News

The 24/5 Trading Debate: Not Just a Fight Over Hours, But Over Purpose

Authored by Ian Stirling, CEO, Streets Consulting 


As conversations around tokenization, retail participation, and overnight trading models continue to gather momentum globally, the topic of extended trading hours emerged as one of the more actively debated themes at TradeTech Amsterdam this year. 

Framed through a lively Oxford-style debate, the discussion explored whether 24/5 trading represents a natural evolution for European markets as they align with increasingly global and digital capital flows, or whether extending market hours risks weakening the concentrated liquidity and price discovery that traditional market structures were designed to support.

The Case FOR 24/5 Trading 

Those in favour of extending trading hours argue that 24/5 trading is not a radical new concept, but rather a necessary refinement of an already existing system.

  • Formalising Existing Behaviour: 24-hour trading is already happening through instruments like futures, FX, and US alternative trading systems (ATSs) that operate overnight. Creating a formal 24/5 infrastructure simply organises and improves what is currently a fragmented and inefficient way to access liquidity.

  • Meeting Crypto-Driven Demand: There is a strong, real demand for continuous access, largely driven by retail investors who grew accustomed to the 24/7 nature of crypto markets. Providing 24/5 equity access gives these investors a regulated environment to buy shares in real companies rather than relying solely on digital assets out of necessity.

  • Better Risk Management: Macroeconomic events frequently occur outside regular market hours. Continuous trading access gives investors the direct tools they need to react and manage their risk efficiently, rather than forcing them to wait for the morning open.

  • Regulated Guardrails: Proponents emphasise that extended hours do not equate to an unregulated “Wild West”. Overnight trading can be structured safely with transparent, lit order books and regulatory guardrails (such as 20% up and down price bands relative to the close), which prevent extreme market dislocations.

  • Global Competitiveness: From an issuer’s perspective, listing in a market that offers continuous, round-the-clock access to buyers and sellers is highly attractive. For Europe to remain globally competitive, it must consider how its market infrastructure measures up to regions offering continuous access.
  •  

The Case AGAINST 24/5 Trading

Conversely, those cautioning against the move to 24/5 trading point to historical failures, structural risks, and a divergence from the core purpose of capital markets.

  • Thin and Predatory Liquidity: Critics liken overnight markets to visiting a ski resort in May or trying to find a single taxi late at night: when only a few liquidity providers are present, they can easily dictate prices. In thin overnight markets, spreads widen, and uninformed investors are at a high risk of being subjected to poor pricing with zero transparency.

  • Volatility and Contagion: Thinly traded markets are highly susceptible to outsized, self-reinforcing moves. A minor event or currency fluctuation can cause a domino effect, generating severe volatility and contagion before the broader market has a chance to participate.

  • Investing vs. Gamification: A strong distinction is drawn between short-term trading and long-term investment. Capital markets are fundamentally designed to support capital allocation to the real economy, not to act as a platform for sports-style betting. Extending hours encourages gamified, reactive churn rather than genuine capital formation.

  • The Necessity of Breaks: Having closed market hours is actually a healthy structural feature. It acts as a natural circuit breaker, giving participants the time to step back, properly digest information, and make informed decisions rather than reacting in panic.

  • Past Failures and Readiness: European exchanges have experimented with extended hours in the past, and those attempts largely failed due to a lack of actual usage and liquidity. Furthermore, with the rise of continuous AI trading agents and structural differences in how Europeans save, many argue that Europe simply is not ready for 24/5 trading.

The Audience Vote 

While the debate showcased passionate arguments on both sides, a live audience vote revealed exactly where the participants ultimately stood: an overwhelming 78% voted against the introduction of 24/5 trading in Europe, with only 22% in favour.


Finding Common Ground 

Despite the sharp disagreements over implementation and timing, there was broad consensus on one point: markets are already becoming increasingly continuous, global, and digitally interconnected. In many respects, 24-hour trading already exists.

The more difficult question is whether the surrounding ecosystem, from liquidity provision and operational resilience through to post-trade infrastructure, banking rails, surveillance, and investor protections, is genuinely ready to support that shift at institutional scale.

As crypto markets themselves have demonstrated, simply keeping markets open longer does not automatically guarantee better liquidity, smoother access, or improved market outcomes. The real challenge lies in designing market structures capable of balancing accessibility and innovation with resilience, transparency, and concentrated liquidity.

These were certainly some of my own takeaways coming out of TradeTech, but the broader sentiment was echoed across a number of discussions on the floor. If interested, Sybille Mueller caught up with GH Financials’ Steve Plestis during the event to discuss the realities and implications of 24/5 trading from an industry practitioner’s perspective, you can view that here.

Connect with us

46-48 East Smithfield, London, E1W 1AW

Connect with us