>20/80 is worse than other retail brokerages (virtually all of which do PFOF, because none of them are especially competent at actually executing trades) --- ev

>20/80 is worse than other retail brokerages (virtually all of which do PFOF, because none of them are especially competent at actually executing trades) --- even if you factor in the lack of trading fees, (1) I don't think you can make a blanket statement about the split and trading fees. If I bought 1 stock for $100 this year I'm better off with the 20/80 split than a trade commission. Conversely, if I bought 10,000 shares @ $100 I would be better off paying a commission and getting a 80/20 split. It's also not clear what's better for the consumer. If I'm paying a commission then I have to trade sub-optimally in order to batch trades. Maybe I'm better off being able to make a trade for free when I need it even if it costs me more in fees. (2) This seems like an odd standard. I can take 20% as a rebate because everyone else does, but I can't take 80% because no one else does that. So maybe I can take 25% or maybe 30% or maybe 35% and that's ok. Where exactly is the line? And if someone launches a competitor called Jesse James and they take 80% does that mean Robinhood is now ok? Or is two not enough? And if two is not enough then how many does it take?