Why do stock brokers charge fees
They are providing you a service and they charge you for it. The service includes giving you a trading platform(website and the infrastructure), doing all the background work for setting up services for you, relaying your orders to the market or as a broker fulfilling your orders, doing settlement when an order is matched, giving you access to the stock market(the costs are quite high to get a license to relay orders to the market and I believe it needs to be renewed every year). There are transaction fees which the stock exchanges charge the brokers to use the stock markets infrastructure and connect to it. And then interfacing with banks for monetary transactions and also doing according to the law in the jurisdiction they are located in. Most of it is an one time cost, but they are a private enterprise out to make profit so they will charge for their services. Retail brokers and are generally not members of exchanges and would generally not be members of exchanges unless they are directly routing orders to those exchanges. Most retail brokers charging $7 are considered discount brokers and such brokers route order to Market Makers (who are members of the exchanges). All brokers and market makers must be members of FINRA and must pay FINRA registration and licensing fees.  Discount brokers also have operational costs which include the cost of their facilities, technology, clearing fees, regulation and human capital. Market makers will have the same costs but the cost of technology is probably much higher. Discount brokers will also have market data fees which they will have to pay to the exchanges for the right to show customer real time quotes.  Some of their fees can be offset through payment for order flow (POF) where market makers pay routing brokers a small fee for sending orders to them for execution. The practice of POF has actually allowed retail brokers to keep their costs lower but to to shrinking margins and spread market makers POF has significantly declined over the years.  Markets makers generally do not pass along Exchange access fees which are capped at $.003 (not .0035) to routing brokers.  Also note that The SEC and FINRA charges transactions fees. SEC fee for sales are generally passed along to customers and noted on trade confirms. FINRA TAF is born by the market makers and often subtracted from POF paid to routing firms. Other (full service brokers) charging higher commissions are charging for the added value of their brokers providing advice and expertise in helping investors with investment strategies. They will generally also have the same fees associated with membership of all the exchanges as they are also market makers subject to some of the list of cost mentioned above.  One point of note is that Market Making technology is quite sophisticates and very expensive.  It has driven most of wholesale market makers of the 90s into consolidation.    Retail routing firm's save a significant amount of money for not having to operate such a system (as well as worry about the regulatory headaches associated with running such a system).  This allows them to provide much lower commissions that the (full service) or bulge bracket brokers.
"Other than the brokerage fee you should also consider the following: Some brokerages provide extra protection against the these and as you guessed it for a fee. However, there could be a small bonus associated with your trading at scale: You are probably qualified for rebates from the exchanges for generating liquidity.  ""Fees and Credits applicable to Designated Market Makers (“DMMs”)"" https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse/NYSE_Price_List.pdf All in all, I will say that it will be really hard for you to avoid paying brokerage fee and yes, even Buffet pays it." You'd need millions of dollars to trade the number of shares it would take to profit from these penny variations.  What you bring up here is the way high frequency firms front-run trades and profit on these pennies. Say you have a trade commission of $5.  Every time you buy you pay $5, every time you sell you pay $5.  So you need a gain in excess of $10, a 10% gain on $100.  Now if you wanted to trade on a penny movement from $100 to $100.01, you need to have bought 1,000 shares totaling $100,000 for the $0.01 price movement to cover your commission costs.  If you had $1,000,000 to put at risk, that $0.01 price movement would net you $90 after commission, $10,000,000 would have made you $990.  You need much larger gains at the retail level because commissions will equate to a significant percentage of the money you're investing. Very large trading entities have much different arrangements and costs with the exchanges.  They might not pay a fee on each transaction but something that more closely resembles a subscription fee, and costs something that more closely resembles a house. Now to your point, catching these price movements and profiting.  The way high frequency trading firms purportedly make money relates to having a very low latency network connection to a particular exchange.  Their very low latency/very fast network connection lets them see orders and transact orders before other parties.   Say some stock has an ask at $101 x 1,000 shares.  The next depth is $101.10.  You see a market buy order come in for 1,000 shares and place a buy order for 1,000 shares at $101 which hits the exchange first, then immediately place a sell order at $101.09, changing the ask from $101.00 to $101.09 and selling in to the market order for a gain of $0.09 per share. "As the other answer said, the person who owns the lent stock does not benefit directly.  They may benefit indirectly in that brokers can use the short lending profits to reduce their fees or in that they have the option to short other stocks at the same terms.   Follow-up question: what prevents the broker lending the shares for a very short time (less than a day), pocketing the interest and returning the lenders their shares without much change in share price (because borrowing period was very short). What prevents them from doing that many times a day ? Lack of market.   Short selling for short periods of time isn't so common as to allow for ""many"" times a day.  Some day traders may do it occasionally, but I don't know that it would be a reliable business model to supply them.  If there are enough people interested in shorting the stock, they will probably want to hold onto it long enough for the anticipated movement to happen.   There are transaction costs here.  