Quote from Mike805:
In my experience, people are quick to take issue with something based on "gut feel" and a lack of information. Some aspects of PFOF and internalization "feel" wrong. In this case, you might be missing some information...
If that's the case, I urge you to pick up a series 7 manual and skim through the section on exchanges and broker-dealers. Its been too long and I don't remember most of it, but, the fact is there are significant rules in place that, no matter what, if followed, will *always benefit the customer*. Always.
Now, whether or not the rules are being bent in favor of certain HFT firms, I don't know... Winston knows what he's atalking about here way more than I do. But, internalization and PFOF are very strictly regulated and I would speculate that no firm would ever intentionally break the rules since the consequences would essentially be lethal if word got out. If you have examples please post them.
PFOF has always been a controversial issue, but it is technically legal, even if it is subject to abuse.
If you take a look at Winston's posts on the thread I linked to earlier, he was arguing about how retail traders were getting their orders skimmed through such practices.
The point is that not everything is done by the book, and even then certain rules can be subject to creative interpretation. That is why firms hire securities lawyers.
This is more than a simple matter of brokering, there is also an angle of securities law. A manager wouldn't consult a broker to discuss legal issues, he would hire a lawyer.