3 ms·

If the costs where actually de minimis nobody would be fighting on those timescales, instead the costs paid by the market is the full operating budget of these

by Retric 2mo ago

If the costs where actually de minimis nobody would be fighting on those timescales, instead the costs paid by the market is the full operating budget of these companies plus their profits plus their negative externalities which combined ends up being significant. Ultimately the primping value of markets is in information gathering and by flooding the market with trades based on ms timescales you’re masking important signals with meaningless white noise.

loeg 2mo ago
> the costs paid by the market is the full operating budget of these companies plus their profits plus their negative externalities Agreed. > which combined ends up being significant No. Combined, it is still de minimis. US equity markets alone trade something like $500B/day of volume or like $125T/year.
- Retric 2mo ago
  > trade something like $500B/day of volume or like $125T/year Trade volume is meaningless in the face of HFT. The very actions you’re defending prove the numbers you just presented have zero relevance and could increase by 100x with zero benefit to anyone. However step back a second. Quoting a number roughly equivalent to global GDP is frankly silly here, but it’s an easy enough mistake to make when your basic premise is inherently flawed.
  - loeg 2mo ago
    (Trade volume is relevant because it's how market makers make revenue. They make, in aggregate, at most half a penny per share traded.)
    - Retric 2mo ago
      > No. Combined, it is still de minimis. US equity markets alone trade something like $500B/day of volume or like $125T/year. If that was what you where trying to describe the second sentence is unconnected to the first. > half a penny per share traded That’s far from de minimis. Rebalancing a portfolio now becomes quite expensive over a lifetime. You lose 0.5c selling and 0.5c buying, on say a 10$ stock and that’s 0.1% per transaction, and you don’t rebalance once.

by Retric 2mo ago

loeg 2mo ago

> the costs paid by the market is the full operating budget of these companies plus their profits plus their negative externalities Agreed. > which combined ends up being significant No. Combined, it is still de minimis. US equity markets alone trade something like $500B/day of volume or like $125T/year.

Retric 2mo ago
> trade something like $500B/day of volume or like $125T/year Trade volume is meaningless in the face of HFT. The very actions you’re defending prove the numbers you just presented have zero relevance and could increase by 100x with zero benefit to anyone. However step back a second. Quoting a number roughly equivalent to global GDP is frankly silly here, but it’s an easy enough mistake to make when your basic premise is inherently flawed.
- loeg 2mo ago
  (Trade volume is relevant because it's how market makers make revenue. They make, in aggregate, at most half a penny per share traded.)
  - Retric 2mo ago
    > No. Combined, it is still de minimis. US equity markets alone trade something like $500B/day of volume or like $125T/year. If that was what you where trying to describe the second sentence is unconnected to the first. > half a penny per share traded That’s far from de minimis. Rebalancing a portfolio now becomes quite expensive over a lifetime. You lose 0.5c selling and 0.5c buying, on say a 10$ stock and that’s 0.1% per transaction, and you don’t rebalance once.