Both fees for trading at all and the extra charges for short sale borrowing and interest.  Most stocks do not move down by large enough amounts ""many"" times a day.  Their fluctuations are smaller.  If the stock doesn't move enough to cover the transaction fees, then that seller lost money overall.  Over time, sellers like that will stop trading, as they will lose all their money.   All that said, there are no legal blocks to loaning the stock out many times, just practical ones.  If a stock was varying wildly for some bizarre reason, it could happen." "Largely, because stock markets are efficient markets, at least mostly if not entirely; while the efficient market hypothesis is not necessarily 100% correct, for the majority of traders it's unlikely that you could (on the long term) find significant market inefficiencies with the tools available to an individual of normal wealth (say, < $500k). That's what frequent trading intends to do: find market inefficiencies.  If the market is efficient, then a stock is priced exactly at what it should be worth, based on risk and future returns.  If it is inefficient, then you can make more money trading on that inefficiency versus simply holding it long.  But in stating that a stock is inefficient, you are stating that you know something the rest of the market doesn't - or some condition is different for you than the other million or so people in the market.  That's including a lot of folks who do this for a living, and have very expensive modelling software (and hardware to run it on).  I like to think that I'm smarter than the far majority of people, but I'm probably not the smartest guy in the room, and I certainly don't have that kind of equipment - especially with high frequency trading nowadays. As such, it's certainly possible to make a bit of money as a trader versus as a long-term investor, but on the whole it's similar to playing poker for a living.  If you're smarter than most of the people in the room, you might be able to make a bit of money, but the overhead - in the case of poker, the money the house charges for the game, in the case of stocks, the exchange fees and broker commissions - means that it's a losing game for the group as a whole, and not very many people can actually make money.  Add to that the computer-based trading - so imagine a poker game where four of the eight players are computer models that are really good (and actively maintained by very smart traders) and you can see where it gets to be very difficult to trade at a profit (versus long term investments, which take advantage of the growth in value in the company). Finally, the risk because of leverage and option trading (which is necessary to really take advantage of inefficiencies) makes it not only hard to make a profit, but easy to lose everything.  Again to the poker analogy, the guys I've known playing poker for a living do it by playing 10-20 games at once - because one game isn't efficient enough, you wouldn't make enough money.  In poker, you can do that fairly safely, especially in limit games; but in the market, if you're leveraging your money you risk losing a lot.  Every action you take to make it ""safer"" removes some of your profit." "Because ETFs, unlike most other pooled investments, can be easily shorted, it is possible for institutional investors to take an arbitrage position that is long the underlying securities and short the ETF.  The result is that in a well functioning market (where ETF prices are what they should be) these institutional investors would earn a risk-free profit equal to the fee amount. How much is this amount, though? ETFs exist in a very competitive market.  Not only do they compete with each other, but with index and mutual funds and with the possibility of constructing one's own portfolio of the underlying.  ETF investors are very cost-conscious. As a result, ETF fees just barely cover their costs.  Typically, ETF providers do not even do their own trading.  They issue new shares only in exchange for a bundle of the underlying securities, so they have almost no costs.  In order for an institutional investor to make money with the arbitrage you describe, they would need to be able to carry it out for less than the fees earned by the ETF.  Unlike the ETF provider, these investors face borrowing and other shorting costs and limitations. As a result it is not profitable for them to attempt this.  Note that even if they had no costs, their maximum upside would be a few basis points per year.  Lots of low-risk investments do better than that. I'd also like to address your question about what would happen if there was an ETF with exorbitant fees.  Two things about your suggested outcome are incorrect.   If short sellers bid the price down significantly, then the shares would be cheap relative to their stream of future dividends and investors would again buy them.  In a well-functioning market, you can't bid the price of something that clearly is backed by valuable underlying assets down to near zero, as you suggest in your question. Notice that there are limitations to short selling.  The more shares are short-sold, the more difficult it is to locate share to borrow for this purpose.  At first brokers start charging additional fees.  As borrowable shares become harder to find, they require that you obtain a ""locate,"" which takes time and costs money.  Finally they will not allow you to short at all.  Unlimited short selling is not possible. If there was an ETF that charged exorbitant fees, it would fail, but not because of short sellers.  There is an even easier arbitrage strategy: Investors would buy the shares of the ETF (which would be cheaper than the value of the underlying because of the fees) and trade them back to the ETF provider in exchange for shares of the underlying.  This would drain down the underlying asset pool until it was empty.   In fact, it is this mechanism (the ability to trade ETF shares for shares of the underlying and vice versa) that keeps ETF prices fair (within a small tolerance) relative to the underlying indices." It's not necessarily the case that HFT acts as a tax on small traders. I haven't seen any studies demonstrating that HFT increases the average cost of shares; if anything small investors will be largely unaffected by HFT as it will be random noise to them, sometimes creating a slight increase, sometimes a slight decrease. The people most affected by HFT are institutional investors, whom HFT desks are pretty good at predicting the order pattern of and hence exploiting. They have no interest or capacity to exploit the small guys. There are lots of provisos, but in general you are correct. The provisos, off the top of my head: The only fees will be any brokerage fees when you purchase the stock. I haven't seen any handling fees when you get the dividend, but it may depend on how you hold the stock. "The broker will charge borrowing fees and sometimes a charge called ""hard-to-borrow fee"". Other than that you will earn interest on the cash you get from selling the stocks, but you will have to pay dividends.  