Concept
A flash crash represents a severe test of a market’s structural integrity. Within a quote-driven system, this test focuses directly on the designated market makers (DMMs) who are the system’s foundational pillars of liquidity. Their obligation to provide continuous two-sided quotations forms the very definition of this market structure. The event of a flash crash, therefore, becomes a direct examination of the resilience of this obligation under extreme duress.
The system’s performance is contingent upon the DMMs’ capacity to absorb massive, unidirectional order flow while managing their own risk inventories. The core tension is between the DMMs’ contractual requirement to provide liquidity and their rational, self-preservationist instinct to withdraw from a market that has become dangerously unpredictable and one-sided.
The impact of this structure on liquidity during such a crisis is a function of this tension. Initially, the presence of DMMs can act as a stabilizing force, absorbing the initial shock of a large sell order. Their posted quotes provide a visible, albeit rapidly diminishing, source of liquidity for market participants. However, this stability is predicated on the DMMs’ ability to offload the inventory they accumulate.
In a flash crash, the synchronous selling pressure from multiple participants eliminates the natural buyers who would typically absorb this inventory. This creates a feedback loop ▴ as DMMs absorb selling pressure, their own risk limits are breached, forcing them to widen their bid-ask spreads dramatically or withdraw their quotes altogether. This withdrawal of obligated liquidity is the critical failure point in a quote-driven market during a flash crash. It transforms a sharp price decline into a liquidity vacuum, where prices gap down violently in search of the next available bid, which may be significantly lower.
The structural reliance on designated market makers in a quote-driven system creates a centralized point of failure for liquidity during the cascading feedback loops of a flash crash.
This dynamic is distinct from an order-driven market, where liquidity is a composite of limit orders from a diverse and anonymous pool of participants. In that system, a flash crash is characterized by the rapid, cascading execution of sell orders against the existing limit order book, a process sometimes described as “quote sniping” where stale limit orders are hit. In a quote-driven market, the process is one of quote evaporation. The visible, centralized liquidity provided by DMMs disappears, leaving a void.
The speed of this evaporation is often accelerated by the electronic and algorithmic nature of modern market making. The same systems that allow DMMs to provide tight spreads and deep liquidity in normal conditions enable them to pull their quotes almost instantaneously when their risk models signal extreme danger. This speed of withdrawal is a defining characteristic of how a quote-driven market structure impacts liquidity during a flash crash. The very efficiency of the DMMs’ risk management systems contributes to the severity of the liquidity crisis.
The Anatomy of Quote Withdrawal
In a quote-driven market, liquidity is not an abstract concept; it is a concrete offering from a specific set of actors. During a flash crash, the decision-making process of these actors becomes the central driver of market behavior. A DMM’s decision to withdraw quotes is not a single event but a sequence of escalating responses to deteriorating market conditions. This sequence typically follows a predictable pattern, governed by the DMM’s internal risk management protocols.
The first stage is the widening of spreads. As volatility spikes and order flow becomes increasingly one-sided, the DMM’s pricing algorithms will automatically increase the difference between their bid and ask prices. This is a defensive measure designed to compensate for the increased risk of holding a position and to discourage further aggressive selling. The second stage is the reduction of size.
The DMM will reduce the volume of shares they are willing to trade at their quoted prices. A quote that was for 10,000 shares may be reduced to 1,000 or even 100 shares. This limits the DMM’s exposure to any single trade. The final stage is the complete withdrawal of one or both sides of the quote.
This occurs when the DMM’s risk limits are breached, or when the market becomes so disorderly that their pricing models can no longer produce a reliable quote. It is this final stage that creates the liquidity vacuum characteristic of a flash crash in a quote-driven market.
What Governs the Speed of Liquidity Evaporation?
The velocity at which liquidity disappears in a quote-driven market during a flash crash is a function of technology and regulation. The technological component is the DMMs’ algorithmic trading systems. These systems are designed to manage risk in real-time, and they can execute the sequence of spread widening, size reduction, and quote withdrawal in milliseconds. This speed is a double-edged sword.
In normal market conditions, it allows for efficient price discovery and tight spreads. During a flash crash, it allows for the near-instantaneous removal of liquidity from the market.
