Fintech

Payment for order flow made Robinhood huge. Now everyone's arguing about it.

Market makers have been paying brokers rebates since the '90s. But the meme-stock controversy has made them freshly controversial.

Payment for order flow made Robinhood huge. Now everyone's arguing about it.
Image: CSA Images/Getty Images

Payment for order flow is the business model underlying the rapid growth of retail investing in recent years — as well as the meme-stock trading frenzy.

When Robinhood first proposed offering free stock trades eight years ago, getting paid for directing its volume of trades to market makers was just one of several notions co-founders Vlad Tenev and Baiju Bhatt threw out as ways their startup could make money.

As the app took off and rival startups mimicked it, payment for order flow — a rebate market makers pay brokers for executing a buy or sell order — looked more and more attractive. Traditional retail brokers like Schwab and TD Ameritrade moved to match the upstarts' zero-commission trading, and many also took up the payments to compensate for the lost commissions.

With Robinhood poised to go public, customers, competitors and regulators will get a better look at the business model through the startup's financials. Those revelations will likely accelerate the debate, not end it.

Companies that accept payment for order flow say it provides better prices for investors and has opened up new markets. But some consumer advocates and competitors criticize payment for order flow, arguing that it presents an inherent conflict of interest. (It's hardly encouraging when traders learn that the late Ponzi schemer Bernie Madoff was the pioneer of payment for order flow in the 1990s.)

In March, Robinhood rival Public.com loudly dropped payment for order flow, saying it wasn't in its customers' best interests. It now solicits tips from customers instead.

At a Congressional hearing in February on the runaway trading in GameStop, several members of Congress focused on payment for order flow, blaming it for some of the current market problems.

But it seems unlikely that any legislative or regulatory action on payment for order flow will come out of Washington in the current political season, said Bradley Tusk, founder of Tusk Ventures. "We could see more happen around disclosure," he said.

For now, brokerages will continue to determine whether payment for order flow or other business models such as subscriptions or trading fees win out. Some, like Public, may make their stance a key part of their pitch to new customers.

The argument for selling orders

Supporters of payment for order flow say all parties can win.

Here's how it works: A broker sends a commission-free retail trade to a wholesaler or market maker. It does this instead of sending trades to the traditional stock exchanges because market makers say they can provide better prices.

The market maker then matches buyers and sellers — or more often, buys or sells the shares itself in order to later buy or sell them to match orders.

Market makers say they can outperform the official National Best Bid and Offer. The SEC requires brokers to get NBBO prices on trades of 100 shares or more, but the NBBO only reflects prices for certain trades on major exchanges, which leaves room for improvement.

Å portion of the better price is passed back to the customer in the form of what's called price improvement, after the market maker takes its profit on the spread between the buy and sell prices. And some of that profit goes to the broker as a rebate for steering the order its way. That's the payment for order flow.

A conflict of interest?

Where things get complicated is exactly how the benefits of price improvement get divvied up: There's no real regulation of that split. A broker might well seek out a market maker that promises higher payment for an order and delivers less price improvement. As long as the market maker and broker are offering the retail investor NBBO pricing, it's within the bounds of current regulations.

As a result, payment for order flow is a conflict between the broker's best execution duty to customers and its obligation to shareholders for maximizing its own profits, said Better Markets, an advocacy group.

Brokers can negotiate a larger share of the cut of price improvement that market makers send back to customers, said Public COO Stephen Sikes, or they can select certain market makers that offer brokers better terms.

More generally, the business model incentivizes more active trading, which isn't necessarily good for investors, Sikes said.

Robinhood said market makers give better prices than exchanges, and that it earns a "fixed percentage of the bid-ask spread" — the same rate — across all its market makers, so it has no incentive to route orders to a specific market maker and thus, it argues, no conflict.

But it hasn't said exactly what it pays. And that seems to be a crucial question in figuring out the actual financial gain retail investors capture from payment for order flow — once you leave aside the obvious benefit of not paying trading commissions.

