What will happen to high frequency trading when Biden/Harris wins?
Kamala Harris plans to tax financial transactions at 0.2 percent. France did something similar a few years back and their HFT industry is dead. What will happen to firms like Jane Street, Citadel, IMC or Hudson River Trading when Biden/Harris wins and this republic devolves into an anarcho-communist cesspool of cancel culture and leftist fascism?
following
Doubt this will actually happen. After all, Biden is the presidential candidate not Harris.
But it's funny that Democrats want to tax the shit out of everything to raise tax revenue for actually important things like education and healthcare when we're literally wasting two digit percentage of income tax revenue on useless things like Social Secuirty and a gigantic government bureaucracy.
I want my tax dollars to fund education and healthcare, not retirement money for bunch of old people whonalrwsdy have money and lazy assholes working at the DMV.
Somebody bring back Bill Clinton.
Just read the part about Pimp Clinton in Greenspan's Capitalism in America, good stuff.
Facts. Social security is ridiculous in terms of percentage of overall budget.
We need to focus on Education, Defense, Infrastructure, Healthcare, and a money printer
cut everything else starting with Social Security
Biden doesn’t have enough brain cells left to understand high frequency trading and Kamala cant get woke points for it. In all seriousness, watch who Biden puts in his cabinet. If it’s Bernie sanders and Elizabeth Warren, it might be under fire. If it’s fucking Amy Klobuchar, I wouldn’t be worried.
I doubt it'd be Sanders or Warren. People really need to read his policies.
90% of them are well though out and actually in line with mainstream economics. Very far away from Sanders type voodoo economics nonsense.
-
This anonymously posted OP is predictably and quickly devolving into Reddit level dialogue (starting with the OP).
I'm guessing that OP was being facetious about the whole "anarcho communist " stuff.
That's hard to say, of course. I read it as half serious, half facetious, but maybe I'm wrong.
.
If a tax like that actually did get passed, it would be a death sentence for a lot of fast-trading firms. The UK's FTT exempts a lot of traders for being liquidity providers, so a lot of MMs could stay afloat albeit at much smaller levels of success. That said, I'm not personally too worried that the tax is likely if they win. Both parties like to talk a big game before they actually get elected.
As an aside, I'll never understand why Democrats so often push for these kinds of tax increases. Bernie especially talked about how muh Wall Street/HFT is evil and we need a tax to get rid of it but also plans to fund programs based on its existance? Choose one bud-if you take away a business' entire profit margin with your tax, you won't be getting any revenue because they'll shut down.
You're right. But most voters don't have the intellectual capability to understand that.
This may be true in the specific instance of High Frequency Trading, but this is also the same argument Wall Street has made when threatened with any kind of reform, oversight, or taxation for the last century and then some. As a group, Wall Street has often been far more of a Cassandra than the facts warrant, which is why no one is going to take the industry seriously when they insist that a modern day stamp tax is going to sound the death knell for the industry and kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
You may be correct that most voters don't have the intellectual capacity to understand nuance in policy discussions, but I would argue that the electorate has a very long collective memory when it comes to feeling hoodwinked by financiers in particular (whether or not they're correct in that feeling depends on the situation, of course). Especially for the last few decades, it's hard to fault the public for feeling as though Wall Street promotes privatized gain and socialized losses, because that has been the case. Even if the connection is tenuous, as it is here, it's not hard to understand why incurring general resentment by being completely incapable of policing itself or asking for intelligent oversight and regulation has made it difficult for financial professionals to claim the moral or intellectual high ground, even when they actually occupy it.
Did she say all transactions or just high-frequency? And because I am interested in learning more, do you mind linking to the source where she said this?
ALL trades. "To pay for this specific change, I would tax Wall Street stock trades at 0.2%, bond trades at 0.1%, and derivative transactions at 0.002%." https://medium.com/@KamalaHarris/my-plan-for-medicare-for-all-7730370dd… And of course, the assumption is that derivatives are taxed using their notional value.
Heard that competition has basically rationalized the HFT space anyway (good coders basically a commodity today) so excess profits have mostly been sucked away
More curious what this does to the guys who trade in a couple seconds to 2 weeks time horizon (Ren Tech / Jane Street / etc)
The chance this happens is like literally zero
Pariatur aut sit aliquam commodi. Aut libero inventore vel quia ipsa culpa molestias eos. Quisquam minus architecto expedita non molestias ut. Nobis optio praesentium nisi laborum repudiandae magnam. Voluptas laudantium velit tempora.
Tempora nisi accusantium rerum pariatur quasi. Laudantium aliquam modi quisquam occaecati. Quo voluptatum voluptatem aperiam ad.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Eum dolor repudiandae enim blanditiis sit incidunt. Perferendis quia assumenda est. Qui a quaerat sunt ea perspiciatis autem ullam. Dolorem quia voluptatem quia dolorem animi. Perferendis nam quo debitis sit doloremque distinctio. Eum laudantium cum est rerum et ut aut.
Quod laudantium natus sapiente. Quo dolores provident illo sint architecto.
Ad voluptas perspiciatis dolorem repellendus impedit ex. Debitis eos ut ut asperiores dolore. Natus ea quasi et expedita. Tenetur totam officiis consequatur qui et et quidem. Rem dolor ex consectetur at aut sed numquam dolorem. Et et distinctio illum et sed.