Can institutional, quant, or other professional traders “prey on” (make money from) retail investors?
"I can address what it means to ""pick off"" all those trades... As quantycuenta & littleadv have said, it is absolutely true that professionals ""prey"" on less-sophisticated market participants. They aren't in the market for charity's sake.  If you're not familiar with the definition of the word ""arbitrage"", look it up.  One possible strategy that can be employed with HFT machinery in order to arbitrage successfully in the stock market is to 'intercept' orders that are placed on various exchanges. In order to do this, an HFT organization watches all the transactions at once to find opportunities to buy low and sell high.  A good explanation of it is described here in this NY Times article; I'll paraphrase what that article lays out.  Stocks are traded through multiple exchanges The first key point to understand is that stocks listed on one exchange (i.e. the NYSE) can be sold on multiple exchanges. That's where the actual ""I would like to sell 100 shares of Ford stock"" is matched with ""I would like to buy 100 shares of Ford stock."" There are multiple clearinghouses on the various exchanges. Your order gets presented to one exchange at a Time An ideal market maker would like to look at the order books for a given stock, say Ford, and see that in exchange A there's a sell order for 100 shares of F at $15.85, and in exchange B there's a buy order for 100 shares of F at $15.90.  Arbitrage Market maker buys from A, sells in B, and pockets $0.05 * 100... $5. It's not much, but it was relatively risk free. Also, scale this up to the scale of the US' multiple stock exchanges, and there are lots of opportunities to make $5 every second.  Computers are (of course) faster than people To tie it in completely with your question about 'picking off trades', HFT rigs can be set up and programmed to go faster than an average retail investor's order.  Let's say you execute the trade to buy 100 shares @ $15.85 as a retail investor. The HFT rigs see your order starting to make the rounds of the different exchanges that your brokerage works through, and go out in front in a matter of milliseconds, finding the orders that are less than $15.85 and less than or equal to 100 shares. They execute a transaction, buy them up, sell to you, and pocket the difference.  You have been ""picked off"".  It's admittedly not the only way to use HFT equipment to make money, but it's definitely one way to do it." "The primary advantage of HFTs is their speed to act upon opportunities that exist for only fractions of a second. The reason why they are able to do this is because they invest heavily in hardware, custom software, and custom algorithms.  Most of the fleeting advantage, as they all manage to top each other's hardware seemingly every other day, is from the hardware investment.  To see the extremes that HFTs will go to invest in hardware, one might view this. It is highly likely that the trader with the market making algorithm could have been ignorant of the ""hide not slide"" order and missed out on many more opportunities while still being successful.  Haim Bodek, who is very much against this order type, was not so lucky. If it was truly an investment bank then it was unlikely that they were actually front running, which is very illegal and easily possible with much more low tech means, since companies like Citadel handle most orders now, and they have not been successful in investment banking. The reality of HFT is slowly coming to light, that while HFT can provide extremely consistent returns with enormous sharpe ratios, the capital investment is equally enormous, and the amount of capital that can be employed is also as enormously limited.  After all, the richest people on the planet are not HFT owners. Also, when it comes to time periods longer than 500ms, their results become very human."
You are looking for arbitrage, not in real terms, and you may lose heavily. Big banks would suck out all profit before you get a chance to react. There are thousands of algorithmic trading systems in banks, which specifically predict such situations and try to make money from such moves. If you can invest in such a system, probably you can make a killing, else best is to forget about it. Remember that somebody before you has surely thought about it and put a system in place, so that somebody else cannot make money out of it before he/she does. "First of all, the annual returns are an average, there are probably some years where their return was several thousand percent,  this can make a decade of 2% a year become an average of 20% . Second of all, accredited investors are allowed to do many things that the majority of the population cannot do. Although this is mostly tied to net worth, less than 3% of the US population is registered as accredited investors. Accredited Investors are allowed to participate in private offerings of securities that do not have to be registered with the SEC, although theoretically riskier, these can have greater returns. Indeed a lot of companies that go public these days only do so after the majority of the growth potential is done. For example, a company like Facebook in the 90s would have gone public when it was a million dollar company, instead Facebook went public when it was already a 100 billion dollar company. The people that were privileged enough to be ALLOWED to invest in Facebook while it was private, experienced 10000% returns, public stock market investors from Facebook's IPO have experienced a nearly 100% return, in comparison. Third, there are even more rules that are simply different between the ""underclass"" and the ""upperclass"". Especially when it comes to leverage, the rules on margin in the stock market and options markets are simply different between classes of investors. The more capital you have, the less you actually have to use to open a trade. Imagine