SEC Closes In on Rules That Could Reshape How Stock Market Operates
- Thread starter cruisecontrol
- Start date
Give retail traders 2 options. Free PFOF trade or Paid trade. Let traders decide. Free PFOF is not a total negative.
There is no such thing as free PFOF. The cost is just built into the spread. "Commission Free" is not the same thing as free.
People need to understand that spreads do not exist in a vacuum. The fact that so much retail flow is sold necessarily widens spreads, because most of what is left on exchanges is toxic flow. The only case where spreads wouldn't narrow if PFOF was eliminated is if the spread is already the minimum, 1 cent. That's one of the reasons why they are also proposing to allow subpenny pricing on exchanges.
People need to understand that spreads do not exist in a vacuum. The fact that so much retail flow is sold necessarily widens spreads, because most of what is left on exchanges is toxic flow. The only case where spreads wouldn't narrow if PFOF was eliminated is if the spread is already the minimum, 1 cent. That's one of the reasons why they are also proposing to allow subpenny pricing on exchanges.
No slippages? I’ve been screwed just as bad by paid brokers. My favorite was a trade halt, I got opening print on PFOF while smart-route costed .70 extra a share.
The Bloomberg take on this...
SEC Weighs Sending Retail Stock Orders to Auctions for Execution
By Lydia Beyoud and Katherine Doherty
June 6, 2022 at 6:15 PM EDT
US Securities and Exchange Commission is weighing changes to stock-market rules that could force trading firms to directly compete to execute trades from retail investors, according to people familiar with the matter.
A move by the SEC to press major wholesale brokerages to win auctions for orders by mom-and-pop investors would be a major change for the stock market. While nothing has been announced, the change is among those being considered by staff at Wall Street’s main regulator, said the people who asked not to be named discussing the plans which remain private.
The specifics of the SEC’s plans, which are still taking shape, follow a months-long review of regulations. Almost exactly one year ago, SEC Chair Gary Gensler said he’d asked the agency’s staff to examine best execution requirements -- legal mandates that ostensibly force brokers to process customers’ orders at advantageous prices.
Read more: SEC Chairman Proposes Review of U.S. Stock Trading Rules
The SEC didn’t respond to a request for comment on the possible rule changes, which were earlier reported by The Wall Street Journal.
Gensler rattled financial firms last year when he refused to rule out prohibiting the practice of brokers getting paid to send customers’ stock orders to trading as part of the agency’s rule changes. Currently, firms including Virtu Financial Inc. and Citadel Securities pay retail brokerage firms to execute their clients’ trades, a practice known as payment-for-order-flow.
Doug Cifu, Virtu’s chief executive officer, said the SEC should be careful not to make changes that unintentionally make trading more expensive. “Order-by-order competition enables selective competition because it removes the retail brokers’ ability to demand best execution from wholesalers on every order,” he said in a statement.
“The current market structure has resulted in tighter spreads, greater transparency, and meaningfully reduced costs,” a spokesperson for Citadel Securities said in an emailed statement. “We look forward to reviewing the proposals and working with the SEC and the industry towards our longstanding objective of further improving competition and transparency.”
Read more: Gensler Swims Against Tide in Payment-for-Order-Flow Fight
Changes would also impact the exchange businesses which display prices and aggregate trading data. Representatives from Nasdaq Inc. and the New York Stock Exchange declined to comment.
Online brokers argue that replacing customer-paid commissions with revenue that comes from market makers has opened up investing to millions of young people, including women and minorities who traditionally have kept their money out of the securities markets. Firms also argue that the vast majority of the retail orders they offload are executed at a lower price. That complies with SEC rules that demand investors get the “best execution” for trades.
Opponents, however, say the order payments are difficult to understand and include hidden costs that investors pay without even knowing. They also say it gives massive trading firms knowledge of where the market is heading.
SEC Weighs Sending Retail Stock Orders to Auctions for Execution
- Plan under consideration could impact major trading firms
- Agency has been reviewing rules underpinning stock market
By Lydia Beyoud and Katherine Doherty
June 6, 2022 at 6:15 PM EDT
US Securities and Exchange Commission is weighing changes to stock-market rules that could force trading firms to directly compete to execute trades from retail investors, according to people familiar with the matter.
A move by the SEC to press major wholesale brokerages to win auctions for orders by mom-and-pop investors would be a major change for the stock market. While nothing has been announced, the change is among those being considered by staff at Wall Street’s main regulator, said the people who asked not to be named discussing the plans which remain private.
The specifics of the SEC’s plans, which are still taking shape, follow a months-long review of regulations. Almost exactly one year ago, SEC Chair Gary Gensler said he’d asked the agency’s staff to examine best execution requirements -- legal mandates that ostensibly force brokers to process customers’ orders at advantageous prices.
Read more: SEC Chairman Proposes Review of U.S. Stock Trading Rules
The SEC didn’t respond to a request for comment on the possible rule changes, which were earlier reported by The Wall Street Journal.
Gensler rattled financial firms last year when he refused to rule out prohibiting the practice of brokers getting paid to send customers’ stock orders to trading as part of the agency’s rule changes. Currently, firms including Virtu Financial Inc. and Citadel Securities pay retail brokerage firms to execute their clients’ trades, a practice known as payment-for-order-flow.
Doug Cifu, Virtu’s chief executive officer, said the SEC should be careful not to make changes that unintentionally make trading more expensive. “Order-by-order competition enables selective competition because it removes the retail brokers’ ability to demand best execution from wholesalers on every order,” he said in a statement.
“The current market structure has resulted in tighter spreads, greater transparency, and meaningfully reduced costs,” a spokesperson for Citadel Securities said in an emailed statement. “We look forward to reviewing the proposals and working with the SEC and the industry towards our longstanding objective of further improving competition and transparency.”
Read more: Gensler Swims Against Tide in Payment-for-Order-Flow Fight
Changes would also impact the exchange businesses which display prices and aggregate trading data. Representatives from Nasdaq Inc. and the New York Stock Exchange declined to comment.
Online brokers argue that replacing customer-paid commissions with revenue that comes from market makers has opened up investing to millions of young people, including women and minorities who traditionally have kept their money out of the securities markets. Firms also argue that the vast majority of the retail orders they offload are executed at a lower price. That complies with SEC rules that demand investors get the “best execution” for trades.
Opponents, however, say the order payments are difficult to understand and include hidden costs that investors pay without even knowing. They also say it gives massive trading firms knowledge of where the market is heading.
Absolutely shameless argumentation by these wholesalers. They think we are stupid.
Tigher spreads compared to what? A time before HFTs existed? Spreads were driven down by decimalization and the introduction of HFT and other technology. There's no logic for a claim that PFOF drives down spreads, in fact basic economics suggest the opposite, because it is an anti competitive. As Citadel themselves explained in 2004.
Precisely what kind of "best execution" for every order is he talking about? They have literally no obligations other than being no worse than NBBO. The incentive for them to provide better prices is flawed and weak at best because there is no proper market for competition among these players. That is precisely what the proposal is addressing with the auction idea.
Payment for Orderflow is still banned here in Canada. The gov has done research on it for many years, and guess what? The customer always gets screwed by it. Hence it's still on our banned list of unethical practices.
Which is kinda odd, considering Canadians pay the highest banking fees in the world. Now THAT should tell you something.
Which is kinda odd, considering Canadians pay the highest banking fees in the world. Now THAT should tell you something.
retail traders that argue against pfof crack me up, there are plenty of brokers
that will let you rout wherever you want and you can pay your trading fees and
swim up stream all day long.
its nice to have the another option.