3 ms·
>does anyone really believe that we would be better off if everyone were paying transaction fees for trades? I don't like throwing accusations around randomly,
by filoleg 6y ago
>does anyone really believe that we would be better off if everyone were paying transaction fees for trades?
I don't like throwing accusations around randomly, but I feel like people arguing FOR fees in this thread (which is really strange to see) are experiencing a strong case of "biting off the nose to spite the face".
The only defense for fees in the thread I see just seems to boil down to "well, if you think those fees are too much, then you probably would have been better off not trading", which just sounds like straight up gatekeeping of people who aren't wealthy or those who prefer to invest a bit more manually than just throwing all their cash in a mutual fund/etf once a month.
- jjeaff 6y agoDo you have any data that suggests that $0 transaction fees leads to a net gain for consumers? Because I think the point the naysayers are making is that $0 transaction fees are not actually a benefit.
- filoleg 6y ago>Because I think the point the naysayers are making is that $0 transaction fees are not actually a benefit. I don't know what kind of data you are looking for in support of my point, but I think it is a net positive for a person when they get something for free instead of paying for it if the experience becomes unchanged otherwise. I traded using platforms that required fees before RH, and those small transaction fees add up and make certain trading strategies straight up unviable, unless the amounts you trade are giant. For a small retail trader like me, it certainly has saved me a ton of money over time and allowed me to execute on trading strategies I simply couldn't before. So, basically, the lack of transaction fees just opens up more opportunities for more people, without taking away anything from the rest. I count that as a net win.