Liquidity Seizes Up: Dealers Report Conditions 'Worse Than Covid' Amid Tariff Turmoil
The intricate plumbing of the global foreign exchange market, typically the world's deepest and most liquid financial arena, experienced a severe blockage in recent days, with dealers reporting liquidity conditions even more challenging than during the peak of the Covid-19 crisis in early 2020. Triggered by the sudden announcement of potential sweeping tariffs by former US President Donald Trump, the ability to execute large trades without significantly moving prices evaporated, creating treacherous conditions for market participants before a temporary pause on the tariff implementation offered a brief respite.
Reports indicate that available liquidity for a single transaction, or "clip," in major currency pairs plummeted to lows around $20 million. While this figure might still sound substantial, it represents a dramatic reduction from the norms in the multi-trillion dollar-a-day spot FX market, where clips of $50 million, $100 million, or even more could typically be absorbed with minimal market impact, especially in benchmark pairs like EUR/USD.
This liquidity drought occurred paradoxically alongside a spike in overall trading volumes. Both algorithmic trading systems and human traders on principal desks were highly active, reacting to the news flow and heightened volatility. However, this surge in activity masked a fundamental deterioration in market quality. High volume accompanied by low liquidity signifies frantic, often smaller, trades occurring across widening bid-ask spreads, with market makers unwilling or unable to provide firm quotes for substantial sizes. It's the market equivalent of a crowded room where everyone is shouting, but no one is willing to make a firm commitment.
Why 'Worse Than Covid'? Unpacking Dealer Sentiment
The comparison to the Covid-19 crisis is stark and revealing. The initial wave of the pandemic in March 2020 caused unprecedented volatility across all asset classes as the world grappled with lockdowns and economic shutdowns. FX liquidity certainly suffered then, with spreads widening dramatically. However, dealers suggest the current environment, driven by tariff uncertainty, felt different, and arguably worse, for several reasons:
1. Nature of the Shock: Covid-19, while devastating, was primarily a health crisis with economic consequences. Central banks globally responded with massive, coordinated liquidity injections and policy easing, providing a clear backstop (even if the initial shock was severe). The tariff announcement, however, represents a political and policy shock. Its potential impact is multifaceted – affecting inflation, growth, supply chains, corporate earnings, and international relations – and far harder to model. The policy path forward, including potential retaliation from other countries, is deeply uncertain.
2. Central Bank Reaction Function: During Covid, the playbook for central banks was relatively clear: provide liquidity and ease financial conditions. In response to potential tariffs, the central bank reaction is much less certain. Tariffs could be inflationary (raising import costs), potentially pushing central banks towards tighter policy, while simultaneously being negative for growth, which might argue for easing. This ambiguity makes it harder for markets to price in a predictable policy response, adding another layer of uncertainty that dampens risk appetite and liquidity provision.
3. Fundamental Uncertainty vs. Panic: While Covid induced panic, the underlying driver was identifiable. The tariff threat introduces deep uncertainty about the fundamental rules of global trade. This makes it exceptionally difficult for market makers, who provide liquidity, to price risk accurately. When risk becomes unquantifiable, the natural reaction is to withdraw, reduce quote sizes, and widen spreads significantly to avoid being caught on the wrong side of a large, unhedged position.
The Tariff Trigger: A Wrench in the Works
Donald Trump's proposal for a "reciprocal" or blanket tariff system, potentially starting at 10% on all imports with higher rates for specific countries, fundamentally challenges the existing global trade framework. The announcement immediately forced market participants to reassess:
• Inflation Outlook: Tariffs directly increase the cost of imported goods, potentially fueling inflation and impacting interest rate expectations.
• Economic Growth: Trade wars can disrupt supply chains, raise business costs, reduce export competitiveness (due to retaliation), and dampen consumer and business confidence, weighing on growth.
• Currency Valuations: Currencies of countries heavily reliant on exports to the US, or those potentially facing steep retaliatory tariffs, came under pressure. The US dollar itself experienced volatility as markets weighed the inflationary impact against the potential growth slowdown and risk-aversion flows.
