The other option that Matt Levine has been writing about more lately is no longer having integer number of shares (jedberg’s precision question is similar). Am

The other option that Matt Levine has been writing about more lately is no longer having integer number of shares (jedberg’s precision question is similar). Amusingly, there are folks who take the other side of this argument, and very drastically like Scott Kupor at Andreessen Horowitz [1] > How did this happen? Because decimalization reduced the “tick size,” the minimum increment in which stock prices can trade, to a penny (from its previous level of 25 cents). Thus, a trader who previously might have purchased a block of small-cap shares knowing that a $0.25 tick size likely represented his minimum profit potential on a trade now found his minimum profit potential reduced to a penny. Facing this uneconomic situation, small-cap traders simply abandoned the market, killing liquidity for these stocks. More recently, that was testimony to the SEC [2]. It’s certainly true that small-cap / illiquid stocks are illiquid. But it seems like the argument is “we should intentionally have market inefficiency for market makers to collect so that we have more liquidity”. Maybe someone here knows more about the tick size pilot mentioned? [1] https://blog.pmarca.com/2013/03/26/unshackle-the-middle-class/ https://blog.pmarca.com/2013/03/26/unshackle-the-middle-clas... [2] https://a16z.com/2019/06/20/capital-formation-smaller-companies-ipos-policy-testimony-june-2017/ https://a16z.com/2019/06/20/capital-formation-smaller-compan...