Multiple big market makers pay for order flow in the United States, which results in orders getting intercepted before they hit the public markets.
They are generally given some price improvement relative to the public BBO, so the argument is that customers filled via PFOF are better off.
However one second-order effect of PFOF which argues against this is that PFOF makes it less attractive for non-PFOF firms to participate on the exchange.
Because small customer trades, which are generally low information content, have been filled off exchange, only the larger and riskier trades trade on the exchange. This causes spreads to be wider on the exchange than otherwise.
Some European exchanges have banned PFOF. I think these exchanges are working OK without it.
No quarrel with the facts in your statement about PFOF. But why on earth are small low information traders even worrying about this? Are small order retail traders trying to score that extra .01 price diff? If you're not trading for a Wall Street fund, just buy and hold some decent ETFs or some quality stocks. Day trading is just a form of compulsive gambling and it's only guarantee is to underperform the SP500.
Back around 83 I got to do a project at this facility working with a guy who built prototypes of consumer products. I was in middle school.
The project was to make a wireless joystick for the apple 2. You could go to the basement and fill out an order sheet and get any kind of electronic component. The order was filled on the spot while you stood there.
I didn’t know anything about the assembly written for the project. The mentor did all that. However I got to do all the wire wrapping and some of the other bits. It worked! Good times. No doubt this is one of the reasons I ended up as an engineer…
Not activists and not entirely black, but I know that Youtube works with the Metropolitan Police in the UK to remove drill rap videos that the Met considers too violent (violent content, of course, being one of the things that is against Youtube's TOS).
(As always, content removal is a controversial topic, and that includes this topic.)
Youtube has been stung by various "scandals" in the past where advertisers temporarily "boycott" (or, at least, raised a ruckus) when an ad appears next to content the advertisers consider objectionable (such as, as I recall, child exploitation content and al-Qaeda / jihadist groups several years ago). As an ad supported platform, I do think that Youtube certainly should have the right to monitor their platform in order to remove content that they believe is bad for business, including protecting advertiser brands from content they don't want to appear next to. Youtube also has legal requirements to follow (eg copyright law) and may do some things more to manage their own brand, or even perhaps manage legal liability. It would be nice if Youtube was more transparent about the whys of their content management, but as a private company they are not obligated to do so.
Youtube is not the last word in streaming videos. There are several platforms dedicated to hosting videos that would fall afoul of Youtube's content policy. Many of the ones I can think of are not funded by advertising, though some platforms are big enough where "niche advertising networks" are possible (eg big adult video networks like Pornhub).
> OK. So what are the limiting principles for money creation?
If you gave everyone a million dollars would they all be able to buy a million dollar home?
No? Why do you think not?
Because the price of million dollar homes would go up because everyone would now be able to bid for them.
You can literally give everyone a million dollars, but you won't be giving them a million dollars of purchasing power relative to before you gave them the money.
That's the point the parent is making, except he thinks it doesn't take as much as a million dollars for that effect to take place. His question is why is $8 trillion of money printing since last March A-OK when $100 trillion isnt?
I like the IEX method of introducing a minimum latency and don't see why every exchange shouldn't do this. Selling retail trader order flows should be regulated out of existence, too.
2*) Do you believe that it is possible to have a human review every FALSE POSITIVE result from automated malware detection on the internet, when reported by those adverse affected by the false positive result?
Yes, yes I do. Banks do it for their customers today at scale.
So what happens when the fraudsters automate clicking the "request review" button? They can spin up as many phishing sites as they want, and request as many human hours in review as they want.
With banks, they only have to do that for their customers, whom they've at least had a chance of getting money from. But Google would need to provide it to every site which gets blocked, (as malware sites pretend to be legitimate). Which
How many deaths were caused by the lockdown? I know we cant easily measure this but the number is surely substantial and by not keeping this in mind we are implicitly saying the number is zero, which leads us to make bad decisions.
The part about spreads being smaller because machines are making markets is true, but there are important caveats. The one that comes to mind first is that the tight market is only there for small quantities. If you want to trade in size, then you are out of luck.
Machine based market making tends to work well when markets are operating "normally". When some regime-changing news comes out, it's not uncommon for the over-fit algorithms to perform badly so the managers just turn them off. I.e. liquidity disappears just when it's needed most.