This complex interplay of factors, combined with the political uncertainty surrounding the implementation and potential scope of such policies, created a perfect storm for volatility. Algorithmic systems, programmed based on historical correlations and data, struggled to navigate a potential regime shift driven by policy pronouncements. Human traders, facing heightened risk and uncertainty, became more cautious. Liquidity providers, facing the risk of being adversely selected (i.e., only trading when the market is about to move sharply against them), drastically reduced their exposure.
The Impact: Beyond the Trading Desks
The evaporation of liquidity has real-world consequences:
• Increased Transaction Costs: Corporates needing to hedge currency exposure for international trade face higher costs (wider spreads).
• Execution Risk: Asset managers rebalancing global portfolios find it harder and more expensive to execute large trades, potentially suffering significant slippage (the difference between the expected execution price and the actual price).
• Systemic Risk: In highly leveraged markets, poor liquidity can exacerbate sell-offs. Margin calls, as reportedly seen alongside the tariff news, can force leveraged players to liquidate positions rapidly into an illiquid market, potentially triggering a domino effect.
The temporary pause in the tariff implementation announced subsequently provided some relief, likely allowing liquidity to recover partially from the extreme lows. However, the underlying uncertainty hasn't disappeared. Until there is greater clarity on the future direction of US trade policy, the FX market is likely to remain susceptible to bouts of nervousness and reduced liquidity.
Should You Long EUR/USD Based on This? A Cautious No.
While the liquidity situation is dire and reflects significant market stress, using poor FX liquidity itself as a primary reason to take a directional view, such as longing EUR/USD, is generally flawed logic.
Here's why:
1. Liquidity is Not Direction: Market liquidity reflects the ease and cost of transacting, not necessarily the fundamental direction of an asset price. Poor liquidity is a symptom of high volatility, uncertainty, and risk aversion. While these factors can influence currency direction (e.g., risk aversion often benefits perceived safe-haven currencies), the liquidity state itself isn't the driver. Both buyers and sellers face the same poor liquidity.
2. Universal Impact: The reported liquidity crunch affected the global spot FX market. While specific pairs might have been hit harder at times, the underlying issue was broad-based risk aversion and dealer pullback, impacting EUR/USD, USD/JPY, GBP/USD, and others. It doesn't inherently favor the Euro over the Dollar.
3. Focus on Fundamentals and Sentiment: A decision to long EUR/USD should be based on a broader analysis of:
o Relative Monetary Policy: Expectations for the European Central Bank (ECB) versus the US Federal Reserve (Fed).
o Economic Outlook: Growth prospects in the Eurozone versus the United States.
o Risk Sentiment: Is the broader market mood risk-on (often favoring EUR) or risk-off (which can sometimes favor USD, though the tariff news complicated this)?
o Tariff Impact Analysis: How would the proposed tariffs, if implemented, differentially impact the Eurozone and US economies? Would potential EU retaliation harm the US more, or vice-versa?
4. Increased Trading Risk: Poor liquidity makes any trade riskier and more expensive. Spreads are wider, meaning entry and exit costs are higher. Slippage on stop-loss orders or take-profit orders is more likely. Executing large sizes is challenging. Therefore, even if you have a strong fundamental view to long EUR/USD, the current liquidity environment makes executing and managing that trade significantly more difficult and costly.
Conclusion
The recent seizure in FX liquidity, reportedly surpassing the severity seen during the Covid crisis onset, underscores the market's extreme sensitivity to geopolitical and policy uncertainty. The threat of sweeping tariffs injected a level of unpredictability that forced liquidity providers to retreat, even amidst high trading volumes. While the temporary pause offers breathing room, the fragility remains. For traders, this environment demands heightened caution, smaller position sizes, and wider stop-losses. Critically, basing directional trades like longing EUR/USD solely on the state of market liquidity is misguided. Such decisions must stem from a thorough analysis of economic fundamentals, policy outlooks, and risk sentiment, while acknowledging that poor liquidity significantly raises the cost and risk of executing any strategy.
The intricate plumbing of the global foreign exchange market, typically the world's deepest and most liquid financial arena, experienced a severe blockage in recent days, with dealers reporting liquidity conditions even more challenging than during the peak of the Covid-19 crisis in early 2020. Triggered by the sudden announcement of potential sweeping tariffs by former US President Donald Trump, the ability to execute large trades without significantly moving prices evaporated, creating treacherous conditions for market participants before a temporary pause on the tariff implementation offered a brief respite.