The regulatory component is the set of rules that govern the DMMs’ obligations. These rules typically specify the minimum percentage of the trading day that DMMs must provide two-sided quotes, the maximum allowable spread, and the minimum quote size. However, these rules often contain exceptions for periods of extreme volatility.
These “fast market” declarations or similar provisions allow DMMs to legally suspend their obligations, precisely at the moment when the market needs them most. The interaction between the speed of the DMMs’ technology and the flexibility of their regulatory obligations is what determines the severity of the liquidity crisis in a quote-driven market during a flash crash.
Information Asymmetry and Adverse Selection
A flash crash dramatically amplifies the problems of information asymmetry and adverse selection for market makers. In a quote-driven system, DMMs are constantly exposed to the risk of trading with more informed participants. They manage this risk by adjusting their spreads based on the perceived toxicity of the order flow. During a flash crash, the order flow becomes almost entirely toxic.
The overwhelming selling pressure is often initiated by a large, informed seller or a cascade of automated sell programs. A DMM that continues to provide liquidity in this environment is effectively trading against an army of participants who have a strong conviction that the price is going lower.
This creates a classic adverse selection death spiral. As DMMs absorb the initial wave of selling, they incur losses. To compensate, they widen their spreads. This makes trading more expensive for everyone, driving away the uninformed, natural buyers who might otherwise have provided some offsetting liquidity.
The remaining order flow becomes even more dominated by the aggressive sellers, further increasing the DMMs’ losses and forcing them to widen their spreads even more. This cycle repeats until the DMMs are forced to withdraw their quotes entirely, leaving the market illiquid. The structure of the quote-driven market, with its reliance on a small number of professional liquidity providers, makes it particularly vulnerable to this type of dynamic. The DMMs are a known, visible target for informed traders, and their obligation to quote makes them a predictable source of liquidity to trade against.
Strategy
In the context of a flash crash, the strategic landscape for participants in a quote-driven market is defined by a rapid and brutal reassessment of risk and obligation. The strategies employed by market makers and institutional investors diverge sharply as the event unfolds, driven by their fundamentally different roles and objectives within the market’s architecture. For designated market makers, the strategy shifts from profitable liquidity provision to pure survival. For institutional investors, the focus becomes damage control and the desperate search for any viable exit or entry point in a market that has ceased to function predictably.
The core strategic challenge in a quote-driven market during a crash is that the system’s primary liquidity providers have a strong incentive to act in a way that exacerbates the problem. A DMM’s strategy is governed by its inventory risk and the potential for adverse selection. As a flash crash begins, the DMM’s inventory of the crashing asset swells, while the value of that inventory plummets. Simultaneously, the one-sided order flow signals that anyone willing to sell at the DMM’s bid price likely possesses information or momentum that the DMM does not.
The DMM is strategically cornered. Continuing to honor its quotes means accumulating a rapidly depreciating asset from potentially better-informed sellers. The only rational strategic response is to widen spreads to a punitive degree and drastically reduce quote sizes, effectively withdrawing from the market to protect capital. This is a localized, rational strategy for the individual DMM firm, but it has a catastrophic systemic effect, as it removes the very liquidity the market structure is supposed to guarantee.
The rational, self-preservation strategy of individual market makers during a flash crash collectively contributes to the systemic failure of liquidity in a quote-driven market.
Market Maker Strategy under Duress
The strategic playbook for a DMM during a flash crash is a multi-stage process of disengagement. It is not a simple on/off switch but a calculated retreat designed to minimize losses while, if possible, fulfilling the letter of their market-making obligations. This retreat can be broken down into several distinct strategic phases.
- Phase 1 ▴ Spread Widening and Size Reduction. This is the initial, automated response. As volatility metrics breach predefined thresholds, the DMM’s algorithms immediately increase the bid-ask spread. This is a pricing strategy designed to make trading so expensive that it deters all but the most desperate sellers. Concurrently, the quoted depth is reduced. A quote for 5,000 shares might become a quote for 500. This is an exposure management strategy.
- Phase 2 ▴ Leaning on the Order Flow. In this phase, the DMM’s quoting strategy becomes purely reactive. Instead of providing a firm, two-sided market, the DMM may “lean” on the national best bid or offer (NBBO), placing its own quotes just behind the best price. This allows the DMM to appear to be providing liquidity without actually being at the front of the queue to be executed against. It is a strategy of feigned participation.
