Stocks
Commission-free trading is paid for by someone — usually by how your order is routed Commission-free trading is paid for by someone — usually by how your order is routed
Zero-commission trading feels like the broker gave something away. It is more accurate to say the revenue moved somewhere less visible.
The main mechanism is payment for order flow. When you place an order, your broker does not have to send it to an exchange. It can route it to a wholesale market maker, who executes it internally. That market maker earns the spread between what buyers pay and what sellers receive, and rebates part of that back to the broker for sending the order.
The scale is not marginal. Robinhood earned close to a billion dollars from PFOF in 2021 — roughly half its revenue that year. Commission-free trading was not a loss leader. It was a different business model, and it worked well enough that Schwab and E-Trade followed.
**Where the conflict sits**
The broker chooses where your order goes. The rebate it receives depends on that choice. Those two facts sitting together are the entire controversy.
Regulation constrains it. In the US, brokers must disclose that they accept PFOF, and orders must be executed at or better than the national best bid or offer. Some of the market maker's advantage is passed back as price improvement, often fractions of a cent per share.
Critics argue that best execution measured against a public quote is a low bar, that the arrangement reduces transparency, and that fractions of a cent understate what is being captured. Defenders point out that retail investors used to pay large fixed commissions per trade — a few hundred dollars in the 1980s, tens of dollars by the 1990s — and that PFOF funded the collapse of those fees. Both of these are true at once, which is why the argument has run for decades without resolution.
**What this means practically**
You are not being robbed on any individual trade. The amounts involved per share are tiny, and for a long-term investor placing occasional orders they are almost certainly smaller than the commissions they replaced.
But it explains behaviour that otherwise looks strange. Brokers promote frequent trading, add features that encourage it, and design interfaces that make it feel effortless. That is not a mystery once you know revenue scales with order volume rather than with your returns. The incentive is for you to trade, not for you to do well.
It also explains why brokers in markets that prohibit PFOF — the UK and EU restrict it, and the practice is not a feature of Korean or Japanese retail broking in the same form — still charge commissions. The revenue has to come from somewhere.
**The general principle**
Whenever a financial service is free, the useful question is not whether there is a catch. It is which activity the provider is being paid for, because that tells you what the product is designed to encourage.
Free trading rewards volume. Free research rewards the relationship with the companies covered. Free advice rewards whatever product carries a commission. None of this makes the service worthless. It just tells you which direction to check for bias.Zero-commission trading feels like the broker gave something away. It is more accurate to say the revenue moved somewhere less visible.
The main mechanism is payment for order flow. When you place an order, your broker does not have to send it to an exchange. It can route it to a wholesale market maker, who executes it internally. That market maker earns the spread between what buyers pay and what sellers receive, and rebates part of that back to the broker for sending the order.
The scale is not marginal. Robinhood earned close to a billion dollars from PFOF in 2021 — roughly half its revenue that year. Commission-free trading was not a loss leader. It was a different business model, and it worked well enough that Schwab and E-Trade followed.
**Where the conflict sits**
The broker chooses where your order goes. The rebate it receives depends on that choice. Those two facts sitting together are the entire controversy.
Regulation constrains it. In the US, brokers must disclose that they accept PFOF, and orders must be executed at or better than the national best bid or offer. Some of the market maker's advantage is passed back as price improvement, often fractions of a cent per share.
Critics argue that best execution measured against a public quote is a low bar, that the arrangement reduces transparency, and that fractions of a cent understate what is being captured. Defenders point out that retail investors used to pay large fixed commissions per trade — a few hundred dollars in the 1980s, tens of dollars by the 1990s — and that PFOF funded the collapse of those fees. Both of these are true at once, which is why the argument has run for decades without resolution.
**What this means practically**
You are not being robbed on any individual trade. The amounts involved per share are tiny, and for a long-term investor placing occasional orders they are almost certainly smaller than the commissions they replaced.
But it explains behaviour that otherwise looks strange. Brokers promote frequent trading, add features that encourage it, and design interfaces that make it feel effortless. That is not a mystery once you know revenue scales with order volume rather than with your returns. The incentive is for you to trade, not for you to do well.
It also explains why brokers in markets that prohibit PFOF — the UK and EU restrict it, and the practice is not a feature of Korean or Japanese retail broking in the same form — still charge commissions. The revenue has to come from somewhere.
**The general principle**
Whenever a financial service is free, the useful question is not whether there is a catch. It is which activity the provider is being paid for, because that tells you what the product is designed to encourage.
Free trading rewards volume. Free research rewards the relationship with the companies covered. Free advice rewards whatever product carries a commission. None of this makes the service worthless. It just tells you which direction to check for bias.
0
Comments 0