London Stock Exchange Group is exploring the operational and regulatory implications of introducing 24-hour trading, It was reported over the weekend.

US exchanges have been pushed to extend their trading hours for some time. Last October, the NYSE announced plans to extend weekday US equities trading on NYSE Arca to 22 hours a day, while Cboe Global Markets announced plans in February to offer 24-hour, five-day-a-week trading for US equities on its Cboe EDGX Equities Exchange (EDGX).

September will see the arrival of 24X National Exchange, the first national securities exchange designed for global access and approved by the SEC to offer 23-hour weekday trading of US equities.

Read more: 24/7 Derivatives Trading and Perpetual Futures in the USCFTC Seeks Feedback

The obvious question for LSEG is whether simply extending trading hours would lead to a material increase in volumes or see liquidity spread more thinly across the day, with obvious implications for volatility.

As we discussed last week, the UK government is keen to encourage savers away from interest-only investment products into stocks and shares, which would boost the potential trading pot for UK-listed securities.

But it is hard to see how trading volumes will increase significantly unless overseas investors come in greater numbers. Longer trading hours have been well received in the US, but that is a different market with higher retail involvement through brokers like Robinhood.

Another factor to consider is how material non-public information would be disseminated and digested. Under the current operating structure, traders have time to think through their response to such announcements, but in a round-the-clock trading environment, they would be under pressure to react instantly to new information.

Nasdaq hopes to enable 24-hour trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market in the second half of 2026. However, it also acknowledges that several infrastructural, regulatory, and technical questions remain to be addressed.

Then there is the question of what happens to reference data based on opening and closing prices.

All in all, these plans carry more than a whiff of the if you build it, they will come line from the American sports fantasy drama film Field of Dreams. Offering round-the-clock trading sounds like a good idea in a society that has become used to accessing goods and services at any time of day, but it leaves markets vulnerable to pricing spikes when trading volumes are low.

No Terminal Outlook for Market Data Access

It is mind-blowing to think that day trading, in its earliest form of actively trading securities within the same day, was around for more than a decade before the publication of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

I bring this up because when it comes to discussing the future of the Bloomberg Terminal, the financial data provider would no doubt agree with Mark Twain that rumours of its (albeit slow) demise have been greatly exaggerated.

Traders have access to a wide range of alternatives, from the likes of S&P Capital IQ and AlphaSense (that come with relatively hefty price tags) to free or very low-cost tools such as Yahoo Finance, TradingView, and Seeking Alpha. There are also AI-based solutions such as TrendSpider, QuantConnect, Alpaca, Tickeron and Fiscal.ai.

In an environment where technology has moved on by leaps and bounds, it is impressive that Michael Bloombergs black and orange terminal has reached and maintained a strong position in the trading world since it was introduced in 1982.

Read more: EDIs Data Now Available on Athenas Platform for Trading and Investment Operations

But this also creates issues around overdependence at a time when regulators are keeping a close eye on the robustness of trading infrastructure.

To learn more, I looked at what traders have said online about the Bloomberg Terminal, and three commentators summed up the differing market views quite well.

The first believed the cost of a terminal could not be justified by anyone with less than $23 million in investible assets and said their broker could provide level 1 and level 2 quotes as well as light charting at little to no cost.

The second argued all the functionality could be replicated for 1015% of the monthly subscription fee. However, he emphasised the value of consistency with everyone using the same platform, as well as the reliability and quality of the data.

The third (who described himself as a former Bloomberg junkie) agreed that most users utilise less than 10% of the functionalities. But his conclusion was a reminder of the importance of FOMO when it comes to trading.

Is Bloomberg the fastest platform? No. Does it have the latest technology? Lots of legacy, so no. Does it integrate well with other tools? No. Is it easily customisable? Hardly. Does it matter? No, because old habits die hard, the trader said.

US Retirement Planning to Get a Lot More Complicated

Donald Trumps latest use of his favourite toolthe executive orderis expected to facilitate private market investments by 401(k) plan sponsors.

As noted in a previous column, retail investors are expected to become a major source of private market fundraising over the next two years. However, persuading them to move away from highly liquid index funds into private equity or real estate will be no easy task.

Supporters of the move point out that since retirement investments are designed to be illiquid for decades in many cases, it is reasonable to ask investors to trade illiquidity for the prospect of higher returns. The inclusion of a relatively small amount of private real estate, for example, in a target-date fund for someone who is several decades away from retirement doesnt sound like a terrible idea.

But it is asking a lot for someone who may have never managed an investment to make an informed choice between an index fund and an individual stock, let alone a private fund.

The problem is that for many people, their 401(k) is the only thing standing between them and financial hardship in later life. Warnings about only trading with money you can afford to lose come to mind.

Even those working in private equity admit it is a bad idea to allow individuals to select investments directly. The 2020 Department of Labor letter that stated private markets could be included in a qualified plan also made it clear that such investments should not be directly accessible to plan participants.

