Importance of non- commercial participants in the market

[schizo]

What kind of volume do you think retail traders are doing on the NYSE these days? The thing has half a billion shares per day. There's no way specerlators are having any effect on that. It's all the institutions which are doing it.

I swear you need to get your head checked. I said "humans AND bots". If you don't know what that means, please look it up.

 

[Overnight]

I swear you need to get your head checked. I said "humans AND bots". If you don't know what that means, please look it up.

Because you keep saying "bots". To me, that does not equal an institutional algo. To me that means a retail trader's automated system, doing piker auto-trades. They simply do not have the volume the algos do. Are we clear now on the understanding?

 

[spy]

Are we clear now on the understanding?

Not really. Exactly how do you define the difference between a retail algo and an institutional one? Besides, of course, who's running it. I'm genuinely curious about this. I figure code is code.

 

[Overnight]

Not really. Exactly how do you define the difference between a retail algo and an institutional one? Besides, of course, who's running it. I'm genuinely curious about this. I figure code is code.

VOLUME and PURPOSE OF WORK.

 

[spy]

VOLUME and PURPOSE OF WORK.

Well, volume's one thing... but seems like an arbitrary demarcation to me. Purpose of work also sounds nonsensical; all bots are built to make money

Not to mention, in aggregate, retail volume is likely very significant. I'm curious to see numbers.

If anything something like this would seem to be the distinction. Which, as far as I can tell, is basically... have you "registered" or not. Except, you must be registered if you want to make money for other people.

That's the best I got... algos that make money for other people (not the authors or proprietors) are the institutional ones. Isn't that a better distinction?

Plus, it would explain where fees come from, lol. Sorry, had to take a minute to think it through and now "purpose of work" does seem accurate (but absurdly terse).