Reports indicate that available liquidity for a single transaction, or "clip," in major currency pairs plummeted to lows around $20 million. While this figure might still sound substantial, it represents a dramatic reduction from the norms in the multi-trillion dollar-a-day spot FX market, where clips of $50 million, $100 million, or even more could typically be absorbed with minimal market impact, especially in benchmark pairs like EUR/USD.
This liquidity drought occurred paradoxically alongside a spike in overall trading volumes. Both algorithmic trading systems and human traders on principal desks were highly active, reacting to the news flow and heightened volatility. However, this surge in activity masked a fundamental deterioration in market quality. High volume accompanied by low liquidity signifies frantic, often smaller, trades occurring across widening bid-ask spreads, with market makers unwilling or unable to provide firm quotes for substantial sizes. It's the market equivalent of a crowded room where everyone is shouting, but no one is willing to make a firm commitment.
Why 'Worse Than Covid'? Unpacking Dealer Sentiment
The comparison to the Covid-19 crisis is stark and revealing. The initial wave of the pandemic in March 2020 caused unprecedented volatility across all asset classes as the world grappled with lockdowns and economic shutdowns. FX liquidity certainly suffered then, with spreads widening dramatically. However, dealers suggest the current environment, driven by tariff uncertainty, felt different, and arguably worse, for several reasons:
1. Nature of the Shock: Covid-19, while devastating, was primarily a health crisis with economic consequences. Central banks globally responded with massive, coordinated liquidity injections and policy easing, providing a clear backstop (even if the initial shock was severe). The tariff announcement, however, represents a political and policy shock. Its potential impact is multifaceted – affecting inflation, growth, supply chains, corporate earnings, and international relations – and far harder to model. The policy path forward, including potential retaliation from other countries, is deeply uncertain.
2. Central Bank Reaction Function: During Covid, the playbook for central banks was relatively clear: provide liquidity and ease financial conditions. In response to potential tariffs, the central bank reaction is much less certain. Tariffs could be inflationary (raising import costs), potentially pushing central banks towards tighter policy, while simultaneously being negative for growth, which might argue for easing. This ambiguity makes it harder for markets to price in a predictable policy response, adding another layer of uncertainty that dampens risk appetite and liquidity provision.
3. Fundamental Uncertainty vs. Panic: While Covid induced panic, the underlying driver was identifiable. The tariff threat introduces deep uncertainty about the fundamental rules of global trade. This makes it exceptionally difficult for market makers, who provide liquidity, to price risk accurately. When risk becomes unquantifiable, the natural reaction is to withdraw, reduce quote sizes, and widen spreads significantly to avoid being caught on the wrong side of a large, unhedged position.
The Tariff Trigger: A Wrench in the Works
Donald Trump's proposal for a "reciprocal" or blanket tariff system, potentially starting at 10% on all imports with higher rates for specific countries, fundamentally challenges the existing global trade framework. The announcement immediately forced market participants to reassess:
• Inflation Outlook: Tariffs directly increase the cost of imported goods, potentially fueling inflation and impacting interest rate expectations.
• Economic Growth: Trade wars can disrupt supply chains, raise business costs, reduce export competitiveness (due to retaliation), and dampen consumer and business confidence, weighing on growth.
• Currency Valuations: Currencies of countries heavily reliant on exports to the US, or those potentially facing steep retaliatory tariffs, came under pressure. The US dollar itself experienced volatility as markets weighed the inflationary impact against the potential growth slowdown and risk-aversion flows.
This complex interplay of factors, combined with the political uncertainty surrounding the implementation and potential scope of such policies, created a perfect storm for volatility. Algorithmic systems, programmed based on historical correlations and data, struggled to navigate a potential regime shift driven by policy pronouncements. Human traders, facing heightened risk and uncertainty, became more cautious. Liquidity providers, facing the risk of being adversely selected (i.e., only trading when the market is about to move sharply against them), drastically reduced their exposure.
The Impact: Beyond the Trading Desks
The evaporation of liquidity has real-world consequences:
• Increased Transaction Costs: Corporates needing to hedge currency exposure for international trade face higher costs (wider spreads).
• Execution Risk: Asset managers rebalancing global portfolios find it harder and more expensive to execute large trades, potentially suffering significant slippage (the difference between the expected execution price and the actual price).
