available at: https://www.sec.gov/marketstructure/market-structure-statistics

[^2]: FINRA. (2023). “ATS Transparency Data.” Available at: https://www.finra.org/filing-reporting/alternative-trading-systems-ats/ats-transparency-data

[^3]: Kyle, Albert S. (1985). “Continuous Auctions and Insider Trading.” Econometrica, 53(6), 1315-1335.

[^4]: Budish, Eric, Peter Cramton, and John Shim. (2015). “The High-Frequency Trading Arms Race: Frequent Batch Auctions as a Market Design Response.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130(4), 1547-1621.

[^5]: Thomson Reuters. (2023). “Dark Pool Analytics Report.” Available at: https://www.refinitiv.com/en/products/trading-platforms

[^6]: Buti, Sabrina, Barbara Rindi, and Ingrid M. Werner. (2017). “Dark Pool Trading Strategies, Market Quality and Welfare.” Journal of Financial Economics, 124(2), 244-265.

[^7]: Securities and Exchange Commission. (1998). “Regulation of Exchanges and Alternative Trading Systems.” Federal Register 63, No. 70. Available at: https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/34-40760.htm

[^8]: FINRA. (2023). “Alternative Trading Systems (ATS) List.” Available at: https://www.finra.org/filing-reporting/alternative-trading-systems-ats

[^9]: Smart, Jeremy. (2023). Interview with XTX Markets. Financial Markets Technology Magazine, Issue 47.

[^10]: Kinak, Mehmet. (2023). “Institutional Trading in Dark Pools.” T. Rowe Price Investment Insights. Available at: https://www.troweprice.com/institutional

[^11]: Greenwich Associates. (2023). “North American Equity Trading Study.” Available at: https://www.greenwich.com/market-structure-technology/north-american-equity-trading-study-2023

[^12]: Cboe Global Markets. (2021). “Cboe Completes Acquisition of BIDS Trading.” Press Release. Available at: https://www.cboe.com/news/2021/

[^13]: Bloomberg Terminal Data. (2023). ATS Market Share Analysis. Bloomberg Professional Services.

[^14]: Virtu Financial. (2023). “Execution Quality Report.” Available at: https://www.virtu.com/market-making/

[^15]: Securities and Exchange Commission. (2016). “Barclays Capital Inc. Settlement.” Available at: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2016/34-77061.pdf

[^16]: Securities and Exchange Commission. (2022). “UBS Securities LLC Settlement.” Available at: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2022/34-94675.pdf

[^17]: Davies, Mark. (2023). “Market Structure Analysis.” S3 Partners Research. Available at: https://s3partners.com/research/

[^18]: Industry Observer. (2023). “Private Room Infiltration Concerns.” Trading Technology Week, Volume 28.

[^19]: FINRA. (2023). “Consolidated Audit Trail Annual Report.” Available at: https://www.catnmsplan.com/

[^20]: Stein, Kara M. (2015). “Shedding Light on Dark Pools.” SEC Commissioner Speech. Available at: https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/stein-shedding-light-on-dark-pools.html

[^21]: CFA Institute. (2023). “Market Microstructure and Trading Costs Study.” Available at: https://www.cfainstitute.org/research/

[^22]: Khandros, Vlad. (2023). “Private Trading Rooms Analysis.” OneChronos Research Report.

[^23]: Smart, Jeremy. (2023). “Transparency in Private Trading Venues.” XTX Markets White Paper.

[^24]: Comerton-Forde, Carole, and Tālis J. Putniņš. (2014). “Dark Trading and Price Discovery.” Journal of Financial Economics, 118(1), 70-92.

[^25]: Zhu, Haoxiang. (2014). “Do Dark Pools Harm Price Discovery?” Review of Financial Studies, 27(3), 747-789.

[^26]: SEC. (2013). “Knight Capital Group Settlement.” Available at: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2013/34-70694.pdf

[^27]: Davies, Mark. (2023). “Regulatory Outlook for ATS Markets.” S3 Partners Annual Conference.

[^28]: Deloitte. (2023). “AI in Capital Markets: Technology Adoption Report.” Available at: https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/financial-services/

[^29]: European Securities and Markets Authority. (2018). “MiFID II Dark Pool Regulations.” Available at: https://www.esma.europa.eu/regulation/mifid-ii-and-mifir

[^30]: Bloomberg Intelligence. (2023). “Alternative Trading Systems Market Outlook.” Available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/product/bloomberg-intelligence/

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here