- Five firms—Citadel, Virtu, Hudson River, Jane Street, SIG—execute about 75% of U.S. equity trades, concentrating market power.
- High concentration increases systemic risk and volatility; a failure at one firm could ripple across markets.
- These firms have repeated regulatory fines and manipulation allegations, yet penalties are minor relative to their revenues.
Imagine this: you’re buying or selling stocks, thinking the market’s a level playing field where supply and demand call the shots.
But what if I told you that just five companies handle three-quarters of all those trades?
That’s not some conspiracy theory—it’s straight from recent data that’s raising eyebrows across Wall Street.
The FrankNez Media Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.
Details of the Report
According to information surfacing on X, 75% of all U.S. equity trades are executed by Citadel Securities (25%), Virtu Financial (20%), Hudson River Trading (15%), Jane Street (10%), and Susquehanna International Group, or SIG (5%).
The post, shared by @FlyEaglesFly529 includes a table breaking it down, with sources like Citadel’s own 2025 disclosures, Bloomberg estimates, Virtu’s Q3 earnings supplements, and revenue docs from the others.
This isn’t ancient history; it’s based on fresh 2024-2025 figures, highlighting how these firms dominate everything from retail orders to institutional flows.
Why This Concentration Spells Trouble for Everyday Investors
Now, you might think, “So what? Efficiency is good, right?”
But here’s the rub: when power gets bottled up in so few hands, the risks skyrocket.
Market experts have been sounding alarms about this for years, including the massive retail base who stuck to it Wall Street during the meme stock frenzy of 21′.
For starters, high concentration makes the whole system vulnerable to shocks.
If one of these giants stumbles—say, due to a tech glitch or bad bet—the ripple effects could hammer stock prices across the board.
Take it from Bernstein Research: with U.S. equities already riding high on valuations, this setup amps up the market’s risk profile.
TD Bank points out that when a handful of players drive the action, everything becomes more susceptible to firm-specific problems.
Schwab echoes that, noting how it magnifies both ups and downs—great when things are booming, but a nightmare if they sour.
And it’s not just about volatility.
Concentration can squash competition, leading to higher costs for investors and less innovation.
State Street Global Advisors has crunched the numbers showing how this trend is pushing dividend income to historic lows while boosting returns for the big guys.
Barclays Private Bank warns that a market dominated by a few tech-heavy firms (though here it’s trading firms) heightens overall risks.
Goldman Sachs even put out a report asking if market concentration is “how big a worry?”—spoiler: pretty big, given historical highs.
Investec sums it up bluntly: the U.S. market isn’t cheap anymore, and company-specific risks become a bigger deal when so much hangs on so few.
First Sentier Investors calls it “unprecedented,” especially in the States.
Morningstar’s been harping on this for two years as well, saying it could get worse and urging folks to manage risks accordingly.
Bottom line? This isn’t healthy for a fair market—it’s like putting all your eggs in five baskets, and those baskets have a history of wobbling.
A Track Record of Manipulation: How These Firms Have Bent the Rules
The real kicker? These firms aren’t just big—they’ve been caught up in scandals that smack of market manipulation, often walking away with fines that barely dent their profits.
Let’s break it down firm by firm, based on documented cases.
Starting with Citadel Securities, the heavyweight at 25%.
Back in 2023, the SEC nailed them with a $7 million fine for violating order-marking rules over five years, messing up short and long sale labels on millions of trades.
Earlier, in 2017, they paid $22 million for misleading clients about trade pricing.
FINRA hit them with $1 million in 2024 for rule violations.
And just last month, Genius Group sued Citadel and Virtu, alleging they used “rapid spoofing” to tank its stock for short-sale profits.
Singapore fined them $230,000 in 2018 for manipulation too.
Virtu Financial, controlling 20%, has its own rap sheet.
This week, they agreed to a $2.5 million SEC fine for failing to safeguard client trading data—basically, employees could peek at sensitive info.
They’re also in that Genius lawsuit for alleged spoofing.
France’s AMF slapped them with €5 million in 2015 for outright manipulation on Euronext.
And in 2019, a $1.5 million hit for Regulation SCI violations.
Hudson River Trading (15%) has flown a bit under the radar, but not entirely.
In 2014, the SEC probed them and nine other HFT firms for potential manipulation.
They popped up in a 2014 lawsuit accusing brokerages of illegal conduct and market rigging.
Critics like Michael Lewis in “Flash Boys” called out firms like Hudson for rigging markets via high-speed trading.
Jane Street (10%) made headlines this year in India, where SEBI accused them of manipulating index options on expiry days, barring them from trading and freezing $565 million in assets.
They’re appealing, but the probe exposed risky strategies that allegedly distorted prices.
Back home, they’ve dealt with trade-secret theft suits, like against Millennium in 2024.
Finally, SIG (5%), or Susquehanna. In 2022, a biotech firm sued them, Citadel, and others for artificially driving down its stock.
They’re accused of spoofing in online forums and reports. The SEC dinged them in 2009 for exchange rule violations.
And in 2025, they got scrutiny in India alongside Jane Street for F&O market issues.
Slaps on the Wrist: How They Keep Getting Away With It
You’d think these fines would lead to real change, but nah. These penalties—often in the millions—are peanuts compared to their billions in revenue.
Citadel, for instance, paid $7 million in 2023 but kept humming along as the top dog.
Virtu’s fresh $2.5 million settlement? Just the cost of doing business.
Jane Street’s India ban is temporary, and they’re fighting it.
Regulators like the SEC investigate, fine, and move on—no breakups, no forced divestitures. It’s like busting a speeding driver with a ticket but letting them keep the Ferrari.
The X post calls for antitrust action, comparing it to Standard Oil’s breakup.
Replies echo that, blasting SEC Chair Paul Atkins for relaxing rules that favor these firms.
Why no tougher stance? Influence, maybe.
These companies lobby hard and provide “liquidity” that markets rely on.
But as concentration hits extremes, the calls for reform are getting louder.
Investors, take note: diversification isn’t just for your portfolio—it’s what the market needs too.
What do you think—time to break ’em up?
Also Read: Short Sellers Are Now Throwing One Another Under the Bus