- Phase 3 ▴ Quote Flickering. As the crash intensifies, some DMMs may engage in quote flickering, where their quotes are entered and canceled in rapid succession. This can be a strategy to disrupt the algorithms of aggressive traders or to satisfy regulatory requirements for quote uptime without providing any genuine, tradable liquidity. It creates the illusion of a market where none truly exists.
- Phase 4 ▴ Full Withdrawal. This is the final stage, where the DMM’s risk models determine that no price is safe. The DMM will pull its quotes entirely, often citing “fast market” conditions as a justification. This is a strategy of pure capital preservation. The DMM has decided that the risk of further losses outweighs any potential franchise value or regulatory penalty associated with failing to make a market.
How Do DMM Obligations Influence Strategy?
The strategic decisions of DMMs are framed by their obligations to the exchange. These obligations, however, are often more flexible than they appear. A typical DMM agreement might require the firm to maintain a two-sided quote for 95% of the trading day. This gives the DMM a strategic “budget” of 5% of the day where it can be absent from the market without penalty.
DMMs will strategically preserve this budget for times of extreme stress, such as a flash crash. Their strategy is to fulfill their obligations during normal, profitable market conditions, and to use their allowable downtime to protect themselves during chaotic, loss-making conditions. This creates a pro-cyclical effect ▴ the DMMs provide liquidity when it is abundant and withdraw it when it is most scarce.
Furthermore, the penalties for breaching these obligations can be a simple monetary fine. A DMM will perform a cold, calculated analysis ▴ is the potential loss from continuing to make a market in a crashing stock greater than the fine for ceasing to do so? In almost all flash crash scenarios, the potential losses from inventory depreciation are orders of magnitude greater than the regulatory penalty.
The strategic choice is clear ▴ pay the fine and preserve capital. This highlights a fundamental misalignment of incentives at the heart of the quote-driven market structure during a crisis.
Institutional Investor Strategy in a Liquidity Vacuum
For an institutional investor, such as a pension fund or mutual fund, a flash crash in a quote-driven market presents a different but equally severe set of strategic challenges. Their primary problem is the sudden inability to execute their own strategies. A portfolio manager who needs to sell a large block of stock to meet redemptions or rebalance a portfolio finds that the liquidity they had taken for an established fact has evaporated.
The DMMs who would normally have been the counterparty for their trade are gone. Their strategic options are limited and unattractive.
The first strategic decision is whether to participate in the crash at all. An institution with a long-term horizon might choose to simply hold its position and ride out the volatility, assuming the price will eventually recover. However, many institutions do not have this luxury. They may be forced to sell due to client redemptions, margin calls, or internal risk limits.
For these forced sellers, the strategy becomes one of finding any available source of liquidity, regardless of price. This often means resorting to “market orders,” which instruct their broker to sell at the best available price. In a flash crash, a market order is a capitulation strategy. It will chase the price down, executing at successively lower prices as it consumes the thin layers of remaining bids, thereby exacerbating the crash.
A more sophisticated strategy is to use algorithmic orders designed to work a large position over time. However, these algorithms are calibrated for normal market conditions. They rely on the presence of a stable bid-ask spread and a predictable level of liquidity. In a flash crash, these assumptions break down.
A VWAP (Volume-Weighted Average Price) algorithm, for example, is useless when there is no volume. A TWAP (Time-Weighted Average Price) algorithm will simply break the parent order into smaller child orders that are still too large for the depleted market to absorb without significant price impact. The institutional strategy is thus hampered by a toolset that is suddenly obsolete.
The Search for Alternative Liquidity Sources
When the public, quote-driven market fails, the strategic focus for institutions shifts to finding alternative, off-exchange liquidity. This means turning to dark pools or negotiating a block trade directly with another institution. However, these alternatives are also impaired during a flash crash. Dark pools often peg their execution prices to the public market’s NBBO.
When the NBBO is unstable or nonsensical, the dark pool cannot function. Negotiating a block trade requires finding a counterparty willing to take the other side of a large trade in a falling market. This is exceptionally difficult. The search for alternative liquidity is a race against time, as the falling price on the public market makes any potential deal less attractive with each passing moment.
