[mbesto]

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.

[tptacek]

It's well known on message boards that it's controversial. It's a universal practice in the industry.

[mbesto]

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.

[mbesto]

PS - fun fact, PFOF was pioneered by Bernie Madoff https://archive.fortune.com/2009/04/24/news/newsmakers/madof...

[gruez]

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.

[mbesto]

> 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.

[gruez]

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

Well you just casually linked a 11k word article with little context. I'm not going to read that and then try to figure out whether that article was supposed to serve as an addition to your original argument, or merely a source to back up your claim about PFOF being pioneered by maddoff.

>At the time, payment for order flow was highly controversial, and opposition was intense.

In other words, PFOF is bad because Madoff fought for it and it was controversial? That's still guilt by association, and a terrible argument.

>I don't understand why you guys are so hand-wavy about the the idea that PFOF introduces serious conflicts of interest

Because they're already obligated by law to provide best execution. They're also obligated to provide reports on the quality of execution.

>You seem to suggest that just because they are the ones bringing light to it that it shouldn't be taken seriously. Weird.

You started off by insinuating that robinhood took orders from melvin/citadel to restrict trades. Insofar as that's concerned, it shouldn't be taken seriously because there's scarce evidence.

[tptacek]

This is deeply silly. PFOF improves outcomes for retail investors.