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

[Sig]

What fight? I am just trying to find a logic in your logic with your help. If the govt wants to charge cancellation fees for financial transactions, so why not do it for any business like the one you own. If you feel like it's an uphill battle for you, forget about it.

The logic was pretty clearly spelled out for you in multiple posts, point by excruciating point.

 

[gkishot]

The logic was pretty clearly spelled out for you in multiple posts, point by excruciating point.

If you want to apply it only to financial markets but not to any other market then your logic is deficient. Financial markets with their strong mathematical foundation and efficiency represent the model of how the free markets of all kinds are operating. I am sure your profit margins are much higher than of a so called "HFT" trader.

 

[zdreg]

Are you saying that govt is late to the party and we all should be out of trading business?

c'mon read what I wrote. trading is not as important to large financial institutions as in the past.

 

[Sig]

If you want to apply it only to financial markets but not to any other market then your logic is deficient. Financial markets with their strong mathematical foundation and efficiency represent the model of how the free markets of all kinds are operating. I am sure your profit margins are much higher than of a so called "HFT" trader.

You clearly didn't read a single thing I wrote! I'm going to be a jackass and quote myself here, so you can see it in front of you again.

I feel like you're trying to pick a fight here. I frankly could give f*&k all if the govt levied a .00001 tax on inquiries to my company, since it get a few dozen a year my only problem would be figuring out how to pay less than a cent. I'm also not sure that anyone has ever complained that inquiries to my company cause any external impact to anyone else in the world, nor is it likely that anyone ever will. I also do dozens of trade cancellations a day. The level of cancellation tax proposed would add up to a couple dollars a year for both of us at most, just to put that in perspective.

As I indicated, I feel HFT is not in the best interest of anyone but the HF traders and to the detriment of the rest of us. I acknowledge that others might not share that belief and that there are good arguments on either side. If I believe HFT is damaging, however, than it is rational to also believe in measures that disincentivize the behavior that I believe is damaging. That's what the government does here in the U.S., from market manipulation laws to laws the prohibit pyramid schemes to any of thousands of other laws that "intrude" on someone in order to prevent them from taking advantage of the rest of our society. You could disincentivize HFT by passing a law banning HFT, which I think is draconian and unnecessary. You could also craft tax law to discourage behavior that damages the majority of our society and encourages behavior that helps it, something that we do in thousands of instances in the U.S. In this case I'm also against that because I think it's too hard to do correctly.

This is how the world works, it's not some but "us against the man" fight. It's rational thinking about what works best for us as a society and coming to consensus to implement it. It's government intervention when market forces have shown themselves inadequate in protecting parts of the population from predatory behavior. As I said, smart well meaning people can disagree if HFT is predatory behavior. However you seem to be disagreeing that there is any role for the government in preventing predatory behavior of any kind. That's a much broader argument, not one I have time for today.

 

[tommo]

The more regulations and taxations the easier it is for the big boys to get an edge.
Whats that saying.. "in the valley of the blind the one eyed man is king".. something like that.

If 99% of people have to pay extra taxes or abide by extra regs that 1% that gets around them will have it all. The best way to kill off a market participant with an excessive edge is deregulation and more competition.

I always use the example of spoofers. I made plenty of money off spoofers spotting them and hitting their B.S orders, they soon stopped. But regulating spoofers out the game improves the lives of virtually no trader i know of, but makes it 100x easier for front running HFT orders to make money as spoofers were taking money off them.

If HFT's are the bogey men of todays market more regulation and taxes will not stop them.. free market competition will. Their returns are dropping off yearly as that "edge" becomes saturated.

God what id give for 60 mins with one of these regulators and explain to them how a market works.

 

[Banjo]

http://www.euractiv.com/section/eur...inancial-transaction-tax-to-fund-development/

 

[tommo]

This article is 18 months old but sums it up well

http://www.bankingtech.com/276812/resurrected-financial-transaction-tax-poses-threat-to-eu-markets/

So dumb

 

[listedguru]

http://www.euractiv.com/section/eur...inancial-transaction-tax-to-fund-development/

So now France is increasing their ftt 50% (they wanted more but settled on 50%) and are going to start taxing daytrades. This will be very interesting to watch going forward.

From the article:

"NGOs have estimated that the rate increase and the broadening of the tax base will generate an extra €4.5bn per year. In 2015, the tax brought in around €1bn, half of which was allocated to the development assistance budget."

So they are thinking that by cranking up the rate 50% and starting to tax daytrades will increase the proceeds substantially? I guess they don't anticipate any volume drop off. I guess we'll see.

 

[Sig]

So now France is increasing their ftt 50% (they wanted more but settled on 50%) and are going to start taxing daytrades. This will be very interesting to watch going forward.

From the article:

"NGOs have estimated that the rate increase and the broadening of the tax base will generate an extra €4.5bn per year. In 2015, the tax brought in around €1bn, half of which was allocated to the development assistance budget."

So they are thinking that by cranking up the rate 50% and starting to tax daytrades will increase the proceeds substantially? I guess they don't anticipate any volume drop off. I guess we'll see.

FTT is a poor policy in general, but it's especially poor policy to tie a tax to some completely and utterly unrelated third program, in this case the French foreign development assistance budget. At least something like tying gas tax to road improvements has some linear relationship between the amount raised and the need for the tax, but these two have nothing to do with one another. I feel sorry for both the NGOs depending on this for their budget and anyone associated with the trading infrastructure in France which is clearly going to see an exodus.

 

[listedguru]

This Reuters article has some more color on the French FTT situation:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-tax-taxation-idUSKCN12L1SN

There is no guarantee that the amendment will enter into law as it must also be backed in the conservative dominated Senate and in a final reading before the lower house.

Budget Minister Christian Eckert estimated during the debate that the tax would raise additional tax revenue of 500 million euros ($545 million), but acknowledged that it was unknown how investors might react.