How to Spot Conflicts of Interest
A systematic framework for identifying structural conflicts between broker revenue incentives and client execution quality. Organized by severity level with specific detection methods.
Overview
Conflicts of interest in brokerage are not inherently fraudulent -- they are structural features of certain business models. A dealing desk broker that internalizes orders has a mathematical conflict: they profit when clients lose. This does not mean every B-book broker acts against clients, but the incentive structure exists. This playbook helps you identify when these conflicts may be affecting your execution.
High-Severity Indicators
These indicators suggest active conflicts that are likely affecting execution quality.
If your trade history shows consistently more negative slippage (price moves against you) than positive slippage (price moves in your favor), this is a statistical indicator of adverse fill practices. In a fair execution environment, slippage should be roughly symmetric over a large sample of trades. Request slippage reports and compare positive vs negative distribution.
If you notice increasing requotes, slower fills, or higher rejection rates after a period of profitability, this may indicate client profiling. Some hybrid brokers route profitable clients to worse execution or move them from B-book to A-book with higher latency. Track your execution metrics over time and correlate with your P&L trajectory.
Compare your broker's price feed with independent sources (TradingView, Bloomberg, another broker's feed) during specific trades. If you see price spikes or spread widening that appear only on your broker's feed at the exact moment of your execution, this suggests synthetic price manipulation.
If price repeatedly spikes just enough to trigger stop-loss levels and then immediately reverses, cross-reference with independent price sources. If these spikes don't appear on other feeds, the broker may be manufacturing them to trigger client stops -- a practice only possible when the broker is the counterparty.
Medium-Severity Indicators
These suggest structural conditions that enable conflicts, though they don't prove active exploitation.
A broker that won't clearly state whether they operate A-book, B-book, or hybrid is hiding something material. Regulated brokers are required to disclose their order execution policy. Ask for the specific document and verify it matches their marketing claims.
If a broker offers zero-commission, tight-spread trading with generous bonuses and expensive marketing, the revenue must come from somewhere. If it's not from spread or commission, it's likely from trading against clients (B-book profit). Calculate whether their stated revenue model can sustain their visible costs.
Reputable brokers increasingly publish execution quality statistics audited by third parties. Absence of such data, while not proof of misconduct, removes an important accountability mechanism. Ask if any independent party has reviewed their execution quality data.
Large deposit bonuses, cashback per lot, and aggressive rebate programs are expensive for brokers. These costs are typically funded from B-book profits (trading against clients), creating a circular system where client losses fund the incentives that attract new clients.
Lower-Severity Indicators
These are common industry practices that create potential (not certain) conflicts.
Extremely high leverage (500:1+) increases the probability that clients will lose money quickly, which benefits a B-book broker. While high leverage is not inherently fraudulent, it creates conditions favorable to the broker's counterparty position.
Leaderboards, trading competitions, and volume-based rewards encourage frequent trading. Higher volume means more spread revenue and, in B-book models, more client losses due to increased market exposure. These features prioritize broker revenue over client outcomes.
Brokers that invest heavily in 'how to trade' content but provide no information about execution quality, routing models, or LP relationships may be deliberately avoiding transparency about their execution infrastructure.
Systematic Detection Method
- Collect execution data: Export your trade history with exact timestamps, requested price, and fill price for at least 200+ trades.
- Calculate slippage distribution: For each trade, compute fill price minus requested price. Separate into positive and negative slippage. A ratio significantly different from 50/50 indicates asymmetry.
- Cross-reference prices: For a sample of 20-30 trades, compare your broker's price at execution time with an independent feed. Note any discrepancies exceeding 0.5 pips.
- Track metrics over time: Monitor fill speed, rejection rate, and slippage as your account equity changes. Deteriorating metrics with growing profitability is a strong hybrid-routing signal.
- Request formal documentation: Ask for the order execution policy, LP list, and latest execution quality report. Cross-reference with the Questions to Ask Your Broker playbook.
Important Caveat
No single indicator proves misconduct. Poor execution can result from legitimate technical issues, market conditions, or infrastructure limitations. The purpose of this framework is to help you identify patterns that warrant further investigation, not to make definitive judgments. If you observe multiple high-severity indicators, consider moving your account to a broker with a more transparent execution model and conducting the evaluation again for comparison.
Related Reading
For technical background, see Dealing Desk / B-Book, Hybrid Routing, Slippage, Rejects & Fills, and the Hybrid Routing Decision Tree Diagram.
Educational content only. This is not financial advice. Always consult qualified professionals before making trading decisions.