← Back to Execution Reports
Print to PDF: browser Print (Ctrl+P / Cmd+P)
Select Quarter:
2026Q22026Q1
CRD #2739 Review Period: 2026Q1 Filing: Direct 606 filer

SCOTIA CAPITAL (USA) INC. (CRD #2739) — Quarterly Rule 606 vs. Amended Rule 605 Competing Market Review

• 0 COMPETING-MARKET EXCEPTIONS DETECTED (>1.0 BPS THRESHOLD)
Primary Routed Venues (606)
None disclosed
Top routed order shares
Disclosed PFOF / Rebates
$0.00
Non-directed retail equity flow
Competing-Market Exceptions
0 of 0
Scored cells with >1.0 bps shortfall
Data Coverage
0 mo • 0 builds
Amended 605 builds

Rule 5310.09 Exceptions Preview (0 Total)

All scored order size and routing buckets where venue net price improvement trailed mix-adjusted peers by > 1.0 bps.

No statistically significant competing-market shortfalls exceeding 1.0 bps were detected in this quarter’s scored cells.

FINRA Rule 5310.09 Review Packet

SCOTIA CAPITAL (USA) INC.

CRD Number: 2739 • Quarter: 2026Q1 • Generated: Wed, 14 Oct 2026 20:20:30 GMT
Methodology: exq-2
Status: CLOSED QUARTER

Resolved Rule 606 Source Filings

Author / Clearing FirmCRDVariant / ContextVersionSHA-256 DigestSource Document
Scotia Capital (USA) Inc2739DirectV1095f7612773fe4a5e15236003cd31344f4846f1bacf70848f47b850cef36531e Download XML ↗

1. SEC Rule 606(a)(1) Order Routing

Quarterly non-directed customer order routing shares and net PFOF/rebates by section and venue.

MonthSectionExecution Venue605 ReporterRoute %Market %Mkt Limit %Non-Mkt %PFOF Mkt (¢/100)PFOF Limit (¢/100)

2. Venue Scorecards (Amended Rule 605)

Execution quality metrics for routed venues benchmarked against mix-adjusted competitors on identical symbols and size tiers.

MonthVenueClassNotional × LotFill RatePI RateNPI (bps)Peer Bench (bps)CoverageRank PctlEff SpreadSpeed <1s

3. Routing-Weighted Composite Quality

Implied execution quality achieved by the firm’s routing mix across the 24 amended size tiers, compared against the best and median competing venues.

MonthClassNotional × LotMetricFirm CompositeBest CompetingBest VenueMedian CompetingMapped Flow

4. Payment for Order Flow vs. Execution Quality

Addresses FINRA 5310.09 conflicts: comparing PFOF received (¢/100 sh) against net price improvement shortfall vs mix-adjusted peers.

MonthVenueOrder ClassRoute %606 Net PFOF (¢/100)NPI (bps)Peer Bench (bps)Delta (bps)Ref PriceDelta (¢/100 sh)Conflict Flag

Conflict Methodology Note: Quality delta (¢/100 sh) is estimated as Δ_bps × ref_price. A positive PFOF beside a negative delta indicates the firm received payment while the venue delivered less price improvement than competing market centers on identical symbols and size tiers.

5. Material Changes Since Prior Quarter

Changes in routing share (≥ 5 pp), newly added/dropped venues, and PFOF rate shifts since 2025Q4.

No material shifts (≥ 5 percentage point route share or PFOF rate change) detected relative to 2025Q4.

6. Coverage, Exclusions & Standing Limitations

Mandatory regulatory disclosure of data availability, unmapped destinations, and methodological caveats.

Suppressed Cells
0
Cells with < 100 covered orders
Unmapped Venues
0
606 destinations without 605 match
Challenged / Missing 605
0
Venues missing monthly 605 report

Standing Review Limitations:

  • A venue's Rule 605 statistics describe all flow it handled, not this firm's orders.
  • 606 route shares are per order, not per share, and list only the top 10 venues plus any venue with at least 5% of non-directed orders.
  • FINRA Rule 5310.09 also requires the firm's own order-level review of its executions.
  • This report is not legal or compliance advice.
  • Net price improvement is in basis points of executed notional (quote midpoint × shares). The PFOF comparison converts the difference to ¢/100 sh at the venue's average executed price; it is an estimate.