• Systemic Risk: In highly leveraged markets, poor liquidity can exacerbate sell-offs. Margin calls, as reportedly seen alongside the tariff news, can force leveraged players to liquidate positions rapidly into an illiquid market, potentially triggering a domino effect.
The temporary pause in the tariff implementation announced subsequently provided some relief, likely allowing liquidity to recover partially from the extreme lows. However, the underlying uncertainty hasn't disappeared. Until there is greater clarity on the future direction of US trade policy, the FX market is likely to remain susceptible to bouts of nervousness and reduced liquidity.
Should You Long EUR/USD Based on This? A Cautious No.
While the liquidity situation is dire and reflects significant market stress, using poor FX liquidity itself as a primary reason to take a directional view, such as longing EUR/USD, is generally flawed logic.
Here's why:
1. Liquidity is Not Direction: Market liquidity reflects the ease and cost of transacting, not necessarily the fundamental direction of an asset price. Poor liquidity is a symptom of high volatility, uncertainty, and risk aversion. While these factors can influence currency direction (e.g., risk aversion often benefits perceived safe-haven currencies), the liquidity state itself isn't the driver. Both buyers and sellers face the same poor liquidity.
2. Universal Impact: The reported liquidity crunch affected the global spot FX market. While specific pairs might have been hit harder at times, the underlying issue was broad-based risk aversion and dealer pullback, impacting EUR/USD, USD/JPY, GBP/USD, and others. It doesn't inherently favor the Euro over the Dollar.
3. Focus on Fundamentals and Sentiment: A decision to long EUR/USD should be based on a broader analysis of:
o Relative Monetary Policy: Expectations for the European Central Bank (ECB) versus the US Federal Reserve (Fed).
o Economic Outlook: Growth prospects in the Eurozone versus the United States.
o Risk Sentiment: Is the broader market mood risk-on (often favoring EUR) or risk-off (which can sometimes favor USD, though the tariff news complicated this)?
o Tariff Impact Analysis: How would the proposed tariffs, if implemented, differentially impact the Eurozone and US economies? Would potential EU retaliation harm the US more, or vice-versa?
4. Increased Trading Risk: Poor liquidity makes any trade riskier and more expensive. Spreads are wider, meaning entry and exit costs are higher. Slippage on stop-loss orders or take-profit orders is more likely. Executing large sizes is challenging. Therefore, even if you have a strong fundamental view to long EUR/USD, the current liquidity environment makes executing and managing that trade significantly more difficult and costly.
Conclusion
The recent seizure in FX liquidity, reportedly surpassing the severity seen during the Covid crisis onset, underscores the market's extreme sensitivity to geopolitical and policy uncertainty. The threat of sweeping tariffs injected a level of unpredictability that forced liquidity providers to retreat, even amidst high trading volumes. While the temporary pause offers breathing room, the fragility remains. For traders, this environment demands heightened caution, smaller position sizes, and wider stop-losses. Critically, basing directional trades like longing EUR/USD solely on the state of market liquidity is misguided. Such decisions must stem from a thorough analysis of economic fundamentals, policy outlooks, and risk sentiment, while acknowledging that poor liquidity significantly raises the cost and risk of executing any strategy.
Get your free C++ High Frequency Trading ebook at
quantlabsnet.com/registration
Or talk me live 1 on 1 at wa.me/16477809447?text=Hi I saw you on TradingView and I got questions
quantlabsnet.com/registration
Or talk me live 1 on 1 at wa.me/16477809447?text=Hi I saw you on TradingView and I got questions
Related publications
Disclaimer
The information and publications are not meant to be, and do not constitute, financial, investment, trading, or other types of advice or recommendations supplied or endorsed by TradingView. Read more in the Terms of Use.
Get your free C++ High Frequency Trading ebook at
quantlabsnet.com/registration
Or talk me live 1 on 1 at wa.me/16477809447?text=Hi I saw you on TradingView and I got questions
quantlabsnet.com/registration
Or talk me live 1 on 1 at wa.me/16477809447?text=Hi I saw you on TradingView and I got questions
Related publications
Disclaimer
The information and publications are not meant to be, and do not constitute, financial, investment, trading, or other types of advice or recommendations supplied or endorsed by TradingView. Read more in the Terms of Use.