Order flow in dark pools does impact the price of a security. The market maker will eventually need to trade out of that position. If there is aggregate buying pressure in the dark pool, they will adjust their quotes in both dark and lit markets.
>This is why Citadel has $60+ billion dollars of "securities sold not yet purchased" on their financial statements.
1. source?
2. supposing this is true, what's their daily turnover? "60+ billion" sounds like a lot, but if that's their daily turnover that shouldn't be anything out of the ordinary.
1. Just look at their financial statements they , nobody is allowed this naked shorting but Cidatel is because they are a market manipu ahhh sorry maker.
Not that others won't naked short also, it is just they do not do it openly.
>nobody is allowed this naked shorting but Cidatel is because they are a market manipu ahhh sorry maker.
That's... working as intended?
> market makers provide a required amount of liquidity to the security's market, and take the other side of trades when there are short-term buy-and-sell-side imbalances in customer orders. In return, the specialist is granted various informational and trade execution advantages.
You can argue such a system is inegalitarian or whatever, but if you want a reliable provider of liquidity that won't instantly vanish when there's market turmoil (ie. when you need it the most), there has to be some mechanism to compensate market makers.
>its a scam and is a reason how Citadel makes $30,000,000,000 profit per year
Where are you getting "$30,000,000,000" (billion) in profit? Wikipedia says they only made $6.3 billion in revenue in 2023. Moreover, they were in existence for 22 years. Even if they only started "counterfeiting shares" in 2021, $30B in profit per year (so $90B in the past 3 years) seems absurd for only $60B worth of "counterfeiting shares" on their balance sheets.
> They have sold $60+ BILLION of shares to investors and not yet bought the underlying securities.
> So when exactly will that $60 billion of buy pressure hit the market?
Citadel needs to deliver the stock they sold on T+1 as of May 28, 2024. There's some allowance for failure to deliver, but the data is out there, if Citadel is routinely failing to deliver, you should be complaining about that, not about their financial statements.
Meanwhile, if Citadel wants to pay me fractional pennies more per share than a public exchange, and also my brokerage fractional pennies for the privilege, who am I to say no? Especially when the public exchange may charge me a fee to trade.
they can keep failure to deliver forever until the market moves in their desired position to actually send orders to lit market.
they use derivatives and heavily recycle buy/sell shares to keep kicking the FTD can down the road for as long as the market returns to their desired position.
the T+1 timer can be easily reset every day, until the market price reverts back to the Citadel's modeled price at which it is profitable/least losses for them to send order to lit market
Let's say I buy a share of F on Monday, my brokerage routes it to Citadel, because PFOF.
On Tuesday, I expect to get a share of F delivered at close of business, because T + 1.
If Citadel doesn't deliver on Tuesday, what happens?
Are you suggesting they would continue to not deliver the share I purchased for several days, by saying oh yeah, we'll get toast0 his shares tomorrow? That would be pretty upsetting, and I imagine I'd call my brokerage and ask them why they're dealing with Citadel if they never deliver shares on time.
you will receive share in your name in a database, but physically it will be stored "in the street name" in the depositary house, of which there is only one.
plus even if there is only a single share authorized for stock exchange, there will be more than one in the float, due to synthetic shares: created when shares are borrowed and then reshorted, created to support derivative market (selling calls and buying puts). ALso borrow/rehypothecation mechanics is recursive, since shares are fungible, I can recursively re-borrow and re-short the same share, creating synthetic shares out of thin air, supported by nothing other than some bytes in the database somewhere, and not physical shares
The prime broker has a lot of money and will cover their customer blowing up in a net short position. They manage that with margin agreements. That isn't nothing.
If you actually don't understand why that citadel statement said that you should read up on how market makers work. Any given snapshot in time for them would have enormous quantities of securities on both sides because they have to hedge all of their activities to remain neutral to any price movements.
>So when exactly will that $60 billion of buy pressure hit the market?
it probably did shortly after the statement, coupled with a likely similarly sized "sell pressure". They're constantly buying and selling things that's how the business model works
Leaving aside the veracity of that figure, if they've sold $60B of shares they don't own then they must've sold shares they borrowed in some way, and that shows up in the demand/supply. Someone (or someones) in the market would know.
A naked short on their own account would be illegal. A time-bound naked short to fulfill their role as market maker would be acceptable.
But even then, all trades are either eventually settled at some time t, or fail to settle, e.g. if the seller is not good for the shares. Any of these 2 events happening is reported outside of a single broker-dealer, i.e. public info. And to settle a trade, you will need the actual shares, that you've either bought or borrowed.