The table below contrasts the strategic options for a DMM and an institutional seller in a quote-driven market during a flash crash, highlighting the conflicting objectives that contribute to the liquidity crisis.
| Strategic Variable | Designated Market Maker (DMM) Strategy | Institutional Seller Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Objective | Capital preservation and inventory risk management. | Execute a large sell order to meet external demands (e.g. redemptions). |
| View of Liquidity | A liability to be managed and withdrawn when risk is high. | A utility to be accessed; its absence is a critical failure. |
| Initial Action | Automatically widen bid-ask spread and reduce quote size. | Attempt to execute against the DMM’s quotes. |
| Secondary Action | Withdraw quotes entirely, citing “fast market” conditions. | Switch to aggressive order types (e.g. market orders) or pause execution. |
| Off-Exchange Strategy | Cease all activity related to the crashing asset. | Frantically search for liquidity in dark pools or via direct negotiation. |
| Outcome | Losses are minimized; capital is preserved for future trading. | The position is either sold at a catastrophic loss or remains unsold. |
Execution
The execution of trades within a quote-driven market during a flash crash is a study in systemic breakdown. The protocols and assumptions that govern trading in normal times are inverted, and the very architecture of the market becomes a conduit for instability. For a designated market maker, execution is about the rapid, systematic withdrawal of liquidity.
For an institutional trader, execution becomes a desperate and often futile attempt to find a counterparty in a market where the primary liquidity providers have vanished. Understanding this breakdown at the level of execution requires a granular analysis of the feedback loops that connect DMM risk management, order flow toxicity, and price discovery.
At the heart of the execution process is the DMM’s automated risk management system. This system is the central nervous system of the quote-driven market. In normal times, it processes market data and adjusts the DMM’s quotes to maintain a balanced inventory and capture the bid-ask spread. During a flash crash, this system’s prime directive shifts from profit generation to loss prevention.
The execution of this directive is what drives the liquidity crisis. The system will execute a pre-programmed sequence of actions with a speed and decisiveness that no human trader could match. This sequence is the execution playbook for a DMM in a crisis, and it is designed to decouple the DMM from the market as quickly and efficiently as possible.
The DMM’s Execution Playbook for Withdrawal
The DMM’s withdrawal from the market is not a chaotic panic; it is a highly structured, automated process. It is the execution of a contingency plan that has been coded and tested long before the crisis hits. This playbook can be modeled as a series of triggered events, where each event pushes the DMM further away from its role as a liquidity provider.
- Trigger 1 ▴ Volatility Spike. The DMM’s system continuously monitors realized and implied volatility. When this metric exceeds a certain threshold (e.g. a 3-sigma move in a 1-minute window), the first execution protocol is triggered. The system immediately widens the DMM’s bid-ask spread by a predefined factor (e.g. 5x the normal spread). This is an automated execution designed to insulate the DMM from the initial burst of volatility.
- Trigger 2 ▴ Inventory Imbalance. The system tracks the DMM’s net position in the asset. When the inventory of a stock acquired through market-making activities exceeds a certain size (e.g. 25% of the DMM’s daily trading volume), the second protocol is triggered. The system automatically reduces the size of the DMM’s quotes. A 10,000-share quote may be cut to 1,000 shares. This execution limits the rate at which the DMM can accumulate more of the toxic asset.
- Trigger 3 ▴ One-Sided Order Flow. The system analyzes the ratio of buy to sell orders it is receiving. When this ratio becomes excessively skewed (e.g. 10 sell orders for every 1 buy order), the third protocol is triggered. The system may begin “flickering” its quotes or pulling one side of the market entirely (typically the bid side, as this is where the selling pressure is concentrated). This is an execution designed to avoid adverse selection.
- Trigger 4 ▴ System-Wide Circuit Breaker. If a market-wide or single-stock circuit breaker is triggered, the DMM’s system will often execute a complete withdrawal of all quotes for that asset. This is a “hard stop” execution, predicated on the assumption that a circuit breaker event signals a complete breakdown of orderly markets.
- Trigger 5 ▴ Manual Override. All DMM firms have a human risk manager with the ability to manually override the automated system. If the human manager perceives a “black swan” event that the algorithms are not programmed to handle, they can execute a firm-wide withdrawal of liquidity. This is the final backstop in the DMM’s execution playbook.
