Skip to content
All library documents

Why Hedge Funds Use Multiple Brokers for Different Execution Needs

Article Quant Q&A · Author: G__
Read the original

Summary

The document considers whether a reasonably sized hedge fund commonly splits a strategy across brokers to reduce the risk that one broker becomes unavailable. The accepted answer says firms often use several brokers because each serves a different operational role, such as floor execution, dark-pool access, algorithmic execution, or prime brokerage. Choosing providers by task can also be more cost-effective than using one provider for everything.

A second answer adds that futures firms may keep a give-up broker's contact details as a contingency for events such as a power outage, but says actually using that backup is uncommon. The discussion therefore distinguishes routine broker diversification by function from deliberate redundancy. It offers practitioner anecdotes rather than industry-wide data, and does not quantify outage risk, compare broker arrangements, or prescribe a specific continuity plan.

Key ideas

  • Firms may use multiple brokers because different providers handle different execution and financing tasks.
  • Splitting tasks across brokers can be more cost-effective than relying on one provider for every service.
  • The document says routine multi-broker use is generally not motivated by redundancy.
  • A futures firm may keep a give-up broker available as a contingency, though use is described as uncommon.

Tags

Risk managementExecutionFutures
Full text
# Is it common to use multiple brokers for risk reduction?


# Is it common to use multiple brokers for risk reduction?












Would it be considered appropriate risk-management or overkill to utilize multiple brokers to manage a given trading strategy?

A couple specifics:

- I'm interested in what a reasonably-sized hedge fund might typically do, not an individual day trader.

- Let's assume major equities and that either broker could easily handle the whole strategy alone; the point is avoiding the risk of one broker being unavailable or unable to execute a trade.

## Answer by chrisaycock (score 6, accepted)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/1089

The shops I've worked for have had access to multiple brokers, but not for redundancy as your question implies. It's often because no one broker can handle every task.

For example, I might need a floor broker, a dark-pool broker, an algo broker, and a separate prime broker. Each agency handles a different requirement. Even if one broker could handle all of these tasks, it may be more cost effective to pick and choose. (An analogy on the retail side is that I can have a credit card, checking account, and IRA from separate banks just because the rates are better.)

So yes, it's common to have multiple brokers, but not for risk reduction. It's just to silo the required tasks.

## Answer by user508 (score 4)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/1090

Can't speak to the cash equity space, but at futures shops I think it is common to have the phone number of a give-up broker in case the power goes out or something, but it is uncommon to ever use them.

Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)

This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.