All this info, settlements, failures, stock buys & loans is visible to other parties in the market.
If your point is that the Citadel is breaking the law, and not reporting what they should, when they should, then that's a problem. But there would be so many other parties discovering it way before their annual financials are published.
Sure, but the problem isn’t that Citadel is expecting that the price will drop. The claim was that Citadel can take a short position without other parties in the market knowing, and finding out only from their annual financials.
That’s not true, because, amongst other reasons, everything you’ve listed (synthetic shares/derivatives/kicking the can down the road) can be seen by others in the market.
(Naked) Short all you want, there’s nothing wrong morally with betting in that direction. But it will be picked up.
Its not the median they are worried about, its the 99th percentile. They _dont_ want to trade with Optiver, 2 Sigma, etc, or some hedge fund thats working a massive trade.
Trading with a highly sophisticated counterparty can be very costly and undo the small profit they have made from thousands of other trades.
Do you manage the portfolio of each customer individually? How closely will this match the target portfolio for smaller investment sizes? I see that there are minimum investment sizes. Do I need to buy at least one share of each member of the SP500 for instance?
How do transaction fees compare with expense ratios of, say, Vanguard? I see that you account for them in your backtest, but it would be helpful to represent that in terms of an expense ratio.
We use fractional shares. But otherwise you are correct, our minimums are set to allow you to buy at least $5 of each member of the US 500.
We do not charge trade commissions. There are some SEC fees charged for trading across most major brokerages. The national best bid offer (NBBO) means you will get executed at the current best price for a given security across all exchanges.
Thanks, regarding transaction fees, I was referring to slippage (should have said transaction cost). This depends a lot on your customers rebalancing settings, but it would be good to be able to compare that directly to VOO.
Yeah it's an interesting point. Due to the redemption mechanism of ETFs, my understanding is that an ETF's bid-ask spread is basically the weighted average of the bid ask spread of it's underlying holdings. Which to answer your questions means that buying the individual stocks within an ETF would result in approximately the same slippage as buying the ETF itself.
I built an OAuth proxy (only Auth0 currently works) hosted on Cloudflare workers. I'm a big fan of the self-hosted OAuth Proxy [1], but some projects don't lend themselves to hosting a container, sometimes you just want to set up a simple app on Heroku, Fly, Workers, etc. and have an auth proxy sit in front of it.
My solution also manages SSL via Cloudflare and integrates with Stripe for simple fixed-price subscription billing models. The idea here is to be able to iterate on product ideas quickly without spending a day each time figuring out authentication and billing.
I did set up a marketing site at the time so that others could use it, but I don't have any users, and I'm happy to maintain it just for my own projects (half a dozen now).
It took me 2-3 weeks to make so on net I have probably not saved much time, but it really helps reduce the friction of launching things which I think is valuable.
I may be biased because I generally avoid closures entirely (I prefer the certainty over ownership and type signatures that traditional functions give), but I do my best to avoid closures when working with async in Rust. A lot of examples for frameworks will make use of async closures, and I typically convert those to functions as quickly as possible, which can be tricky the first time because of the elided types.
I'm not sure about the subreddit, but from my reading of the forum, there is still quite a lot of work / discussion to be done related to implementing said strategy in a tax efficient manner, directly purchasing bonds rather than using the ETFs, usage of TIPS, alternative asset classes like real estate, and portfolio allocation given age, etc.
I've learned that maintaining even the simplest "strategy" can be a lot of work.
I’ll second the charger. I recently bought the Shargeek Storm 2 battery and bought their recommended charger (100w GaN) on a lark. This turned out to be much more useful than the battery itself (although the battery has been great too).
I’m able to charge MacBook, iPhone, Watch, AirPods all from one brick at the same time, which means I only have to carry one brick.
I will say, I don’t believe it will charge at 100w on the main port when other ports are in use, 100w is the max across all ports. Still, I’m considering purchasing their new 140w option now to take full advantage of MagSafe.
Very cool site. The salary filter is a little unintuitive: the minimum filter appears to apply to the _lower_ end of the listed range, and be non-inclusive. For instance there is a job listed at Netgear with a range of $300k-400k, if I set the filter to $300k, it is not shown. I would probably expect it to show until I set the filter to $401k or more.
Edit: I see now that it is filtering on salary (which is visible if you look at the listing details), but the summary is showing total comp.
reply