Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by tptacek 1787 days ago
It is entirely silly, as, for what it's worth, is Warren's letter. Virtu handles a comparable amount of stock trading in the US; maybe you think they can strong-arm Schwab, too? You can pretty easily pull up a list of firms ranked by their AUM to put that scary-sounding "$38 billion" in perspective, too.
1 comments
mbesto 1787 days ago
You keep saying it's "silly" and provide no specifics (the one you did was incorrect) and keep saying things like "they aren't even that large" without provide comparable numbers.

> maybe you think they can strong-arm Schwab, too?

I never said that, did I? I think its well known that PFOF is a controversial business practice because it can create conflicts of interest. That's not a new thought.

link
tptacek 1786 days ago
It's well known on message boards that it's controversial. It's a universal practice in the industry.
link
mbesto 1786 days ago
So are S&P/Moody ratings yet those got us in trouble in 2008. Just because something is a universal practice in the financial industry doesn't absolve it from conflicts / potential legalities.
link
mbesto 1786 days ago
PS - fun fact, PFOF was pioneered by Bernie Madoff https://archive.fortune.com/2009/04/24/news/newsmakers/madof...
link
gruez 1786 days ago
What's the point of this "fun fact"? I guess the implication you're trying to make is that PFOF is bad by association with maddoff. It's easy to see the flaw with this logic, eg. the autobahn was "pioneered" by hitler, therefore it's bad.
link
mbesto 1786 days ago
> I guess the implication you're trying to make is that PFOF is bad by association with maddoff.

Read the full article and maybe you'll understand better? If you're lazy here ya go:

> Call it shabby if you want. Payment for order flow was legal, and Madoff fought to keep it so. Under pressure from the SEC, the NASD, the securities industry's self-regulatory body, assembled a panel to study the issue in 1990. At the time, payment for order flow was highly controversial, and opposition was intense.

I don't understand why you guys are so hand-wavy about the the idea that PFOF introduces serious conflicts of interest, when it's been debated for decades (with serious thought, not just some random internet trolls). A bunch of reddit/RH users talking about the issues with PFOF isn't new - that's my point. You seem to suggest that just because they are the ones bringing light to it that it shouldn't be taken seriously. Weird.

link
tptacek 1786 days ago
This is deeply silly. PFOF improves outcomes for retail investors.
link