Some answers emerged in December when Robinhood reached a settlement with the SEC over charges it had misled investors about its payment for order flow. The SEC found that Robinhood had negotiated a payment rate that was "substantially higher" than what trading firms typically paid broker-dealers: Only a fifth of the payment would go to the customer in the form of price improvement, with four-fifths going to Robinhood. The SEC said another market maker sent 80% of the payment to the customer through improved pricing and 20% to the broker-dealer routing the order.

Robinhood paid a $65 million civil penalty to the SEC for not telling its customers over a number of years that it was using payment for order flow and for not giving best execution on orders. But the provisions of the settlement didn't address the cut Robinhood took.

Robinhood earned an average of $0.0023 per equity share traded in the fourth quarter of 2020. It's not clear how much that might have changed if it took a smaller cut. Robinhood declined to discuss its current rate.

"The settlement relates to historical practices that do not reflect Robinhood today. We recognize the responsibility that comes with having helped millions of investors make their first investments, and we're committed to continuing to evolve Robinhood as we grow to meet our customers' needs," said Dan Gallagher, chief legal officer at Robinhood, in a statement.

Room for improvement

One of the biggest benefits of payment for order flow for retail investors is price improvement, many brokers say. Without it, liquidity for trades would decrease and spreads would increase, which could mean worse pricing for retail investors, said Bob Cortright, CEO at DriveWealth, which provides trading software for fintech.

Investors saved $3.7 billion from price improvement last year, according to Bloomberg Intelligence.

But in the U.K., which effectively banned payment for order flow in 2012, the proportion of retail trades executed at "best quoted prices" have increased from 65% to 90% from 2010 to 2014, according to a study by Sviatoslav Rosov and the CFA Institute.

The question is whether retail investors save more from the elimination of trading fees than they might lose in price improvement. Cortright believes they're getting the best of both worlds now — no commissions and better prices via market makers.

Robinhood said 94.5% of orders are filled at NBBO prices or better, while Schwab said 98.8% of S&P 500 stock orders between 100 and 499 shares are filled at better than NBBO prices.

The NBBO rule only applies for trades of 100 shares or more — so-called "odd lots" of less than 100 shares are not reported on most public data feeds and not included in NBBO. That means many retail trades — many of which are odd lots — may not get the best price through payment for order flow, Sikes added.

Price improvement at Robinhood was not as good as at other brokers, Better Markets pointed out, citing the SEC order. The SEC wrote in December: "Robinhood's execution quality and price improvement metrics were substantially worse than other retail broker-dealers' in many respects, and senior Robinhood personnel were aware of this analysis."

Robinhood said it had "significantly improved our best execution processes."

Transparency in question

Some have speculated that market makers somehow use the orders they pay for to front-run retail investors. Experts doubt that's actually happening. For one, it's illegal. It would also be hard to carry off such a scheme, since market makers generally give better prices than the public market prices. And it's not clear it would work: Retail investors generally are less well-informed than institutional investors, so trading on the knowledge of their moves would bring little benefit.

The lack of disclosure of payment for order flow arrangements still casts a pall over the business. Market makers do have other businesses where they could in theory benefit from this order flow, Sikes said: It's unclear how or if retail customers are hurt by this, but no one knows how the data is being used.

It's clear that payment for order flow has turbocharged Robinhood's growth, and left others racing to imitate it. Tenev said in February that more than half of Robinhood's revenue comes from payment for order flow. Robinhood made more than $600 million from it last year, and $200 million in the fourth quarter of 2020 alone.

But is payment for order flow the only viable alternative business model to commission-free trading? Without payment for order flow, brokers would still send trades to market makers, but without a split of the spread, they'd have to charge retail investors somehow, some argue. Public has adopted a system of voluntary tipping, but Sikes said that's not his company's only possible business model: It could charge for data, content or other features.

Traditional brokers such as Schwab also benefit from payment for order flow, but make more money with other products such as banking, ETFs and advisory services. Schwab made 25.8% of its revenue from trading — of which payment for order flow is only a portion — in its most recent quarter.

Fidelity is the one major U.S. retail brokerage that doesn't use payment for order flow for equities, though it still takes payment for options orders. Fidelity and Schwab have publicly sparred over the issue.

