Content
Also, it will be interesting to see how the rules are applied in a cross-border context as many brokers make use of the European passport and potentially may not differentiate between clients domiciled in different Member States. We are closely following developments in relation to PFOF and the revised MiFIR and MiFID requirements, please get in touch with the contacts mentioned on the right if you would like to discuss further. The Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) will, for now, not take action against payments by third parties to investment firms (Wertpapierfirmen) for forwarding client orders (known as payment for order https://www.xcritical.com/ flow, or PFOF).
It’s banned in the EU from 2026
Your firm’s technology must be capable of proactively flagging potential conflicts and suspicious activity to compliance teams. It must also quickly and effectively produce reporting and documentation that confirms or disproves any assumptions of pfof meaning wrongdoing, particularly upon request by regulators. However, the EU has yet to implement a full ban on inducements, the practice where advisers receive a commission from a third party for investing in their product. A blog post from Public.com about how rejecting PFOF allows them to deliver better price execution for their customers. “Hogan Lovells” or the “firm” refers to the international legal practice that comprises Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells US LLP and their affiliated businesses, each of which is a separate legal entity.
Should you choose an investment app that sells your trade orders?
Since brokers receive payments from market makers, they might not charge you a commission for trades. This is visible in the table below, which shows the transaction fee for buying €1,000 of the IWDA ETF. Trade Republic and DEGIRO, two brokers that adopted the PFOF model, are among the cheapest. When you enter a trade, your broker passes the order to one of many market makers for execution. The market makers compete for this order flow because they can earn a profit through the spread between the securities bid and offer price.
FINRA Rule 5310: Compliance Factors
- The agency had charged Robinhood with making inadequate disclosures to clients and with receiving a much higher portion of the market maker’s spread in its PFOF deals from 2015 to 2018 than did other brokerage firms.
- Brokerage customers can ask for payment data for specific transactions from their brokers, though it could take weeks to get a response.
- SOR is an algorithm that automatically compares execution prices for any given buy or sell order.
- A blog post from Public.com about how rejecting PFOF allows them to deliver better price execution for their customers.
Investors who trade infrequently or in small quantities may not feel the impact from this practice. However, frequent traders and those trading large volumes should aim to understand their broker’s order routing system to make sure that they’re not losing out on price improvement due to their broker prioritising Payment For Order Flow. Moreover, as this process has become so widespread that it is reducing liquidity and likely influencing prices at exchanges – with orders executed elsewhere – it has proved controversial and is receiving attention from regulators around the world. The most common criticism of Payment For Order Flow is the fact that a broker is receiving fees from a third party without a client’s knowledge. Such payments incentivise the broker to route its orders to a particular venue, which naturally could be considered a conflict of interest.
The Good, The Bad & The Ugly of Payment for Order Flow
As a retail investor, you can benefit from price improvements on your buy and sell orders. This simply means that if a market maker can fill your order inside the best bid and offer (NBBO), they will do so and pass the savings on to you. The lowering of fees has been a boon to the industry, vastly expanding access to retail traders who now pay less than they would have previously. However, these benefits would disappear any time the PFOF costs customers more through inferior execution than they saved in commissions.
While commission-free brokerages like Robinhood receive a majority of their revenue through PFOF, there are significant differences in the PFOF between trades executed for stocks and options. While you benefit from commission-free trading, you might wonder whether it was the best execution, as XYZ Brokerage has a financial incentive to route orders to Alpha Market Makers. Critics of PFOF argue that this is a conflict of interest because the broker’s profit motive might override the duty to provide the best-executed trades for clients. The purpose of allowing PFOF transactions is liquidity, ensuring there are plenty of assets on the market to trade, not to profit by giving clients inferior prices.
In addition, as the charges against Robinhood illustrate, firms are also under an implied obligation to demonstrate transparency in their marketing and customer-facing materials. Thus, best execution should be among the factors included in all compliance reviews of marketing and advertising as well. Market makers make money from PFOF by attempting to pocket the difference between the bid-ask spread. This means that while investors might see some price improvement on the ask price, they may not get the best possible price. So is PFOF a healthy facilitator of the market’s march toward lower transaction costs?
