Loop FX Handles First Bank-Intermediated P2P Trade
Posted by Colin Lambert. Last updated: July 1, 2026
LoopFX has hit another milestone with its first bank-facilitated peer-to peer trades, which were matched between two asset managers via RBC Capital Markets and on the GlobalLink FX Connect platform.
According to Blair Hawthorne, CEO and founder of LoopFX, the first trade saw the two asset managers – the platform does not have hedge funds or proprietary trading firms as clients – match a proportion of one’s trade, with the other’s balance being executed separately by RBC Capital Markets according to the client’s instructions. Both managers have an existing bilateral relationship with the bank, which facilitated the match.
LoopFX says this marks the first time asset managers have been able to match FX trades directly against each other while remaining within their existing bank relationships, workflows, and documentation. The firm executed its first trades last year and has, according to Hawthorne, been matching trades daily as momentum builds for the dark matching platform. To date, however, those trades had been against bank axes, both voice and e.
LoopFX says it has more than 15 asset managers with over $25 trillion in assets under management signed to the service, along with several banks providing liquidity, with others in the pipeline.
“Asset managers matching with other asset managers has long been discussed – and now it is a reality,” observes Hawthorne. “With no changes to legal documentation, no changes to existing workflow and by positioning banks at the heart of every trade, this is a groundbreaking achievement for the market. We’re grateful to RBC Capital Markets for their role in delivering this exciting milestone, and to State Street’s FX Connect team for their continued support in bringing innovative solutions to their clients.”
Neil McClements, head of EMEA e-FX & e-futures sales, RBC Capital Markets, adds, “Enabling new sources of liquidity within existing workflows and legal frameworks is a positive step for client execution. We’re pleased to support LoopFX and this exciting development reinforces our commitment to innovation in FX trading.”
Greg Fortuna, head of GlobalLink at State Street, notes, “This development represents a practical step forward in the development of institutional FX liquidity. By enabling bank-intermediated peer-to-peer matching within the existing FX Connect workflow, LoopFX is helping us expand the range of liquidity options available to clients while preserving the operational, credit and relationship frameworks they rely on today.
“We see peer-to-peer models as an emerging category and expect these capabilities to develop across multiple liquidity venues in response to growing client demand,” he adds.
With momentum building for LoopFX and having achieved the milestone of the first peer-to-peer match on the service, Hawthorne is keen to maintain the pace of development. “Our focus remains on supporting our clients,” he says. “Right now, that means embedding LoopFX into automated execution workflows, so the LoopFX dark pool is checked ahead of the lit market automatically. We’re also working closely with clients on new liquidity solutions and look forward to sharing more later in the year.”
The Full FX View
Anyone involved in the Markets fintech business will tell you things never happen quickly, rather they tend to occur in incremental steps – it’s just the nature of the beast. This is what is happening with LoopFX, for after a year of matching trades against bank axes, it has executed the first genuine peer-to-peer trade in its dark pool.
For this to happen there has to be the offsetting interest of course, but the role of the bank, in this case RBC, should not be overlooked in facilitating the trade. Yes, the bank does get what might be termed a revenue share, or brokerage, for stepping in, but it is still a departure from the traditional model to not internalise such trades. It also, into the bargain, probably improves the client execution, which, last time I checked, it the epitome of customer service!
Execution quality is an interesting aspect of the Loop project actually, because in a dark environment proving best execution can be tricky. Personally, I would argue that on the majority of occasions, executing in a lit environment will see negative mark out on a sizeable trade – that too, is the nature of the beast – especially with so many LPs out there “sniffing” for directional flow. In a dark environment, however, while there may be negative mark out, it will be a function of the wider market, not the actual trade executed in that pool – and more likely there will be a positive, or flat, mark out because no-one knows the trade has been done. In today’s market, price moves on data, if there is no data published or available, how can it move the market?
And it is here that LoopFX may have found a valuable niche. The firm is keen to reiterate that using it does not interrupt workflow or disrupt relationships and that seems a fair observation, but rather than focus on the negative, what about the positive? For a start, if I am a bank that regularly has large risk on its books, why would I not consider placing orders in a dark pool for asset managers to match off against?
I understand that even if there is no market data, there is information that can be gleaned from a dark pool – at the very least searching for a match for 10 seconds and not finding one infers a directional mindset (or at least it does at the stage when a venue is trading sufficient volume), therefore it can, theoretically, be gamed.
Asset managers, however, are not in the business of gaming FX markets, they want a good match, for their amount, or their minimum required, and move on. This means that firstly, it is important that LoopFX probably remains for asset managers only when it comes to the buy side (maybe corporates as well), but secondly, any bank placing an axe in the pool knows their counterparty is not about to use the information from the trade – which is important if they take on a residue balance.
With this milestone passed, and another tick on the page that laid out the original concept of LoopFX, the firm can really start to build the business. From here, it will hope to attract more resting orders, from both sides of the market, and have that interest rest there longer. Success will be found in building sufficient confidence in banks and asset managers that they can match interest here in the most efficient manner possible. No taking four (or 25!) RFSs and hitting best bid or offer, and then having the awkward conversation where if there is mark out the LPs feels hard done by, and if there isn’t the customer feels they could have got a better price!
If the firm can succeed in building this confidence, then participants will be willing to increase their amounts, and it hits the well-worn path of success breeding success.
For the asset managers, their counterparty pool has effectively been extended, in some cases probably doubled, by the introduction of 25+ potential peer fixes. For the banks, this should be seen as an extension, or complement, to their internalisation programmes. I understand banks that argue they are giving away spread by matching in a dark pool rather than having their clients hit them on their price, but the reality is, the chances of those clients hitting that price is low, unless it is axed – and then it stands out in the lit market and probably doesn’t get hit.
Ultimately, while this deal does move the needle in as much as peer has matched with peer, it is the potential from a successful outcome that means LoopFX may face a tricky decision. Anywhere that successfully matches large risk off in a dark environment, is going to be popular – just look at how much gets done off-market in equities by asset managers – so will continues success lead to requests from banks to match off with each other?
I should stress, to my understanding, this is not the intention of the firm, it’s focus is very-much on the asset manager segment, but we have seen too many times how success leads to pressure to broaden the client horizon. Obviously the banks have a dark mechanism to match in at BGC (and other less successful venues), but this is about a wider counterparty spectrum, and, to reiterate, the concept, which rewards participants on all sides, will be popular on all sides, because it is about exiting larger risk without impacting the market through direct market impact or signalling (and yes, I am looking at you 4pm Fix!)
If I am being honest, I still think the ceiling for pure peer-to-peer matching is relatively low, so as I have argued before, why exclude the segment with the largest collective risk in the banks? This is something LoopFX has been keen to avoid, and it seems it has succeeded. Yes, this is a milestone, but in reality all it is doing is reinforcing the strength of the original concept – that it doesn’t matter who you are, if you have risk you want to exit, a dark environment is the best place to do it.
For now LoopFX will be focused on building the existing model, it still has a way to go to be truly successful, but at some stage, you do wonder if one of the prices of success will be demands to let more in. If that is the case, I have one observation – the best clubs and restaurants with the longest lines at the door and reservation requests, don’t let everyone in, and do perfectly well. Sometimes a strict door policy is best for the business – even if there is easy money in relaxing it.