a situation where a retail investor can invest in a stock by only putting down 25% of the value of the stock's shares. Someone with the net worth of an accredited investor could put down 5% of the value of the shares. So if the stock goes up, the person that already has money would earn a greater percentage than the peon thats actually investing to earn money at all. Fourth, Warren Buffett's fund and George Soros' funds aren't just in stocks. George Soros' claim to fame was taking big bets in the foreign exchange market. The leverage in that market is much greater than one can experience in the stock market. Fifth, Options. Anyone can open an options contract, but getting someone else to be on the other side of it is harder. Someone with clout can negotiate a 10 year options contract for pretty cheap and gain greatly if their stock or other asset appreciates in value much greater. There are cultural limitations that prompt some people to make a distinction between investing and gambling, but others are not bound by those limitations and can take any kind of bet they like." Without knowing the specifics it is hard to give you a specific answer, but most likely the answer is no. If they limit the participation in the site to accredited investors, this is probably not something they are doing willingly, but rather imposed by regulators. Acredited investors have access to instruments that don't have the same level of regulatory protection & scrutiny as those offered to the general public, and are defined under Regulation D.  Examples of such securities are 144A Shares, or hedgefunds. "I don't think there's anything wrong with it ethically but there are more fulfilling careers that are sometimes more financially rewarding. Also, there are a lot of people looking to get into that game so of course not everyone is going to make as much money as at first.  How is quant trading not siphoning funds? They typically don't trade based on value of fundamentals and don't contribute anything to society other than taxes and liquidity in the markets. How does that make me as bad as a ""bankster""(I'm assuming you're talking about the top executives who privatize profits and socialize losses)? I would have thought banksters love quants. You're not making much sense, buddy.  You're awfully cranky for a Saturday. Where's your advice for OP?" I've never heard of such a thing, but seems like if such a product existed it would be easily manipulated by the big trading firms - simply bet that trading volume will go up, then furiously buy and sell shares yourself to artificially drive up the volume. The fact that it would be so easily manipulated makes me think that no such product exists, but I could be wrong. "We're in agreement, I just want retail investors to understand that in most of these types of discussions, the unspoken reality is the retail sector trading the market is *over*. This includes the mutual funds you mentioned, and even most index funds (most are so narrowly focused they lose their relevance for the retail investor).  In the retail investment markets I'm familiar with, there are market makers of some sort or another for specified ranges. I'm perfectly fine with no market makers; but retail investors should be told the naked truth as well, and not sold a bunch of come-ons. What upsets me is seeing that just as computers really start to make an orderly market possible (you are right, the classic NYSE specialist structure was outrageously corrupt), regulators turned a blind eye to implementing better controls for retail investors.  The financial services industry has to come to terms whether they want AUM from retail or not, and having heard messaging much like yours from other professionals, I've concluded that the industry does *not* want the constraints with accepting those funds, but neither do they want to disabuse retail investors of how tilted the game is against them. Luring them in with deceptively suggestive marketing and then taking money from those naturally ill-prepared for the rigors of the setting is like beating up the Downs' Syndrome kid on the short bus and boasting about it back on the campus about how clever and strong one is. If there was as stringent truth in marketing in financial services as cigarettes, like ""this service makes their profit by encouraging the churning of trades"", there would be a lot of kvetching from so-called ""pros"" as well. If all retail financial services were described like ""dead cold cow meat"" describes ""steak"", a lot of retail investors would be better off. As it stands today, you'd have to squint mighty hard to see the faintly-inscribed ""caveat emptor"" on financial services offerings to the retail sector.  Note that depending upon the market setting, the definition of retail differs. I'm surprised the herd hasn't been spooked more by the MF Global disaster, for example, and yet there are some surprisingly large accounts detrimentally affected by that incident, which in a conventional equities setting would be considered ""pros""." "In essence the problem that the OP identified is not that the FX market itself has poor liquidity but that retail FX brokerage sometimes have poor counterparty risk management. The problem is the actual business model that many FX brokerages have. Most FX brokerages are themselves customers of much larger money center banks that are very well capitalized and provide ample liquidity. By liquidity I mean  the ability to put on a position of relatively decent size (long EURUSD say) at any particular time with a small price impact relative to where it is trading. For spot FX, intraday bid/ask spreads are extremely small, on the order of fractions of pips for majors (EUR/USD/GBP/JPY/CHF). Even in extremely volatile situations it rarely becomes much larger than a few pips for positions of 1 to 10 Million USD equivalent notional value in the institutional market. Given that retail traders rarely trade that