Even with payment for order flow, Robinhood, like Schwab and others, will likely also eventually offer other financial products or seek other means to generate revenue.

Still, even if strict, U.K.-style regulation isn't forthcoming, you're likely to keep hearing about payment for order flow. Brokers are in fierce competition for new customers. With some brokers, like Public and Fidelity, making it a part of their marketing pitch, the conversation in the marketplace may be shifting from eliminating trading commissions to a focus on execution quality. If that message resonates with customers, they'll vote with their portfolios.

Enterprise

Why software releases should be quick but 'palatable and realistic'

Modern software developers release updates much more quickly than in the past, which is great for security and adding new capabilities. But Edith Harbaugh thinks business leaders need a little control of that schedule.

LaunchDarkly was founded in 2014 to help companies manage the software release cycle.

Photo: LaunchDarkly

Gone are the days of quarterly or monthly software update release cycles; today’s software development organizations release updates and fixes on a much more frequent basis. Edith Harbaugh just wants to give business leaders a modicum of control over the process.

The CEO of LaunchDarkly, which was founded in 2014 to help companies manage the software release cycle, is trying to reach customers who want to move fast but understand that moving fast and breaking things won’t work for them. Companies that specialize in continuous integration and continuous delivery services have thrived over the last few years as customers look for help shipping at speed, and LaunchDarkly extends those capabilities to smaller features of existing software.

Keep Reading Show less
Tom Krazit

Tom Krazit ( @tomkrazit) is Protocol's enterprise editor, covering cloud computing and enterprise technology out of the Pacific Northwest. He has written and edited stories about the technology industry for almost two decades for publications such as IDG, CNET, paidContent, and GeekWire, and served as executive editor of Gigaom and Structure.

COVID-19 accelerated what many CEOs and CTOs have struggled to do for the past decade: It forced organizations to be agile and adjust quickly to change. For all the talk about digital transformation over the past decade, when push came to shove, many organizations realized they had made far less progress than they thought.

Now with the genie of rapid change out of the bottle, we will never go back to accepting slow and steady progress from our organizations. To survive and thrive in times of disruption, you need to build a resilient, adaptable business with systems and processes that will keep you nimble for years to come. An essential part of business agility is responding to change by quickly developing new applications and adapting old ones. IT faces an unprecedented demand for new applications. According to IDC, by 2023, more than 500 million digital applications and services will be developed and deployed — the same number of apps that were developed in the last 40 years.[1]

Keep Reading Show less
Denise Broady, CMO, Appian
Denise oversees the Marketing and Communications organization where she is responsible for accelerating the marketing strategy and brand recognition across the globe. Denise has over 24+ years of experience as a change agent scaling businesses from startups, turnarounds and complex software companies. Prior to Appian, Denise worked at SAP, WorkForce Software, TopTier and Clarkston Group. She is also a two-time published author of “GRC for Dummies” and “Driven to Perform.” Denise holds a double degree in marketing and production and operations from Virginia Tech.
Workplace

Building an antiracist company: From idea to practice

Twilio’s chief diversity officer says it’s time for a new approach to DEI.

“The most impactful way to prioritize DEI and enable antiracism is to structure your company accordingly,” says Lybra Clemons, chief diversity officer at Twilio.

Photo: Twilio

Lybra Clemons is responsible for guiding and scaling inclusion strategy and diversity initiatives at Twilio.

I’ve been in the corporate diversity, equity and inclusion space for over 15 years. In that time, I’ve seen the field evolve slowly from a “nice-to-have” function of Human Resources to a rising company-wide priority. June 2020 was different. Suddenly my and my peers’ phones started ringing off the hook and DEI leaders became the most sought-after professionals. With so many DEI roles being created and corporate willingness to invest, for a split second it looked like there might be real change on the horizon.

