Outsourced trading continues to expand as firms reassess how to scale efficiently, extend their reach to execution partners, protect alpha, and navigate rising operational complexity. This article breaks down the major forces behind outsourced trading and provides a framework for evaluating its future, particularly through the lens of trading workflow design.
Once viewed primarily as a solution for emerging managers without the resources to run their own desks, outsourced trading is now leveraged by firms of all sizes—as either a fully externalized model or a supplemental capacity tool—to address a wide range of execution challenges. Recent research underscores how far the model has come. According to 2023 research from Coalition Greenwich, 39% of buy-side respondents recognized the value of complementing their current processes with outsourced trading services, up from 5% in 2020.
To assess where outsourced trading goes next, we must consider both the macro factors behind its rise and the technology requirements that will shape how it is supported at scale.
The original catalysts for outsourced trading were simple cost efficiency and operational relief. Today, the dominant drivers are far broader.
As the model has grown so has provider diversity, which now spans single-asset specialists to multi-region, multi-asset institutional brokers. At the same time, the buyer profile has shifted. Larger managers now see outsourced trading as part of a flexible capacity and specialization strategy. That is parallel to how cloud computing shifted how firms think about core vs. non-core infrastructure.
The benefits of outsourced trading that buy-side firms cite most often include:
|
Value |
Why It Matters |
|
Expanded liquidity access |
Broader broker networks and market entry without adding incremental headcount |
|
Faster geographic or asset class expansion |
Access to on-the-ground coverage without spinning up dedicated desks |
|
Trade anonymity and execution discretion |
Reduces signaling risk, protects strategy integrity and ensures accurate research credit attribution when trading through external brokers |
|
Operational leverage / resiliency |
Continuity, surge capacity, specialization and time-zone advantage |
As outsourced trading continues to gain momentum, there are several critical considerations for providers and managers:
Clear oversight, governance, and transparency standards are important to establish from the outset.
Commission structures and research credit attribution require careful calibration and ongoing alignment between counterparties.
Regulatory reporting, surveillance obligations, and jurisdictional requirements introduce specialized compliance complexity for outsourced trading.
Integration between technology stacks, operational workflows, and counterpart systems can create material friction without disciplined architecture and change management.
With so many factors at play, the leaders in this landscape will be those who treat outsourced trading as an extension of enterprise trading infrastructure, not a tactical bolt-on.
From a technological standpoint, the biggest constraint to maturity in outsourced trading is the complexity of designing workflow infrastructure that truly supports both sides simultaneously. Outsourced trading providers operate as brokers, but must still preserve visibility, attribution, and alignment to each underlying client as if they were running a buy-side desk.
In other words, the model introduces a new structural requirement of dual-mode trading architecture with:
Sell-side controls, reporting, regulatory obligations (e.g., CAT, 605/606)
Buy-side visibility, positions, book management, AUM-aware compliance, portfolio context
Historically, there has been no OEMS specifically designed for this middle zone. Today, many providers rely on customization, proprietary middleware or stitching together multiple systems.
While not exhaustive, the following principles represent key areas where technology will play a defining role in enabling providers to deliver, scale, and operationalize outsourced trading effectively:
Purpose-built workflow alignment across both buy- and sell-side requirements
Automation and exception-driven processing to maximize throughput
Dynamic commission handling and research credit attribution at scale
Seamless connectivity to clients’ OMS environments, not just markets
Open architecture to support evolving asset classes, new liquidity venues, and new regulatory constructs
Responsible use of AI to reduce operational drag, accelerate reconciliation, triage trade breaks, and surface exceptions before they hit downstream systems
Ultimately, the long-term viability of outsourced trading will hinge not just on demand, but on the architectural discipline that enables it.
As outsourced trading continues its expansion, the next competitive differentiator will be the sophistication, flexibility, and extensibility of the technology stack underpinning the offering. Firms evaluating the space—whether as buyers, providers or strategic partners—will increasingly focus on whether platform architecture can adapt to future asset classes, liquidity models, and regulatory structures without a manual rebuild.
For leaders approaching outsourced trading strategically, the key takeaway is this: The business model and technology model must evolve in parallel. Those who treat outsourced trading as a static operational outsourcing function will plateau. Those who treat it as a dynamic trading capacity model and architect their workflow accordingly will unlock deeper resiliency, alpha protection, and scalability.
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.