Why High-Frequency Trading Still Matters in Pro-Rata Markets
Summary
The document explains why high-frequency trading can remain relevant when a market allocates fills pro rata, reducing the importance of queue position. It distinguishes liquidity provision from liquidity taking: speed may matter less for winning a place in the queue, but it can still help traders respond to mispriced orders and changing market conditions.
The examples focus on Eurodollar futures, described as partially pro rata, where participants use fast systems to monitor market data and cancel resting orders when adverse price moves threaten. The central risk is adverse selection: a passive order may be filled just before the market moves against it. The answers also note that real-time order-book processing remains useful across different strategies. These are concise explanations rather than empirical comparisons; the document does not quantify profitability or establish how much HFT activity is attributable to each motive.
Key ideas
- Pro-rata allocation reduces the value of queue priority but does not eliminate speed-sensitive trading.
- Fast order cancellation can help liquidity providers limit exposure to adverse price moves.
- Liquidity takers may still use speed to act on mispriced orders.
- Real-time market-data processing is useful across different trading approaches.
Tags
Full text
# Does HFT make sense in a pro-rata market?
# Does HFT make sense in a pro-rata market?
If orders are filled pro rata, is there still incentive to engage in HFT? Because pro rata nullifies the time precedence rule, my intuition is no, but I figure there could be other aspects to it I'm unaware of.
## Answer by Meh (score 8, accepted)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/717
The Eurodollar market is partially pro-rata. And there is a lot of HFT on it. Getting out of the book when conditions are not right is very much HFT.
## Answer by chrisaycock (score 3)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/712
Market markers still have to consume market data. The techniques required to scale a live order book in real-time will be the same regardless of the intended use case. So while the strategies will be different from what we know as HFT (and even the participants different), the systems in use will be very similar.
## Answer by Rich C (score 2)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/711
My guess is you are right in that it will be unprofitable to be a liquidity provider because of the lack of time priority.
However, liquidity taking strategy (taking out an order that is mis-priced) is still a speed game.
## Answer by Shane (score 2)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/9259
Yes. You're right that queue position is less important in a pure pro-rata market. But in a market that is very deep, such as Eurodollars, the cost of getting adversely selected ("catching a falling dagger") is huge (very large bid/ask spread). So it is critical to cancel any open orders quickly when the price is about to move.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.