large a position, the FX spot market is essentially very liquid in that respect. The problem is that there are retail brokerages whose business model is to encourage excessive trading in the hopes of capturing that spread, but not guaranteeing that it has enough capital to always meet all client obligations. What does get retail traders in trouble is that most are unaware that they are not actually trading on an exchange like with stocks. Every bid and ask they see on the screen the moment they execute a trade is done against that FX brokerage, and not some other trader in a transparent central limit order book. This has some deep implications. One is the nifty attribute that you rarely pay ""commission"" to do FX trades unlike in stock trading. Why? Because they build that cost into the quotes they give you. In sleepy markets, buyers and sellers cancel out, they just ""capture"" that spread which is the desired outcome when that business model functions well.  There are two situations where the brokerage's might lose money and capital becomes very important. In extremely volatile markets, every one of their clients may want to sell for some reason, this forces the FX brokers to accumulate a large position in the opposite side that they have to offload. They will trade in the institutional market with other brokerages to net out their positions so that they are as close to flat as possible. In the process, since bid/ask spreads in the institutional market is tighter than within their own brokerage by design, they should still make money while not taking much risk. However, if they are not fast enough, or if they do not have enough capital, the brokerage's position might move against them too quickly which may cause them lose all their capital and go belly up. The brokerage is net flat, but there are huge offsetting positions amongst its clients. In the example of the Swiss Franc revaluation in early 2015, a sudden pop of 10-20% would have effectively meant that money in client accounts that were on the wrong side of the trade could not cover those on the other side. When this happens, it is theoretically the brokerage's job to close out these positions before it wipes out the value of the client accounts, however it would have been impossible to do so since there were no prices in between the instantaneous pop in which the brokerage could have terminated their client's losing positions, and offload the risk in the institutional market. Since it's extremely hard to ask for more money than exist in the client accounts, those with strong capital positions simply ate the loss (such as Oanda), those that fared worse went belly up. The irony here is that the more leverage the brokerage gave to their clients, the less money would have been available to cover losses in such an event. Using an example to illustrate: say client A is long 1 contract at $100 and client B is short 1 contract at $100. The brokerage is thus net flat. If the brokerage had given 10:1 leverage, then there would be $10 in each client's account. Now instantaneously market moves down $10. Client A loses $10 and client B is up $10. Brokerage simply closes client A's position, gives $10 to client B. The brokerage is still long against client B however, so now it has to go into the institutional market to be short 1 contract at $90. The brokerage again is net flat, and no money actually goes in or out of the firm. Had the brokerage given 50:1 leverage however, client A only has $2 in the account. This would cause the brokerage close client A's position. The brokerage is still long against client B, but has only $2 and would have to ""eat the loss"" for $8 to honor client B's position, and if it could not do that, then it technically became insolvent since it owes more money to its clients than it has in assets. This is exactly the reason there have been regulations in the US to limit the amount of leverage FX brokerages are allowed to offer to clients, to assure the brokerage has enough capital to pay what is owed to clients." Yes, but it's *other institutional speculators* they are exploiting, as I made clear in my message. i.e. they prey on the people who prey on the small investors. The man on the street being upset about it is just completely stupid. It does not affect them one iota.  Also, it's worth pointing out that the amount of revenue generated by HFT is absolutely miniscule compared to all other forms of speculation. The return is somewhere around $1 for every $100,000 traded. So, even when a majority of trades in a market are HFT, a very small proportion of the profits are. I think following the professional money managers is a strategy worth considering. The buys from your favorite investors can be taken as strong signals. But you should never buy any stock blindly just because someone else bought it. Be sure do your due diligence before the purchase. The most important question is not what they bought, but why they bought it and how much. To add/comment on Freiheit's points: I was referring to insider information as a seperate means of profiting. So I assumed:  1. Fundamental analysis/picking the direction 2. Insider information 3. Gaming the market (illiquid markets)  If this is true. What makes a good market maker? Stoploss/takeprofit management and hope there are enough players in it *not* to win it (i.e. hedge positions) to take profit from?  Sounds very luck base or is there something im missing?  Thanks An overvalued blue chip is  likely to retain some value if things go the wrong way.. Derivatives are a different game altogether. He said the average investor, which is accurate.. a slightly more inclined amateur will go for strategies such as value/growth.. but amateurs don't usually touch complex CDS/swaps/collars/etc.   