The conflict of interest created when brokers are solely reliant on earning fees for selling order flow has created a headache for regulators, especially with the volume and transparency of data to handle. ESMA has provided a warning that in their view, there is uncertainty as to whether receiving commissions for providing order flow would be ‘compatible with MiFID II’. “Payment for order flow,” or PFOF, refers to compensation a broker receives from a wholesale market maker in return for routing trades to that market maker. This approach to compensation is at the heart of many digital broker-dealers’ business models.
It creates a conflict of interest for brokers and might result in worse execution prices for investors. After all, the broker will route the trades to the market maker that pays them the highest fee, rather than the one that will offer you the best price (which the lowest price when buying a stock and the highest when selling). Stopping there, though, would be misleading as far as how PFOF affects retail investors. Trading in the options market affects supply and demand for stocks, and options have become far more popular with retail investors. Retail trading in equity options has risen dramatically in the last five years, from just about a third of equity options trading in 2019 to around half of all options of all equity options trades.
Or does it create a conflict of interest among brokers who have a duty to provide best execution for client orders? Given this background, it’s no surprise that the SEC says that PFOF could “raise concerns about whether a firm is meeting its obligation of best execution to its customer.” These concerns could chip away at investor confidence in the financial markets. Robinhood, the zero-commission online broker, earned between 65% and 80% of its quarterly revenue from PFOF over the last several years. Below, we explain this practice and the effects it can have on novice and experienced investors alike.
Routing orders to market makers instead of an exchange may also increase liquidity for customers. Since market makers are always standing by, willing to buy or sell, that means customers don’t need to worry about finding a buyer or seller for the order they want to place. Let’s step outside the retail trading world for a moment and just think about how businesses generally market and sell their merchandise. Many businesses pay referral fees to individuals or other businesses for sending customers their way. The genesis of Rule 606(a) can be traced back to increased complexity in how orders were routed and executed, raising concerns about transparency and fairness, after the increased usage of electronic trading platforms. In response, the SEC introduced Rule 606 (formerly Rule 11Ac1-6[21]) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, aiming to address these concerns.
This suggests that Robinhood’s agreements with wholesalers sacrifice PI in exchange for increased PFOF—exactly the conflict of interest that Chairman Gensler has expressed concerns about. Consistent with this argument, I find that most direct orders execute at better prices than the NBBO, receiving 4 basis points of PI on average. To put this in context, prior literature has estimated PI at 5 to 9 basis points. This suggests that using the NBBO as a benchmark overstates PI by as much as 400%, i.e., removing the 4 basis point bias leads to actual PI of 1 to 5 basis points. The UK, EU, and Canada have already banned PFOF, with Australia enacting temporary prohibitions while authorities consider a total ban.
Index options have special features and fees that should be carefully considered, including settlement, exercise, expiration, tax, and cost characteristics. Rebate rates vary monthly from $0.06-$0.18 and depend on your current and prior month’s options trading volume. The pushback on payment for order flow is proof that we dont have to take stock market norms at face value. As a community, investors on the Public app are able to tip on their own accord, or save the funds while they execute trades directly with the exchange.
Traders discovered that some of their “free” trades were costing them more because they weren’t getting the best prices for their orders. One reason for the lack of evidence is the need to demonstrate that orders executed on-exchange would have executed at better prices had they been routed via PFOF. I address this challenge by conducting a randomized controlled trial that trades random stocks at random times across random brokers. The brokers include one providing direct market access and the two largest PFOF-based brokers by revenue (TD Ameritrade and Robinhood). On 22 March 2024, BaFin published an announcement stating that it will not pursue any violations of the PFOF ban for orders from domestic clients until the legislative process has been completed. The term “payment” comprises fees, commissions, or non-monetary benefits and corresponds to the inducement definition pursuant to Article 24 (9) MiFID II.
