1/4% Tax on all stock trades pushed in NY Times today

If they apply a 0.05% tax , real liquidity/spreads will be 0.05% wider. Simple.logical.

There will be no exemptions at all AT FIRST if implemented.Don't forget it's aimed at banks , not retail tarders. When it will be dangerous is when they realize they fucked this or that market and want to gain liquidity back.

3 solutions :- no tax.
- Everybody is taxed. This one is crappy but we will still have a chance to make a dime because we can still comptete with MMs( like today )
- We pay, MMs are exempted : We have no chanec at all. We will have to trade in Canada, Dubai, Switzerland, Tradesports, cantor exchange(LOL)...
 
Quote from TraDaToR:

If they apply a 0.05% tax , real liquidity/spreads will be 0.05% wider.

There will be no exemptions at all AT FIRST if implemented. What is dangerous is when they realized they fucked this or that market and want to gain liquidity back.

3 solutions :- no tax.
- Everybody is taxed. This one is crappy but we will still have a chance to make a dime because we can still comptete with MMs( like today )
- We pay, MMs are exempted : We have no chanec at all. We will have to trade in Canada, Dubai, Switzerland, Tradesports, cantor exchange(LOL)...
More...

Not if you are from the US, the current bill taxes all trades for Americans no matter where they are placed.
 
Quote from TraDaToR:

If they apply a 0.05% tax , real liquidity/spreads will be 0.05% wider.

There will be no exemptions at all AT FIRST if implemented. What is dangerous is when they realized they fucked this or that market and want to gain liquidity back.

3 solutions :- no tax.
- Everybody is taxed. This one is crappy but we will still have a chance to make a dime because we can still comptete with MMs( like today )
- We pay, MMs are exempted : We have no chanec at all. We will have to trade in Canada, Dubai, Switzerland, Tradesports, cantor exchange(LOL)...
More...

Is tradesports still around? I loved that site just a few years ago I was trading with them it was awesome!! I am in the US as well traded with them it seems they are no longer around.
 
Also IMO, they is no F...in' way little prop shops everywhere would get exemptions under a global tax like this one. MMs would be chosen fews with really strict rules to provide liquidity, and again, they are not projecting any exemptions at all for now.They will only if they have to.
 
Quote from TraDaToR:

Also IMO, they is no F...in' way little prop shops everywhere would get exemptions under a global tax like this one. MMs would be chosen fews with really strict rules to provide liquidity.
More...

I agree, I think there will be exemptions, but I do not think prop shops will be exempt. When it comes down to fighting for exemptions the big firms will fight for there personal exmpetions for their inhouse business. Not the little prop firms. Sure they do a lot of shares but the profit margin is miniscule.
 
How the IMF thinks rehash....

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2009/NEW110709A.htm


If left up to the IMF....a tax to the financial sector would be in the form of insurance paid by financial concerns.....not a TT....


IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn told reporters the IMF was considering several options for the G-20 to look at. "We can't go on with a system where some individuals take risks that finally all taxpayers, like you and me, have to pay for. The financial industry has made such big innovations that it is probably impossible to find a transaction tax that will not be avoidable by potential taxpayers. So it will be based not on transactions but on something else."

He made it clear that there was no consideration of a currency transactions tax.

He said there were two possibilities for a financial sector tax, including a "possible windfall tax for 2009, a one shot thing." The other would be a more long-term tax. Some trade off between regulation and taxation could be made: the more regulated a country, the less taxation would be needed. For example, European countries may need to tax the financial sector less because their banks were more regulated, while the less-regulated United States may want to impose a higher levy.

He said he was personally in favor of such a levy, that he referred to as “an IMF tax,” but countries could follow their own approach. “We don’t want an extra-simplistic solution that will not be effective. I am very pragmatic: I would prefer a second best solution we can all implement."

"Think of it as a two-fold objective: (i) incentive for markets to take less risk; (ii) provide resources to an insurance fund if risk materializes."

IMF First Deputy Managing Director John Lipsky is leading the group within the IMF to prepare a report for the G-20 on the issue. “It is widely accepted that deposit insurance should be funded by a tax on the banking system,” said Lipsky last month. “This can be viewed as a mandatory insurance plan. In the wake of the current crisis, it is appropriate to consider the same issues more broadly across the financial system.” The IMF’s report would cover how potential mitigation costs could be borne and whether it was right to think about specifically charging the financial sector.
 
Quote from libertad:

How the IMF thinks rehash....

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2009/NEW110709A.htm


If left up to the IMF....a tax to the financial sector would be in the form of insurance paid by financial concerns.....not a TT....


IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn told reporters the IMF was considering several options for the G-20 to look at. "We can't go on with a system where some individuals take risks that finally all taxpayers, like you and me, have to pay for. The financial industry has made such big innovations that it is probably impossible to find a transaction tax that will not be avoidable by potential taxpayers. So it will be based not on transactions but on something else."

He made it clear that there was no consideration of a currency transactions tax.

He said there were two possibilities for a financial sector tax, including a "possible windfall tax for 2009, a one shot thing." The other would be a more long-term tax. Some trade off between regulation and taxation could be made: the more regulated a country, the less taxation would be needed. For example, European countries may need to tax the financial sector less because their banks were more regulated, while the less-regulated United States may want to impose a higher levy.

He said he was personally in favor of such a levy, that he referred to as “an IMF tax,” but countries could follow their own approach. “We don’t want an extra-simplistic solution that will not be effective. I am very pragmatic: I would prefer a second best solution we can all implement."

"Think of it as a two-fold objective: (i) incentive for markets to take less risk; (ii) provide resources to an insurance fund if risk materializes."

IMF First Deputy Managing Director John Lipsky is leading the group within the IMF to prepare a report for the G-20 on the issue. “It is widely accepted that deposit insurance should be funded by a tax on the banking system,” said Lipsky last month. “This can be viewed as a mandatory insurance plan. In the wake of the current crisis, it is appropriate to consider the same issues more broadly across the financial system.” The IMF’s report would cover how potential mitigation costs could be borne and whether it was right to think about specifically charging the financial sector.
More...


This was good news in Novemeber when it came out but since then they have rethought there words and are looking at the tax. Who knows if its just trying to appease people by saying they are going to look at the tax when clearly the do not support it but we shall find out in April.
 
Quote from rsikit:

This was good news in Novemeber when it came out but since then they have rethought there words and are looking at the tax. Who knows if its just trying to appease people by saying they are going to look at the tax when clearly the do not support it but we shall find out in April.
More...

...............................


I know this....


They have to look at it....


And when they get to the market making function....

What has to happen ?

What conclusions are possible ?


I can do this on the back of an envelope....

Who needs a committee etc ?


...........................................................................

Still what I am saying is that if all traders form a consortium....we could take all the business to the country that wants it the most....

Preferably Switzerland....

Hedge fund managers are already leaving London to Switzerland....

......................................................

I would love this....

You want to invest, trade, or go public ....be public ....raise capital ?

Then it has to be Switzerland.....

The trading consortium would control the game....not some bullshit politician....

Never again this political populist ploy by the non qualifieds....

Why let the POLYS threaten your livlihood....your children....your family.....your rights....?

.............................................................

I can tell you beyond the shadow of a doubt .....that if a TT is enacted....the very Banks that will make the markets will avoid the TT ....or else there will be no market....

Do the math....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top