Fintech

Data shows how Robinhood makes more money from its users than other brokers

A deep dive into the popular online broker's filings shows its money-making formula: a lot more trading and higher payments from market makers.

The Robinhood app on a phone

Robinhood is better than bigger brokers at extracting money from users' stock trades.

Photoillustration: Omar Marques/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

When Robinhood filed its S-1 to go public, it also revealed just how much better it is than its long-established competitors at making money from retail trading.

The company famously doesn't charge commissions. But it's also a powerful illustration of the maxim that if you're not paying for something, you're not the customer, you're the product. Robinhood is far better at selling that product than Schwab, E-Trade or Ameritrade, according to a new report by Alphacution Research Conservatory.

Robinhood's retail trading business, which relies on payment for order flow, is much more lucrative per dollar held in its users' accounts than its competitors. Payment for order flow, the system in which market makers pay brokers for sending them retail orders to execute, dates back to the 1990s, and Robinhood isn't the only one using it. It's just better at it, the data shows.

Brokers and market makers say these payments provide better prices for retail investors as well as fee-free trading, while critics say that brokers and market makers are grabbing the lion's share of benefit from these trades when they could be getting better pricing elsewhere. The sums in question are typically fractions of a penny a share, making it hard to see the harm — except when, as Robinhood has in filing to go public, the overall numbers become visible.

The online brokerage game has long been defined by gathering more and more assets under management. The accumulation of wealth provides more opportunities for charging fees and cross-selling products. Trading became an afterthought.

Robinhood changed that. Its assets under custody as of the end of March 2020 were $19.2 billion across 8.6 million users, according to its S-1. That's an average account value of $2,235, compared to an average account value of $97,214 for TD Ameritrade, $86,131 for E-Trade and $274,568 for Schwab. As an asset manager, Robinhood looks like a pipsqueak. (Alphacution looked at Q1 2020 because consolidation in the sector made later comparisons difficult: In October, Charles Schwab closed its acquisition of TD Ameritrade and Morgan Stanley completed its acquisition of E-Trade.)

The data shows how Robinhood makes much more from its users' trades than competitors do. Alphacution compared the firms' total order routing revenue, which includes payment for order flow, to its average account value. That calculation is a proxy for a broker's efficiency in extracting value from the accounts it holds.

For Robinhood, the ratio of its order routing revenue to average account value was 40,683, compared to 2,079 for TD Ameritrade, 891 for E-Trade, and 195 for Schwab, Alphacution found.


Robinhood's order routing bonanza has only increased since then. Robinhood generated $331 million in order routing revenue for equities and options in Q1 2021, up 263% from $91 million a year ago. And assets under custody for the quarter ending March 31 spiked to $80.9 billion across 17.7 million accounts, for an average account value of $4,572. Robinhood's order revenue to average account size ratio was 72,432, almost doubling in a year.

Inside the machine

So how can Robinhood make orders of magnitude more from each customer's dollar than its competitors?

The biggest reason, according to Alphacution: Robinhood's customers trade much more than those using other brokers. That's largely because of "the mobile-first, social media-infused design," said Paul Rowady, founder of Alphacution. Robinhood traders trade at one or sometimes even two orders of magnitude the velocity of other brokers, he added.

Robinhood's users often look to trade in and out of hot names — the GameStop phenomenon is the clearest example of that — and Robinhood's product supports that, Rowady said.

Robinhood declined to comment. In defending payment for order flow, it has said it "earned an average of $0.0023 per equity share traded in the fourth quarter of 2020. That's two-tenths of a penny for every share you buy or sell."

That disclosure may be accurate in the specifics, but it is misleadingly incomplete. Note the carefully parsed wording: "share," "buy" and "sell." It doesn't include what Robinhood makes off of options, which are much more profitable, and it doesn't break out which kinds of equity trades give the company the most profit. And Alphacution's data suggests Robinhood actually made about 0.5% of its customers assets in order routing revenue — nearly 2% annualized. That's nearly 30 times what TD and E-Trade made and more than 300 times what Schwab made.

Whether trading more actually generates better outcomes for investors is hotly debated. But it's clear that Robinhood's customers trade more and that Robinhood benefits from that.

And whether Robinhood is, as it claims, getting better prices for its traders than they could have without payment for order flow is another point of debate, since those figures aren't captured in the order routing revenue or asset numbers. Some experts argue that putting trades on exchanges would give better prices than Robinhood's price improvement. Price improvement, after all, is what's left after a market maker takes its profit on a trade and pays the broker its cut for order flow. In December, Robinhood paid $65 million to settle SEC charges that it had misled investors about such payments and trade prices, with the agency saying inferior trade pricing had cost investors $34.1 million.

The app effect

Retail investors can be influenced by brokers to make trades in certain investments, or brokers can attract investors likely to make such trades, which is another possible reason Robinhood is paid so well for its order flow, Rowady said.

"This young, green, new, highly impressionable demographic is susceptible to suggestion to trade options or thinly-traded names that are likely highly volatile," Rowady said. Those are often more profitable for market makers.

Options are rarely discussed in payment for order flow, but they represented 64.1% of Robinhood's order flow revenue in Q1 2020, Alphacution found. Options also generated far more revenue per dollar of assets under custody — 144.4 — than equities — 2.5 — in the quarter, according to Rowady's analysis.

"It takes very little money at the 'table of greater fools' to trade options on the Robinhood app," Rowady writes in his report.

In January 2020, Robinhood was No. 3 in options volume behind TD Ameritrade and E-Trade, but by December 2020, Robinhood had leapfrogged E-Trade, doing double the more established online broker's options trades, and was not far behind TD Ameritrade, according to Rowady.