I get where you're coming from, and I agree, being an institution in itself doesn't guarantee better results.. but you're fooling yourself if you think they don't have advantages over retail investors. "There are a LOT of reasons why institutional investors would own a company's stock (especially a lot of it). Some can be: The company is in one of the indices, especially big ones. Many asset management companies have funds that are either passive (track index) or more-or-less closely adhere to a benchmark, with the benchmark frequently being (based on/exactly) an index. As such, a stock that's part of an index would be heavily owned by institutional investors. Conclusion: Nothing definitive. Being included in an equity index is usually dependent on the market cap; NOT on intrinsic quality of the company, its fundamentals or stock returns.  The company is considered a good prospect (growth or value), in a sector that is popular with institutional investors. There's a certain amount of groupthink in investing. To completely butcher a known IT saying, you don't get fired for investing in AAPL :)  While truly outstanding and successful investors seek NON-popular assets (which would be undervalued), the bulk is likely to go with ""best practices""... and the general rules for valuation and analysis everyone uses are reasonably similar. As such, if one company invests in a stock, it's likely a competitor will follow similar reasoning to invest in it.  Conclusion: Nothing definitive. You don't know if the price at which those institutional companies bought the stock is way lower than now. You don't know if the stock is held for its returns potential, or as part of an index, or some fancy strategy you as individual investor can't follow. The company's technicals lead the algorithms to prefer it. And they feed off of each other. Somewhat similar in spirit to #2, except this time, it's algorithmic trading making decisions based on technicals instead of portfolio managers based on funamentals.  Obviously, same conclusion applies, even more so. The company sold a large part of the stock directly to institutional investor as part of an offering. Sometimes, as part of IPO (ala PNC and BLK), sometimes additional capital raising (ala Buffett and BAC) Conclusion: Nothing definitive. That investor holds on to the investment, sometimes for reason not only directly related to stock performance (e.g. control of the company, or synergies). Also, does the fact that Inst. Own % is high mean that the company is a good investment and/or less risky? Not necessarily. In 2008, Bear Stearns Inst Own. % was 77%" "No it's not. High frequency trading specifically aims to take a profit without speculating on the movement of price, using technological advantages and exploiting arbitrage opportunities rather than anything else.   Big firm trading I agree to an extent (that's why I made the comment that markets may or may not be efficient), but I think it's more nuanced than ""run a projection and see if the price goes up."" And as I say, traders at big trading firms generally have access to information and tools that we don't at home, so if you want to invest in something invest in it - don't try and guess where the price is going to go because people do that professionally and often still get it wrong." No. You're lucky, maybe, but not really a successful investor. Warren Buffet is, you're not him. Sometimes it is easier to pick stocks to bid on, sometimes its harder. I got my successes too. It is easier on a raising market, especially when it is recovering after a deep fall, like now. But generally it is very hard to beat the market. You need to remember that an individual investor, not backed by deep pockets, algo-trading and an army of analysts, is in a disadvantage on the market by definition. So what can you do? Get the deep pockets, algo-trading and an army of analysts. How? By pooling with others - investing through funds. Private investors as mutual funds are a minority of the market.  Institutional investors make up a substantial portion of the long term holdings.  These include pension funds, insurance companies, and even corporations managing their money, as well as individuals rich enough to actively manage their own investments.   From Business Insider, with some aggregation:   Numbers don't add to 100% because of rounding.  Also, I pulled insurance out of household because it's not household managed.  Another source is the Tax Policy Center, which shows that about 50% of corporate stock is owned by individuals (25%) and individually managed retirement accounts (25%).   Another issue is that household can be a bit confusing.  While some of these may be people choosing stocks and investing their money, this also includes Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOP) and company founders.  For example, Jeff Bezos owns about 17% of Amazon.com according to Wikipedia.  That would show up under household even though that is not an investment account.  Jeff Bezos is not going to sell his company and buy equity in an index fund.   Anyway, the most generous description puts individuals as controlling about half of all stocks.  Even if they switched all of that to index funds, the other half of stocks are still owned by others.  In particular, about 26% is owned by institutional investors that actively manage their portfolios.   In addition, day traders buy and sell stocks on a daily basis, not appearing in these numbers.  Both active institutional investors and day traders would hop on misvalued stocks, either shorting the overvalued or buying the undervalued.   It doesn't take that much of the market to control prices, so long as it is the active trading market.  The passive market doesn't make frequent trades.  They usually only need to buy or sell as money is invested or withdrawn.  So while they dominate the ownership stake numbers, they are much lower on the trading volume numbers.   TL;DR:  there is more than enough active investment by organizations or individuals who would not switch to index funds to offset those that do.  Unless that changes, this is not a big issue.