forex-scalping.com

A dealer that has accumulated a large long position in a currency pair does not always widen the spread to get rid of it. A common alternative is skewing: both bid and ask shift downward by a small amount, so the quote still looks tight while the buying side becomes less generous and the selling side becomes more attractive to incoming flow.

The logic is simple inventory control. Risk limits cap how much open exposure a desk can carry, and warehousing that exposure costs capital. Moving the midpoint of the quote nudges client orders toward the side that reduces the position, which can offload risk without paying a hedging cost in the wider market.

For a scalper, skew is hard to see because the quoted spread may remain unchanged. Evidence appears only when comparing the quote against a neutral reference, such as a composite of several independent feeds. A persistent offset in one direction, especially during heavy one-sided client activity, suggests that the quote midpoint is being leaned rather than centred.

The practical consequence is that cost is not captured by spread alone. A buy order might pay a little more than neutral while a sell order pays a little less, and the difference can reverse as inventory changes. Logging entries against an external reference over many sessions is the cleaner way to measure it.

Good explanation. For retail traders this is visible sometimes when comparing two brokers: one shows a tight spread but its midpoint is a few tenths of a pip away from the other's. On a fast morning in Asia, when one side of the flow dominates, the skew can be more than the spread.

It also explains why some limit orders don't fill at prices that clearly traded elsewhere. The quote moved its midpoint, not its width. If you scalp with limits, comparing your broker's midpoint with a reference feed for a few days can be revealing.