Stability vs tightness: David Morris on broker competitiveness in 2026

It is easier to compare providers when markets are quiet. Pricing looks competitive, liquidity is available, and there may be little to distinguish one offering from another. 

A difficult session gives brokers more to work with. They see how execution behaves, how clearly a provider responds, and what they can reasonably expect when clients are most active. 

In this written interview, David Morris, Exness UK CEO, discusses how those experiences influence provider selection and why he sees stability as an increasingly important measure of competitiveness. 

Why do tight spreads still dominate broker comparisons, and what does that emphasis overlook? 

They are easy to put in front of someone. A tight spread looks attractive in a comparison table, and the message is straightforward. You can see why it remains such a prominent part of how providers market themselves. 

The difficulty is knowing how much that number tells you. When markets are orderly and liquidity is readily available, many providers can look competitive. You learn more when conditions become difficult. 

If liquidity or execution becomes less predictable, the spread you saw during a quiet session gives you very little reassurance. What matters then is whether you can still use the conditions being offered.

That is where I think comparisons need more attention. Price matters, but brokers need to understand the environment behind it. 

At an institutional level, how should brokers view the trade-off between tightness and stability? Is this really a trade-off, or is the market asking the wrong question? 

I would question the premise. Stability should already be part of how you judge pricing quality. 

If conditions look attractive but you cannot rely on them when the market comes under pressure, how much value do they really offer your business? 

An experienced broker will think about that because it must consider its own clients. It needs to know what can be delivered across different sessions, including the difficult ones. 

So I would ask how dependable the environment is when clients need it most. For them, the question isn’t simply “how tight can pricing be?” It’s “how dependable is the environment when clients need it most?” 

What changes in a broker’s thinking after real market stress events in FX, commodities, or macro news-driven volatility? 

Those experiences stay with you. Once you have seen how a provider behaves during a market dislocation, a comparison based on ideal conditions becomes less convincing. 

You start paying closer attention to whether the environment continues to function predictably. You also notice how the provider responds. When pressure rises, clear communication matters because you need to understand what you are dealing with. 

Brokers remember whether they could depend on the relationship during those periods. That experience carries into the next selection process. You still want competitive conditions, of course. But you are more likely to ask what you can reasonably expect on a difficult day. You have a clearer sense of why the answer matters.

When markets become difficult, what are the first signs that a broker’s conditions are unstable? How does instability actually show up in practice? 

It can show up in several ways. Spreads widen sharply, execution becomes less predictable, or fills arrive more slowly or at less favorable prices. 

Higher costs are part of the concern. But there is also the uncertainty. Clients become unsure about how the environment will behave from one order to the next. That is particularly difficult during a fast-moving market. They are already dealing with changing prices, and now they are questioning the trading conditions. 

For the broker, that becomes a client relationship issue. If the service feels dependable only when markets are quiet, clients will question its reliability. That can affect whether they stay and how they view the business. 

Stability is often framed as a defensive feature rather than a commercial advantage. Why is that view changing in 2026? 

Because it affects client confidence. Attractive pricing can grab someone’s attention, but their experience determines how much confidence they place in the broker afterward. 

Difficult sessions are part of that experience. Clients remember whether conditions remained usable and whether they understood what was happening. 

That is why I think stability deserves more weight in the business case. It affects the broker’s reputation through the service it delivers over time. 

Traders also become more selective as they gain experience. A good headline may interest them, but they have their own reference points. They know what it feels like when execution becomes uncertain. 

For a broker, maintaining clients’ confidence means looking beyond what brings them in initially. You have to consider what the relationship will feel like after they have traded through a few demanding periods. 

Where does Exness fit into this shift, and how would you define competitiveness as the market moves beyond ideal-condition comparisons? 

Institutional brokers have their own reputations to protect. They need to understand the conditions they’re receiving because those conditions affect the experience they provide to clients. 

For me, competitiveness has to account for that. It is important to look at how tight pricing can be, but also at how reliably the conditions behind it hold up during more difficult events. 

That is the benchmark I would use in 2026. What can the broker reasonably expect when volatility rises? How usable are the conditions then?