The following table provides a hypothetical model of a DMM’s execution response as a flash crash unfolds, illustrating the quantitative impact of these triggers on the liquidity available to the market.
| Time (ET) | Market Event | DMM Execution Protocol Triggered | Resulting Bid-Ask Spread | Resulting Quote Size (Shares) | Effective Liquidity Provided |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14:42:00 | Normal Market Conditions | None | $0.01 | 10,000 x 10,000 | High |
| 14:42:30 | Large sell order hits the market; volatility spikes. | Trigger 1 ▴ Volatility Spike | $0.05 | 10,000 x 10,000 | Moderate |
| 14:43:00 | DMM absorbs 50,000 shares; inventory limit breached. | Trigger 2 ▴ Inventory Imbalance | $0.10 | 1,000 x 1,000 | Low |
| 14:43:30 | Sell-side pressure intensifies; 20:1 sell/buy ratio. | Trigger 3 ▴ One-Sided Order Flow | $0.50 | 100 x 100 (flickering) | Very Low |
| 14:44:00 | Stock price down 10%; single-stock circuit breaker triggered. | Trigger 4 ▴ System-Wide Circuit Breaker | N/A (No Quote) | 0 x 0 | None |
| 14:44:30 | Human risk manager confirms market is disorderly. | Trigger 5 ▴ Manual Override | N/A (No Quote) | 0 x 0 | None |
The Institutional Trader’s Execution Nightmare
From the perspective of an institutional trader tasked with selling a large block of stock during a flash crash, the execution process is a cascading series of failures. Their tools and strategies are predicated on a functioning market, and the withdrawal of the DMMs pulls the rug out from under them. The execution challenge is to find a clearing price in a market where the price discovery mechanism has broken.
What Are the Failure Points in Institutional Execution?
The institutional execution process fails at several key points during a flash crash in a quote-driven market. The first failure is in the pre-trade analysis. The institution’s tools for estimating market impact and transaction costs are based on historical data from normal market conditions.
They are completely unprepared for the liquidity vacuum of a flash crash. The estimated cost of the trade becomes meaningless.
The second failure is in the execution algorithm itself. An algorithm designed to minimize market impact by trading passively will find no liquidity to interact with. An algorithm designed to trade aggressively will become a weapon of self-destruction, chasing the price down and guaranteeing a disastrous execution. The algorithm’s logic cannot adapt to a market that is no longer logical.
The third failure is in the routing of orders. An institution’s smart order router (SOR) is designed to find the best price across multiple trading venues. In a flash crash, the SOR may get caught in a loop, chasing flickering quotes or routing orders to venues that have no liquidity. The SOR, a tool of efficiency in normal times, becomes a source of chaos in a crisis.
The final and most critical failure is the human element. A human trader watching their execution algorithm run amok in a crashing market is faced with an impossible choice. Do they intervene and stop the algorithm, leaving their firm with a large, unsold position in a falling asset? Or do they let it continue, locking in catastrophic losses but at least exiting the position?
This is a decision that must be made in seconds, under extreme pressure, with incomplete information. It is the final, human failure point in the execution chain.
The experience of an institutional trader in this scenario can be summarized in a procedural flow:
- Step 1 ▴ Initial Order Placement. The trader enters a large sell order into their execution management system (EMS), typically using a sophisticated algorithm like VWAP or Implementation Shortfall.
- Step 2 ▴ Algorithm Failure. The algorithm begins to slice the parent order into smaller child orders, but it finds that the quotes from DMMs are either too small or too wide to be worth trading with. The algorithm’s participation rate falls to near zero.
- Step 3 ▴ Trader Alert. The EMS flashes an alert to the trader, indicating that the order is significantly behind schedule and the market impact is far exceeding its pre-trade estimate.
- Step 4 ▴ Manual Intervention. The trader must now decide how to intervene. They may try to switch to a more aggressive algorithm, but this is likely to fail for the same reasons. They may try to route the order to a dark pool, but the dark pool is likely offline or also lacking liquidity.
- Step 5 ▴ Capitulation. As a last resort, the trader may be forced to “go to market,” sending a large market order to clear the position at any price. This is the execution that sends the price into freefall, consuming the last vestiges of the bid side of the order book and finalizing the flash crash.
References
- Easley, D. Lopez de Prado, M. & O’Hara, M. (2012). Flow toxicity and liquidity in a high-frequency world. The Review of Financial Studies, 25(5), 1457-1493.
