3 ms·

That's the great thing about subjectivity, I could say the same thing about your comment unless you have proof that no day traders were negatively affected. BT

• airstrike 8y ago
  You're the one making the wild claim without proof, so our comments are not the same. The burden of proof is on you. I don't have to prove that day traders weren't negatively affected. In fact, even if one of us proved they were affected, this wouldn't support the argument that the intention of the bill was "to keep the most lucrative forms of trading in the hands of wealthy". That's just unsubstantiated hot air. Most importantly, you haven't even proven that day trading is "the most lucrative" form of trading and that's probably an even wilder claim! While the burden of proof is on you again, I can already think of two reasons why it is incorrect: (1) day trading incurs in significant transaction costs due to the frequency of the trades and (2) though you may get outsized results on a given trade if your gamble pays off, it's just speculation so it will never beat the market on a risk-adjusted basis. Unless you're a hedge fund with significant resources to take on huge positions and minimize transaction costs, there is really no easy alpha left in the market. Everything's already priced in these days.