Skip to main content

Sound Advice: November 23, 2022

How do brokers make money with zero commissions on trades?

That’s a question many investors are asking.  If stock trades are free, one may well assume that there’s something fishy . . . and there is, though there is an ongoing controversy about whether any rules are being broken.

The key phrase is payment for order flow (PFOF), which is what brokerage firms receive for directing trades to a particular market maker for execution.  These payments are typically fractions of a penny per share, but they add up to substantial sums when cumulated by the volume of trades taking place.

The Golden Rule for trading is best execution, which means that brokers are required to get the lowest prices when buying and highest prices for selling on behalf of its clients.  As long as this rule is followed, no lines are crossed, but when brokers direct trades to market makers who may be specializing in certain stocks, it becomes a gray area, especially when the trades are done at other than the best prices.

When questioned about executions, brokers tend to rely on claims of the better liquidity provided by these firms.  The more problematic situations are those that involve smaller brokerage firms, which may have difficulty handling large trades.  The flip side of PFOF is the increased cost to clients as a result of inferior execution.

This practice led to agency intervention in late 2020, when the SEC fined Robinhood Markets $65 million for failing to properly disclose to customers PFOF payments it received for trades that did not result in best execution.  Trading in meme stocks seems to have been an area where these kinds of abuses have taken place.

Although zero commissions are now widespread, it should come as no surprise that offsetting revenues from things such as PFOF have increased considerably to reduce the shortfall.  A recent study by Piper Sandler, a NY-based investment bank, showed PFOF revenues from equity trading of major brokerage houses up from 27% to 122% from the first quarter to the second quarter of 2020.

Payment for order flow isn’t the only tool being used to fill the gap.  Other revenue sources include interest, margin lending, and fees for new or updated services.  One way or another these companies will find ways to keep their profits flowing, especially when they appear to be executing trades at no cost.

Free lunch?  Not exactly, but in most cases clean enough to pass the test.

N. Russell Wayne, CFPÒ

www.soundasset.com

Any questions?  Please contact me at nrwayne@soundasset.com 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sound Advice: July 16, 2025

Fixed annuities are poor investments Fixed annuities are often criticized as poor investments for several reasons, despite their reputation for providing stable, predictable income.  Here are the key drawbacks and concerns:   High Fees and Commissions Internal Fees:  Fixed annuities can carry a range of fees, including administrative charges, mortality expense risk fees, and rider fees. These can add up to 2%–4% per year, significantly eroding returns over time. Commissions:  Sales agents and financial advisors often receive high commissions for selling annuities—sometimes as much as 5%–8% of the invested amount. This creates a financial incentive for advisers to recommend them, even when they may not be the best fit for the client. Comparison to Other Investments:  Mutual funds and ETFs typically have much lower fees and commissions, making them more cost-effective for long-term growth. Limited Growth a...
Post a Comment
Read more

Sound Advice: October 8, 2025

How many investors have outperformed the stock market over the last 20 years? Very few investors have outperformed the stock market over the past 20 years.   Data shows that only about 6% to 8% of actively managed equity funds in the U.S. beat the market over this period, with the vast majority—over 90%—underperforming the S&P 500 or equivalent broad indexes. Percentage of Investors Beating the Market Only 8% of equity funds investing in large companies managed to outperform the market over a recent 20-year span. About 94% of all domestic funds underperformed the S&P 1500 Composite Index from 2005-2024. Over shorter timeframes (5-10 years), typically fewer than 15-20% of fund managers beat the S&P 500, and performance persistence is rare. Why It Is Rare The S&P 500’s high returns have proven immensely difficult to beat, especially as indexing has become popular and markets have ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Sound Advice: November 10, 2025

The stock market indexes seem to be dominated by a handful of tech stocks, but how is the average stock doing? As of late October/early November 2025, the S&P 500 index excluding the Magnificent Seven stocks (the "Other 493") has delivered a modest year-to-date return of approximately 5.3% to 5.4%. That’s barely more than one third of the performance of the full, market-capitalization-weighted S&P 500 index, which was up around 15.1% to 16% over the same period.  (The Magnificent Seven stocks are Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Apple, Meta (Facebook), Microsoft, Nvidia, and Tesla.) Index Concentration and Market Breadth The S&P 500 Equal Weight Index underperformed the standard, cap-weighted S&P 500 by about 12% in 2024, reflecting the gap between the top performing giants and the rest of the market. Only sectors like utilities, industrials, real estate, and energy outperformed their cap-weighted peers, while tech and consumer-focused sectors were ...
Post a Comment
Read more