- Kirilenko, A. Kyle, A. S. Samadi, M. & Tuzun, T. (2017). The flash crash ▴ The impact of high-frequency trading on an electronic market. The Journal of Finance, 72(3), 967-998.
- Gomber, P. Arndt, B. & Uhle, T. (2011). The good and the bad ▴ The impact of high-frequency trading on financial markets. In Competition and Regulation in Network Industries (Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 27-51). SAGE Publications.
- Menkveld, A. J. (2013). High-frequency trading and the new market makers. Journal of Financial Markets, 16(4), 712-740.
- Hasbrouck, J. & Saar, G. (2013). Low-latency trading. Journal of Financial Markets, 16(4), 646-679.
- Madhavan, A. (2000). Market microstructure ▴ A survey. Journal of Financial Markets, 3(3), 205-258.
- O’Hara, M. (1995). Market Microstructure Theory. Blackwell Publishers.
- Foucault, T. Kadan, O. & Kandel, E. (2005). Limit order book as a market for liquidity. The Review of Financial Studies, 18(4), 1171-1217.
- Andersen, T. G. & Bondarenko, O. (2014). Reflecting on the flash crash. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 41(1), 9-17.
- Jain, P. K. & Urrutia, J. L. (2019). Order dynamics during the flash crash. Journal of Asset Management, 20(5), 365-383.
- Brogaard, J. Hendershott, T. & Riordan, R. (2014). High-frequency trading and price discovery. The Review of Financial Studies, 27(8), 2267-2306.
- Cespa, G. & Foucault, T. (2014). Illiquidity contagion and co-jumps in stock prices. The Review of Financial Studies, 27(8), 2307-2354.
- Committee on the Global Financial System. (2011). The macrofinancial implications of alternative configurations for access to central counterparties in OTC derivatives markets. CGFS Papers No 46.
- Huang, R. D. & Stoll, H. R. (1997). The components of the bid-ask spread ▴ A general approach. The Review of Financial Studies, 10(4), 995-1034.
- Securities and Exchange Commission. (2010). Findings regarding the market events of May 6, 2010. Report of the Staffs of the CFTC and SEC to the Joint Advisory Committee on Emerging Regulatory Issues.
Reflection
The analysis of a quote-driven market’s failure during a flash crash provides a stark depiction of systemic fragility. The very architecture designed to centralize and guarantee liquidity becomes the epicenter of its evaporation. This examination prompts a necessary introspection for any institutional participant.
The critical question moves from “what happened?” to “what is the structural resilience of my own execution framework?”. The event serves as a stress test, not just for the market, but for every protocol, every algorithm, and every risk parameter within an institution’s trading apparatus.
Evaluating Your Operational Architecture
Consider the dependencies within your own system. How reliant are your execution strategies on the continuous presence of a tight, deep, two-sided market? Are your algorithms programmed to detect the subtle, early warning signs of liquidity withdrawal ▴ the slight widening of spreads, the reduction in quote size ▴ or are they designed to react only after the crisis is undeniable?
The DMM’s execution playbook is a known sequence. A resilient operational framework would possess its own counter-playbook, designed to identify and disengage from a deteriorating market structure before the final stage of collapse.
Beyond Execution to Systemic Intelligence
The knowledge gained from dissecting these events should be integrated into a broader system of market intelligence. It is insufficient to simply have better execution algorithms. A superior operational framework requires a deeper understanding of the motivations and constraints of other market participants. It involves modeling the behavior of DMMs not as reliable utilities, but as rational economic actors who will act to preserve their own capital, even if it means destabilizing the system as a whole.
This understanding transforms an institution’s posture from being a passive user of market liquidity to an active, strategic navigator of its complex and sometimes treacherous dynamics. The ultimate edge is found in this systemic perspective, in building an operational framework that is not just efficient in normal times, but robust and adaptable in the face of crisis.
Glossary
Designated Market Makers
Market Structure
Order Flow
Quote-Driven Market During
Liquidity Vacuum
Quote-Driven Market
Flash Crash
Liquidity Crisis
Risk Management
Market Conditions
Algorithmic Trading
Market During
Normal Market Conditions
Price Discovery
Quote Size
Adverse Selection
Market Makers
Designated Market
Bid-Ask Spread
Capital Preservation
Designated Market Maker
Order Flow Toxicity
Execution Playbook
Circuit Breaker
