Since digital money markets are the main assets used in this modern digital world, Forex providers ensure that they offer the best market prices possible to all traders, making it easier to buy and sell currencies round the clock. Therefore, Forex providers are considered one of the most efficient elements of the whole FX industry.
Most market participants consider Forex liquidity providers as a core part since the trading activity would suffer without them, taking into account what value they bring into the system. Numerous critics, however, bring up questions if they are even needed for a market to function, but the truth is, that trading activity wouldn’t be the same without them anymore. Despite that, certain enterprises have come under serious criticism for conflicts of interest caused by how they generate revenue through service fees.
Who are liquidity providers?
Liquidity providers, also known as LPs, are specific firms whose primary role is to supply prices to their users looking to exchange some of the fiat currencies. The best liquidity providers are known to store a fixed amount of capital in their deposits to issue bids constantly without losing money. That is the case, even if a large number of users decide to do identical operations simultaneously. Consequently, liquidity providers play an essential role in the market since it is unrealistic for one organization to manage all transactions independently, especially when there might be a conflict of interests. Note that brokers, banks, multibank pools (MFBs), and electronic communication networks are the four main categories of liquidity providers (ECNs). These organizations serve as a bridge to the gaps between large organizations.
What do they provide to the industry?
FX liquidity providers main job is to connect buyers and sellers by completing their transfers. They make money by charging transaction fees. When they complete a specific trade, they gain profits. But, there are multiple disagreements about whether these transaction fees provide any value to other participants or if they raise spreads since the same order flow may be performed without them. “LPs” might choose to essentially exit the market when trading volume is about to rise. They could choose this strategy because they will simply be unable to cope with the pressure of so many individual orders. All of this leads to an inconvenient situation for a trader, who will be unable to meet their quotas.
Do they have any negatives?
Liquidity providers are often seen as “heroes” in the community of FX users. But, such enterprises are receiving heavy criticism for potential conflicts of interest. Many would like to know how much of the capital is really held in their reserves. Some argue that because transaction costs are calculated as a proportion of the value transacted between buyer and seller, it creates an incentive for providers to manipulate price movements by putting their trades ahead of others. For instance, if there had been numerous buy and sell requests at somewhat various prices, LPs might potentially profit from driving the market higher and lower than it would otherwise be.
Then there is the concern of what kind of capital these companies should be allowed to have in their deposit. Note that there must be enough cash saved in case of extreme volatility. Nonetheless, too much of it would erode their revenues, jeopardizing anyone relying on LPs to process transactions.
Are they necessary for trading to function at its fullest?
Day by day, it is becoming more apparent that liquidity providers are needed for the market to function properly. Without intermediaries, users would struggle to engage or quit trades anytime they chose to since they would not be able to locate an LP ready to take the other side of their order. Indeed, many still believe that liquidity supply is about earning money rather than providing a helpful service for the people. That means that users should remain cautious while interacting with middlemen, especially if they think that prices will be predictable and regular.
Can there be bad actors within the industry?
Although there is a minimum indication that LPs are misbehaving, many investors remain skeptical of their worth and impact on the market, particularly given the amount of cash held in reserve. There is also debate about whether it should stay the way it is or whether this responsibility should be assigned to trusted third-party suppliers that gain money on every transaction. Others may ask whether these firms will supply liquidity during a crisis or might restrict access to currency quotations as a result.
The question remains – are liquidity providers in Forex good or evil? On the bright side of these LPs is that they bring buyers and sellers together, which is highly beneficial to all parties engaged. On the other side, there are real concerns regarding how much capital they should handle and whether they should possess it at all since they arouse suspicion of potential misbehavior. Moreover, some people are worried they will disappear from the market during extreme volatility. Anyways, it is generally better to confront providers with some skepticism because there are advantages and disadvantages to practically every component in this game, where many factors rely on these middlemen.
