By Jason Wallach, CEO, Bruce Markets
Recent research from Coalition Greenwich made clear that many buy-side traders are not enthusiastic about 24-hour trading.
That reaction is understandable. Any change to market structure raises practical questions for institutional desks: how workflows adapt, how new trading windows are staffed and supervised, how controls evolve and how client expectations change.
But “Do traders want 24-hour trading?” is the wrong question.
Markets do not wait for consensus. They evolve when investor behavior, technology, global access and competitive pressure make the status quo harder to defend. The better question is whether firms are prepared for where the market is heading.
In truth, the standard trading day is just a convention shaped by the technology, participation patterns and operational realities of earlier eras. Continuous trading itself was once an innovation. As I wrote a few years ago, it replaced point-in-time, single-price multilateral auctions on the New York Stock Exchange floor in 1871 because there were too many stocks for a human auctioneer to handle each day. It was a response to the practical limits of the structure that came before it.
The same principle applies today. The opening and closing bells still matter, but they are no longer the only relevant reference points in a market where information moves continuously and investors participate globally. News, earnings, macroeconomic data, geopolitics and social sentiment do not wait for 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time. Increasingly, neither do investors.
The overnight trading landscape is still developing, but the momentum is clear. Volumes have grown. Notional value has grown. Broker adoption, venue competition and market data capabilities are advancing. Major exchange groups are moving from discussion toward concrete plans for longer trading windows.
The recent activity on Bruce ATS reflects that broader shift. Average traded notional per session has grown from approximately $250 million in January to $765 million in May and $1.08 billion in June to date. Average shares traded have increased from 5 million per session in January to 16.6 million in May and 27.3 million in June.
The traditional trading day still dwarfs the overnight session in total activity. But overnight trading is growing rapidly even without full participation from many of the buy-side firms who are currently debating whether they want it.
That will not remain theoretical forever. If volumes rise, liquidity deepens and more meaningful price discovery occurs outside the core session, firms that are not participating will face a different question: not whether they wanted this market to develop, but whether they can afford to ignore it.
That is the tipping point to watch. Markets can grow without everyone at the table. But as they grow, the liquidity, price moves and client demand become harder to dismiss. At some point, overnight access may become less a matter of preference and more a matter of execution capability, client service and competitive readiness.
None of this means the buy side’s concerns should be dismissed. Institutional traders are right to care about market quality, data availability, operational risk, surveillance, corporate actions, post-trade processes and trader well-being. But those concerns should shape how the market develops, not serve as a reason to ignore it.
Readiness is ultimately an infrastructure question. Firms need reliable data, broader connectivity, thoughtful routing, clear risk controls, sustainable staffing models and escalation procedures that do not simply stretch the same teams across a longer clock.
That includes the third-party infrastructure that underpins trading operations. OMS, EMS and TCA providers will help determine how easily firms can support expanded hours, integrate overnight activity into existing workflows and evaluate execution quality outside the regular session. Vendors supporting retail brokers have already enhanced their platforms for 24×5 trading. Institutional firms should understand whether their own technology stack is prepared, or whether operational constraints could emerge as activity grows.
Not every firm needs to trade every symbol at every hour. Not every overnight price movement requires action. But every institution needs a clear view of where overnight trading fits, where it does not and what infrastructure would be required to support it responsibly.
That is why “Do traders want 24-hour trading?” is the wrong question. The better question is whether firms are prepared for a market in which overnight access is becoming more material – and whether they want to help shape that market, or adapt to it later.