Options are generally less liquid than equities and more volatile. As a result, spreads on options are generally higher than on equities, Rowady said. They're also more risky than trading regular equities because an investor has to time options trades to make money. That increases trading volume, which generates more revenue for Robinhood. The difference between Robinhood and Schwab in trading velocity is greatest for options, Rowady found.

Actual rates of payment for order flow played a smaller role than trading volume in giving Robinhood an edge. But Robinhood got paid more per trade, on average, from payment for order flow than most competitors in 2020, Rowady found in an analysis of SEC filings. For trades in S&P 500 stocks, which are generally more liquid, Robinhood made significantly more than competitors. But Robinhood is also near the top in average order flow pricing for non-S&P stocks — a favorite of meme stock buyers — and in options.

In market orders for S&P stocks in December 2020, Robinhood's payment per share was about 4 times Schwab's rate. In market orders for non-S&P stocks in December, Robinhood's payment was almost triple Schwab's. In options, Robinhood's payment per contract for market order options was almost double Schwab's payment in December 2020.

Why does Robinhood get paid more than other brokers? Robinhood and market makers don't talk about how they set these prices. Robinhood has said it gets a "fixed percentage of the bid-ask spread" and that it does not select market makers based on pricing since "[a]ll market makers we route to pay us at the same rate for equities, ETFs and options." But Rowady believes Robinhood's contracts with market makers pay Robinhood more when volatility is higher, whereas other brokers' agreements may not have such features. Market makers can make more money when volatility is higher.

Gary Gensler, the new SEC chair, has criticized payment for order flow, suggesting it poses an inherent conflict of interest. The Alphacution data highlights just how extreme Robinhood's conflicts might be compared to other brokers.

"All facets of [Robinhood's] business model are designed to maximize order routing revenue," Rowady said. "It's the most aggressive version of the retail brokerage (payment for order flow) model that facilitates this level of trading activity."

Enterprise

No code, lots of rules: Why 'citizen data scientists' need guardrails

For all the talk of giving “citizen data scientists” new AI power, no-code AI tools have lots of limitations. And that’s by design.

The limitations imposed on no-code AI tools are about more than just limiting algorithm and coding options.

Image: Boris SV/Moment/Getty Images

When software providers talk about the technologies they say “democratize” AI, they also talk a lot about “guardrails.” That’s because the rapidly evolving world of AI tools is still more like a republic governed by the machine-learning elite.

Although no-code and low-code AI tools promise to give everyone a chance to build business analytics models or simple applications that use AI to complete tedious tasks, the amateurs whom no-code AI companies refer to as “citizen data scientists” are often required to play with the bumper rails up. That’s because toolmakers and management are worried about the risks inherent in allowing just anyone to create sophisticated AI systems.

Keep Reading Show less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of RedTailMedia.org and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.

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.
Fintech

The bitcoin crash has people talking about another crypto winter

Volatile crypto prices have scared consumers and companies away from the sector before — sometimes for extended periods.

“Crypto winter” is a prolonged period of flat trading following a price crash.

Illustration: Christopher T. Fong/Protocol

The sharp drop in cryptocurrency prices has spurred fears that the notoriously volatile industry is about to go through another prolonged slump.

The market cycle has become such a predictable pattern — a steep decline in coin prices followed by a prolonged period of flat trading — that it even has a catchy name: crypto winter.

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers crypto and fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Signal at (510)731-8429.

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.

Policy

FAQ: Making sense of the fight over 5G

A two-year saga following telecom providers’ 5G technology came to a head the last two weeks. Let’s get caught up.

Airlines say 5G technology could interfere with a sensor used to detect a plane’s distance from the ground or other objects.

Image: Namthip Muanthongthae/Getty Images

The long awaited C-Band 5G rollout has been off to a rocky start.

The deployment of C-Band spectrum, which wireless carriers have praised as the key to wider 5G accessibility and faster network speeds, has been marred by controversy over safety concerns and delays. Telecom companies and aviation experts are still butting heads over whether the latest flavor of 5G and air travel can safely co-exist, a fight which has grounded flights and inevitably pissed off airlines.

Keep Reading Show less
Hirsh Chitkara

Hirsh Chitkara ( @HirshChitkara) is a is a reporter at Protocol focused on the intersection of politics, technology and society. Before joining Protocol, he helped write a daily newsletter at Insider that covered all things Big Tech. He's based in New York and can be reached at hchitkara@protocol.com.

Entertainment

Google is developing a low-end Chromecast with Google TV

The new dongle will run the Google TV interface, but it won’t support 4K streaming.

The Chromecast with Google TV dongle combined 4K streaming with the company’s Google TV interface. Now, Google is looking to launch a cheaper version.

Photo: Google

Google is working on a new streaming device that caters to people with older TV sets: The next Chromecast streaming dongle will run its Google TV interface and ship with a remote control, but it won’t support 4K streaming. The device will instead max out at a resolution of 1080p, Protocol has learned from a source with close knowledge of the company’s plans.

A Google spokesperson declined to comment.

Keep Reading Show less
Janko Roettgers

Janko Roettgers (@jank0) is a senior reporter at Protocol, reporting on the shifting power dynamics between tech, media, and entertainment, including the impact of new technologies. Previously, Janko was Variety's first-ever technology writer in San Francisco, where he covered big tech and emerging technologies. He has reported for Gigaom, Frankfurter Rundschau, Berliner Zeitung, and ORF, among others. He has written three books on consumer cord-cutting and online music and co-edited an anthology on internet subcultures. He lives with his family in Oakland.

Latest Stories
Bulletins