Keep Reading Show less
Lybra Clemons
Lybra S. Clemons is a seasoned C-suite executive with over 15 years of Human Resources, Talent and Diversity & Inclusion experience at Fortune 500 companies. She is responsible for guiding and scaling inclusion strategy and diversity initiatives across Twilio's global workforce. Prior to Twilio, Lybra was global head of Diversity & Inclusion at PayPal, where she managed and oversaw all global diversity initiatives. Lybra has held critical roles in Diversity & Inclusion with Morgan Stanley, The Brunswick Group and American Express. She serves on the board of directors of Makers and How Women Lead Silicon Valley Executive Board of Advisers, and has been recognized by Black Enterprise as one of the Top Corporate Women in Diversity.
Boost 2

Can Matt Mullenweg save the internet?

He's turning Automattic into a different kind of tech giant. But can he take on the trillion-dollar walled gardens and give the internet back to the people?

Matt Mullenweg, CEO of Automattic and founder of WordPress, poses for Protocol at his home in Houston, Texas.
Photo: Arturo Olmos for Protocol

In the early days of the pandemic, Matt Mullenweg didn't move to a compound in Hawaii, bug out to a bunker in New Zealand or head to Miami and start shilling for crypto. No, in the early days of the pandemic, Mullenweg bought an RV. He drove it all over the country, bouncing between Houston and San Francisco and Jackson Hole with plenty of stops in national parks. In between, he started doing some tinkering.

The tinkering is a part-time gig: Most of Mullenweg’s time is spent as CEO of Automattic, one of the web’s largest platforms. It’s best known as the company that runs WordPress.com, the hosted version of the blogging platform that powers about 43% of the websites on the internet. Since WordPress is open-source software, no company technically owns it, but Automattic provides tools and services and oversees most of the WordPress-powered internet. It’s also the owner of the booming ecommerce platform WooCommerce, Day One, the analytics tool Parse.ly and the podcast app Pocket Casts. Oh, and Tumblr. And Simplenote. And many others. That makes Mullenweg one of the most powerful CEOs in tech, and one of the most important voices in the debate over the future of the internet.

Keep Reading Show less
David Pierce

David Pierce ( @pierce) is Protocol's editorial director. Prior to joining Protocol, he was a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, a senior writer with Wired, and deputy editor at The Verge. He owns all the phones.

China

Why China is outselling the US in EVs 5 to 1

Electric cars made up 14.8% of Chinese car sales in 2021, compared with 4.1% in the U.S.

Passenger EV sales in China in 2021 jumped 169.1% to nearly 3.3 million from a year ago.

Photo: VCG/VCG via Getty Images

When Tesla entered China in 2014, the country’s EV market was going through a reset. The Austin, Texas-based automaker created a catfish effect — a strong competitor that compels weaker peers to up their game — in China’s EV market for the past few years. Now, Tesla’s sardine-sized Chinese competitors have grown into big fishes in the tank, gradually weakening Tesla’s own prominence in the field.

2021 was a banner year for China’s EV industry. The latest data from the China Passenger Car Association shows that total passenger EV sales in China in 2021 jumped 169.1% from a year ago to nearly 2.99 million: about half of all EVs sold globally. Out of every 100 passenger cars sold in China last year, almost 15 were so-called "new energy vehicles" (NEVs) — a mix of battery-electric vehicles and hybrids.

Keep Reading Show less
Shen Lu

Shen Lu covers China's tech industry.

SKOREA-ENTERTAINMENT-GAMING-MICROSOFT-XBOX
A visitor plays a game using Microsoft's Xbox controller at a flagship store of SK Telecom in Seoul on November 10, 2020. (Photo by Jung Yeon-je / AFP) (Photo by JUNG YEON-JE/AFP via Getty Images)

On this episode of the Source Code podcast: Nick Statt joins the show to discuss Microsoft’s $68.7 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard, and what it means for the tech and game industries. Then, Issie Lapowsky talks about a big week in antitrust reform, and whether real progress is being made in the U.S. Finally, Hirsh Chitkara explains why AT&T, Verizon, the FAA and airlines have been fighting for months about 5G coverage.

For more on the topics in this episode:

Keep Reading Show less
David Pierce

David Pierce ( @pierce) is Protocol's editorial director. Prior to joining Protocol, he was a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, a senior writer with Wired, and deputy editor at The Verge. He owns all the phones.

Latest Stories
Bulletins