According to Financial Times News, global securities regulators from Iosco have called for limits on market maker activities amid evidence of widespread “front-running” through pre-hedging practices. The International Organization of Securities Commissions, representing 95% of global securities markets across 130 jurisdictions, found that dealers frequently trade on their own accounts before winning client orders, particularly in competitive “request for quote” systems where multiple dealers become aware of upcoming trades. Industry responses revealed deep divisions, with Jane Street calling the practice “a form of market abuse” while Susquehanna agreed it “should not be considered acceptable,” yet some defended pre-hedging as enabling smaller dealers to compete. Iosco’s recommendations stopped short of an outright ban but called for dealers to only pre-hedge for legitimate risk management with client consent and minimal market impact. This regulatory scrutiny highlights growing concerns about institutional trading practices.
Sponsored content — provided for informational and promotional purposes.
The Hidden Cost to Investors
What makes pre-hedging particularly problematic is its cumulative impact on institutional investors and ultimately retail investors. When multiple market makers simultaneously adjust their positions in anticipation of a single large order, the collective effect creates significant price slippage that directly harms the client’s execution quality. This isn’t just theoretical – industry experts like Peter Sleep of Callanish Capital note this is “absolutely rife” in ETF trading, where market makers systematically mark up prices immediately upon receiving RFQs. The Iosco framework attempts to balance competing interests, but the reality is that these practices extract billions annually from pension funds, mutual funds, and other institutional investors through degraded execution quality that ultimately trickles down to individual investors’ returns.
The Structural Flaw in RFQ Systems
The competitive RFQ system, designed to promote price discovery through multiple dealer quotes, contains an inherent vulnerability that enables this behavior. When an asset manager circulates an RFQ to several market makers, they’re essentially broadcasting their trading intentions to multiple parties who then have both the incentive and opportunity to pre-position themselves. This creates what economists call a “common knowledge” problem – each dealer knows that other dealers also received the RFQ and might pre-hedge, creating a prisoner’s dilemma where everyone races to front-run the anticipated order. The system’s design assumes good faith participation, but in practice creates perverse incentives that systematically disadvantage the very clients the system is meant to serve.
The Enforcement Challenge Ahead
Iosco’s recommendations face significant implementation hurdles across global jurisdictions. The distinction between legitimate risk management and abusive front-running is notoriously difficult to police in real-time trading environments. Regulators would need sophisticated surveillance capabilities to distinguish between inventory management that serves market efficiency versus positioning that exploits informational advantages. Furthermore, the global nature of these markets creates regulatory arbitrage opportunities, where dealers might concentrate these activities in jurisdictions with weaker enforcement. The European Fund and Asset Management Association’s position favoring an outright ban reflects the practical difficulty of drawing these lines in fast-moving markets where milliseconds matter.
Implications for Market Structure
This regulatory attention could accelerate broader changes in institutional trading protocols. The controversy highlights fundamental tensions in modern market structure between transparency, efficiency, and fairness. While pre-hedging defenders argue it enables price discovery and liquidity, the practice essentially privatizes the benefits of information while socializing the costs of market impact. We may see increased adoption of alternative execution methods, including periodic batch auctions, dark pools with different information protocols, or blockchain-based settlement systems that reduce front-running opportunities. The debate ultimately questions whether current market structures adequately serve end investors or have evolved to primarily benefit intermediaries.
Competitive Dynamics Among Market Makers
The regulatory scrutiny creates strategic dilemmas for different types of market makers. Larger firms with substantial balance sheets might benefit from restrictions that disadvantage smaller competitors who rely more heavily on pre-hedging to manage inventory constraints. This explains the divided industry response, where some firms advocate for stricter limits while others defend the practice’s competitive benefits. The outcome could reshape market maker hierarchies, potentially consolidating market share among firms with stronger capital positions and more sophisticated risk management systems that don’t require pre-hedging to remain competitive.