London Stock Exchange Group is exploring the operational and regulatory implications of introducing 24-hour trading, It was reported over the weekend.

US exchanges have been pushed to extend their trading hours for some time. Last October, the NYSE announced plans to extend weekday US equities trading on NYSE Arca to 22 hours a day, while Cboe Global Markets announced plans in February to offer 24-hour, five-day-a-week trading for US equities on its Cboe EDGX Equities Exchange (EDGX).

September will see the arrival of 24X National Exchange, the first national securities exchange designed for global access and approved by the SEC to offer 23-hour weekday trading of US equities.

Read more: 24/7 Derivatives Trading and Perpetual Futures in the USCFTC Seeks Feedback

The obvious question for LSEG is whether simply extending trading hours would lead to a material increase in volumes or see liquidity spread more thinly across the day, with obvious implications for volatility.

As we discussed last week, the UK government is keen to encourage savers away from interest-only investment products into stocks and shares, which would boost the potential trading pot for UK-listed securities.

But it is hard to see how trading volumes will increase significantly unless overseas investors come in greater numbers. Longer trading hours have been well received in the US, but that is a different market with higher retail involvement through brokers like Robinhood.

Another factor to consider is how material non-public information would be disseminated and digested. Under the current operating structure, traders have time to think through their response to such announcements, but in a round-the-clock trading environment, they would be under pressure to react instantly to new information.

Nasdaq hopes to enable 24-hour trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market in the second half of 2026. However, it also acknowledges that several infrastructural, regulatory, and technical questions remain to be addressed.

Then there is the question of what happens to reference data based on opening and closing prices.

All in all, these plans carry more than a whiff of the if you build it, they will come line from the American sports fantasy drama film Field of Dreams. Offering round-the-clock trading sounds like a good idea in a society that has become used to accessing goods and services at any time of day, but it leaves markets vulnerable to pricing spikes when trading volumes are low.

No Terminal Outlook for Market Data Access

It is mind-blowing to think that day trading, in its earliest form of actively trading securities within the same day, was around for more than a decade before the publication of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

I bring this up because when it comes to discussing the future of the Bloomberg Terminal, the financial data provider would no doubt agree with Mark Twain that rumours of its (albeit slow) demise have been greatly exaggerated.

Traders have access to a wide range of alternatives, from the likes of S&P Capital IQ and AlphaSense (that come with relatively hefty price tags) to free or very low-cost tools such as Yahoo Finance, TradingView, and Seeking Alpha. There are also AI-based solutions such as TrendSpider, QuantConnect, Alpaca, Tickeron and Fiscal.ai.

In an environment where technology has moved on by leaps and bounds, it is impressive that Michael Bloombergs black and orange terminal has reached and maintained a strong position in the trading world since it was introduced in 1982.

Read more: EDIs Data Now Available on Athenas Platform for Trading and Investment Operations

But this also creates issues around overdependence at a time when regulators are keeping a close eye on the robustness of trading infrastructure.

To learn more, I looked at what traders have said online about the Bloomberg Terminal, and three commentators summed up the differing market views quite well.

The first believed the cost of a terminal could not be justified by anyone with less than $23 million in investible assets and said their broker could provide level 1 and level 2 quotes as well as light charting at little to no cost.

The second argued all the functionality could be replicated for 1015% of the monthly subscription fee. However, he emphasised the value of consistency with everyone using the same platform, as well as the reliability and quality of the data.

The third (who described himself as a former Bloomberg junkie) agreed that most users utilise less than 10% of the functionalities. But his conclusion was a reminder of the importance of FOMO when it comes to trading.

Is Bloomberg the fastest platform? No. Does it have the latest technology? Lots of legacy, so no. Does it integrate well with other tools? No. Is it easily customisable? Hardly. Does it matter? No, because old habits die hard, the trader said.

US Retirement Planning to Get a Lot More Complicated

Donald Trumps latest use of his favourite toolthe executive orderis expected to facilitate private market investments by 401(k) plan sponsors.

As noted in a previous column, retail investors are expected to become a major source of private market fundraising over the next two years. However, persuading them to move away from highly liquid index funds into private equity or real estate will be no easy task.

Supporters of the move point out that since retirement investments are designed to be illiquid for decades in many cases, it is reasonable to ask investors to trade illiquidity for the prospect of higher returns. The inclusion of a relatively small amount of private real estate, for example, in a target-date fund for someone who is several decades away from retirement doesnt sound like a terrible idea.

But it is asking a lot for someone who may have never managed an investment to make an informed choice between an index fund and an individual stock, let alone a private fund.

The problem is that for many people, their 401(k) is the only thing standing between them and financial hardship in later life. Warnings about only trading with money you can afford to lose come to mind.

Even those working in private equity admit it is a bad idea to allow individuals to select investments directly. The 2020 Department of Labor letter that stated private markets could be included in a qualified plan also made it clear that such investments should not be directly accessible to plan participants.