With yesterday's announcement that the Financial Services Authority (FSA) has approved the launch of Turquoise, it seems that the pan-European trading platform will launch on-time in early September. Getting the FSA's blessing is no easy task, but obviously an absolute necessity and the greatest hurdle to launching a trading facility. Some FSA approvals are rumoured to have taken up to six months in the past, though the regulator must surely be getting used to signing these things off, given the proliferation of MTFs and dark pools in Europe.

It's been a long gestation period for Turquoise. First announced by 7 investment banks in late 2006 and operating very much in the shadows until it hired CEO Eli Lederman late last year, Turquoise was often criticised for its reticence and lack of a public face. This year the project has been seen to gather momentum with regular announcements and appearances at conferences. I heard someone ask recently how it is that Lederman and Peter Randall (Chi-X CEO) ever get any work done, given that they spend most of their time facing off against each other at trade shows and conferences. The power of delegation.

While the champagne may have been flowing at Turquoise's city office when the FSA approval came through, the team still has its work cut out if they are to pull it all off successfully. They've made a courageous plan to launch the MTF over a three-week period, rolling out to all European markets at once. If it works, it will be impressive. But according to those who have done it in the past, a soft launch is better. Look back at the Chi-X archives and you won't find many pre-launch press releases. People knew it was happening but the real noise was only made a few months in, when the platform was already gathering volume. Even now, Chi-X is only active in nine European markets, with five more still under development. The Turquoise team must have done their homework, but it will be interesting to see how their "all guns blazing" launch is met by the market.

Amidst all this buzz and speculation around European liquidity fragmentation, an interesting issue came up last week. Talking to another financial journalist who covers the same markets, I was asked how it is that, given MiFID's focus on improving transparency and raising the quality of service for the end investor, how is it that the directive has spurned a whole set of new trading venues, many of which operate in the dark without displaying their order books? Surely that is against the grain of MiFID? An interesting question. Despite the ranting and raving about dark pools, I haven't heard many people criticize their lack of transparency. Perhaps that is because, even though they are non-transparent, dark pools potentially offer better execution by not revealing pre-trade information and so limiting market impact.

So, European Commission, FSA, please look away now. But could it be that transparency and best execution - two central tenets of MiFID - are actually incompatible in the context of non-displayed liquidity?