I'm going to sleep in a sec, so I will have to respond to your next counterpoint some other time. And I promise I won't post after today as much as I have tonight - I must be going through some type of espresso induced, profit-driven catharsis.
Most importantly, I am responding to ask that you please stop pushing a false assumption about ATG's pricing structure to prove your point about whether anybody will be willing to pay for VTS's VWAP executions. .03 is charged in the aggregate to buyer and seller, NOT to each side. Buyer and seller each pay 1.5 cents per share. If you do not think it intelligent to pay an extra one-half cent to save 8 to 12 basis points (on a $50 stock, that is between $0.04 and 0.06 per share), then perhaps you should consider taking remedial economics. I can assure you that a fund manager cares greatly about such spreads, and an ERISA plan manager may actually be legally obligated to achieve the savings where possible. BTW, the study was not prepared by the PHLX, the so-called "Dead Exchange". It was prepared by two respected Ph.D's who actually interpreted data rather than relying on their gut instincts and apparent self-knowledge of all things.
Look, I really don't care if you read the study or not, but in fairness, you might give it a shot before you trash it. It will teach you a lot more than you know about the subject, believe me. I learned quite a bit from it, I'm sure you can too. And forgive me if I think a more diligent approach is to read everything that I can find about a subject, and actually think about it, before I pass it on to others as "fact" or "thoughtful analysis". If there is something truly negative to be discussed, believe me, I want to know about it as much or more than anybody here. But spare me the pronouncements on why something you obviously know very little about is so terrible and doomed to failure (which appears to be the gist of all of your posts that I have seen here). To each his own, I guess.
MST |
