That article points out that "front running"(which it isn't) by HF may cost .2% a year. Its probably less than that. Bid/ask spreads are often around that perce

That article points out that "front running"(which it isn't) by HF may cost .2% a year. Its probably less than that. Bid/ask spreads are often around that percentage. This is just a trading cost. Nothing nefarious is happening here. The spread may go up if a large fund is buying, but this is only natural due to supply and demand. These HFs are just providing liquidity and "charging" a small fee for doing so. If nobody did this, trading costs would probably be even higher. There is extreme amounts of FUD about HFT and market making for some reason. Now about the Russel indexes - the article has a point there. They are notoriously shitty indexes. Nobody should be putting money into those. But still - nothing illegal(nor should it be). This is yes, clearly a case of "investors' fault for acting irresponsibly". Nobody is forcing them to use these indexes and this information isn't hidden anywhere. Last thing we need is 100 more regulations.