This is because someone else (the party you sold the stocks off to) will now get the dividends and the party who lent you the stocks will miss out on these, that's why you have to remunerate them. The type of account you need is entirely up to your broker (and besides, it depends on what a 'normal' account for you is, you should at least mention your country or your broker)." "You don't ""deduct"" transaction fees, but they are included in your cost basis and proceeds, which will affect the amount of gain/loss you report. So in your example, the cost basis for each of the two lots is $15 (10$ share price plus $5 broker fee).  Your proceeds for each lot are $27.50 (($30*2 - $5 )/2).  Your gain on each lot is therefore $12.50, and you will report $12.50 in STCG and $12.50 in LTCG in the year you sold the stock (year 3).   As to the other fees, in general yes they are deductible, but there are limits and exceptions, so you would need to consult a tax professional to get a correct answer in your specific situation." "Oftentimes, the lender (the owner of the security) is not explicitly involved in the lending transaction. Let's say the broker is holding a long-term position of 1MM shares from Client A. It is common for Client A's agreement with Broker A to include a clause that allows the broker to lend out the 1MM shares for its own profit (""rehypothecation""). Client A may be compensated for this in some form (e.g. baked into their financing rates), but they do not receive any compensation that is directly tied to lending activities. You also have securities lending agents that lend securities for an explicit fee. For example, the borrower's broker may not have sufficient inventory, in which case they would need to find a third-party lending agent. This happens both on-demand as well as for a fixed-terms (typically a large basket of securities). SLB (securities lending and borrowing) is a business in its own right.  I'm not sure I follow your follow-up question but oftentimes there is no restriction that prevents the broker from lending out shares ""for a very short time"". Unless there is a transaction-based fee though, the number of times you lend shares does not affect ""pocketing the interest"" since interest accrues as a function of time." I buy or sell a few shares whenever I have a small amount of money to transfer into out of my mutual funds. Since I'm not paying transaction fees, there is no reason not to, when that is what makes sense. If you are paying a fee for each transaction, of course it makes sense to try to wait until you have a larger amount to move so the overhead per share is lower. I'm not positive my answer is complete, but from information on my broker's website, the following fees apply to a US option trade (which I assume you're concerned with given fee in dollars and the mention of the Options Clearing Corporation): They have more detail for other countries -- see https://www.interactivebrokers.co.uk/en/index.php?f=commission&p=options1 for North America.  Use the sub-menu near the top of the page to pick Europe or Asia. The brokerage-charged commission for this broker is as low as $0.25 per contract with a $1.00 minimum.  Though I've been charged less than $1 to STO an options position, as well as less than $1 to BTC an options position, so not sure about that minimum. Regarding what I read as your overall underlying question (why are option fees so high), in my research this broker has one of the cheapest commission rates on options I've ever seen.  When I participate in certain discussions, I'm routinely told that these fees are unbelievable and that $5.95, $7.95, or even $9.95 are considered low fees.   I've heard this so much, and discussed commissions with enough people who've refused to switch brokers, that I conclude there just isn't enough competition to drive prices lower.  If most people won't switch brokers to go from $9.95 to $1 per trade, there simply isn't a reason to lower rates. Every brokerage is different, on all of their websites they have an actual list of fees. There are tons of different charges you may encounter. Fiduciary They are obligated by the rules of the exchanges they are listed with. Furthermore, there is a strong chance that people running the company also have stock, so it personally benefits them to create higher prices. Finally, maybe they don't care about the prices directly, but by being a good company with a good product or service, they are desirable and that is expressed as a higher stock price.  Not every action is because it will raise the stock price, but because it is good for business which happens to make the stock more valuable. Because the HFT bought them in response to the guy buying. The HFT was only able to get them faster because his server and internet connection were faster. That in combination with the fact that they intentionally just spray the exchange with a huge combination of buys. If they don't have anyone on the hook, they just cancel.   So the HFT sends the exchange a bunch of buy orders. They know 99.9 won't match up with a guy who's looking to buy and cancel them. However, when they get a guy on the hook they let that one go through and don't cancel it.   A traditional market maker doesn't do that. They let all the orders go through and charge a higher price when someone wants it. However, this is accepted as fair because they're providing volume. They're making sure that buyers and sellers will have an active market. So it's expect that they should be able to profit for having that convenience.  When a HFT can cancel their orders at will they're not providing volume.  It's not uncommon for a market maker to buy as many shares as possible and then force you to pay more for it. However, they give people the ability to buy or sell shares.   HFT don't do this. They are fast enough to cancel buy orders unless they have a buyer on the hook. As a result they can be a market maker without any losses. That would be one thing, but they don't provide the market with liquidity. They just dump the shares as soon as they're done taking their haircut (tax).