Automation has improved many parts of FX trading and is expected to continue as buy-side firms invest in their electronic execution capabilities. But not every order belongs in a low-touch workflow. Some trades need discretion, negotiation, or staged execution. And therein lies a gap at some firms.
FX has been moving toward electronification for years because standardized, repeatable flows can often be handled efficiently in low-touch channels. That helps traders automate smaller, routine orders, freeing up time for trades that require attention. The goal in FX is matching the workflow to the trade.
That distinction matters because the market remains relationship-driven. Liquidity is fragmented across counterparties and venues, and certain orders are better handled through direct interaction, negotiation or staged execution. Large trades, illiquid pairs, and complex structures do not always fit neatly into a low-touch model.
Those challenges are pronounced in complex markets. For example, in FX swaps, only about a quarter of volumes are traded electronically, compared with almost three-quarters in spot. In the more complex cases, traders still need workflows that allow them to source liquidity, manage market impact, and decide how to work an order.
Across many desks, high-touch orders still move through chats, calls, emails, and spreadsheets. Traders may negotiate with counterparties off-platform, track fills manually, and reconstruct the order later. Although it works in the moment, the process is harder to manage and review. In addition:
Traders lose time as they move across platforms and communication channels.
Execution context is harder to capture and review later.
Interactions may depend too heavily on memory or manual notes.
Post-trade analysis becomes weaker because the sequence of decisions is not consolidated.
One example is the continued use of side spreadsheets to track high-touch. As fills come in, traders may key them manually, calculate the average price themselves, and keep track of how much risk remains on the book. That time is spent outside the actual execution task, and it increases the chance that context gets scattered across tools.
When execution activity sits outside the platform, traders have a less complete view of what happened on an order. That makes it harder to review outcomes, compare execution choices and carry lessons forward into the next order. If negotiation, pricing, and trader interaction are not captured electronically, that information is harder to use later.
It also affects focus. When traders have to manage part of the book in the EMS and part of it through side processes, attention is split. In an asset class known for fragmented liquidity and nuanced execution decisions, that matters. A desk that automates routine flow could allocate the time savings toward higher-value decisions.
Desks should strive to keep high-touch FX orders inside a structured workflow. The trade can still involve direct interaction, competitive pricing, negotiation, or staged handling, but the key elements of the process remain connected to the broader platform. Pricing, execution activity, trader interaction, and order status should still sit inside an environment that is visible and traceable.
In practice, that includes workflows such as voice-trade electronification, competitive high-touch RFQs, and resting orders. A trader can still drive the process, but the activity is captured within the platform rather than disappearing into a separate call or chat thread.
That gives the desk a clearer view of order status and execution progress. The need for human judgment remains the same, but the process is easier to manage, document, and evaluate.
A trader may need to execute a large FX order without sending it to a standard electronic venue where the order could move the market. In that case, the order may need to rest and be worked through the day, with fills coming back over time. In a disconnected workflow, the trader will monitor that process through separate communications and update a spreadsheet as each fill arrives.
In a connected workflow, the trader can see the order and execution progress inside the platform. Average price, fills, and remaining risk don’t require a one-off manual process.
That improves efficiency and control. The trader is not hunting for information across channels. The execution record is easier to preserve, and the workflow is easier to review later.
The same concept holds true for any FX trade involving size, complexity, market sensitivity, or illiquidity. The goal is to ensure the activity is:
Connected to the EMS rather than pushed into a side process
Visible to the trader throughout the life of the order
Traceable at the level of pricing, interaction, and execution activity
Easier to analyze after the fact
By completing more tasks within the platform, the desk can make better use of the information and give traders better context so they can make faster and more informed judgments. That may include pre-trade guidance based on past trading patterns, indications about which workflow may fit a particular order, or better post-trade analysis on how similar orders were handled.
Some FX trades will continue to require a higher-touch approach. The operational priority is to ensure those orders do not move into side processes that are harder to track, manage, and review. Desks that keep high-touch activity inside a structured workflow will be in a better position to improve efficiency and maintain control of workflows.
This blog post is for informational purposes only. The information contained in this blog post is not legal, tax, or investment advice. FactSet does not endorse or recommend any investments and assumes no liability for any consequence relating directly or indirectly to any action or inaction taken based on the information contained in this article.