Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Knight/Trimark Group, Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bob Kim who wrote (3727)	9/1/1999 1:25:00 AM
From: Gary Korn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10027

But first Merrill would have to acknowledge that it might be worthwhile to outsource [market making] Bob, I've been curious about this outsourcing concept. Is there a particular reason why other firms that currently do some of their own market making (not just Merrill) would or would not consider outsourcing to an entity such as NITE? Rather like the way Dell or Gateway outsource the box building to Jabil. If the trade generator (Merrill, FBOC, etc.) is going to get some payment for order flow anyway, why should that trade generator go to all the expense of maintaining its own in-house market making function? Yes, it loses out on the spread, but by outsourcing it saves on the very expense of running a market making operation. On the other hand, I used to be at Fidelity. They used to send all orders to NITE, but then they started doing more and more of the big cap, liquid stocks (INTC, DELL) through their own market making operation in NYC. Fidelity mutual funds also use these Fidelity market makers. I just wonder how much extra profit Fido makes by doing this in-house, given the expense (payroll, computer equipment, etc.) involved. Payment for order flow has no such expenses. Just send orders, get paid. What do you think? Gary Korn