It is worth using a discount stock broker? I heard they might not get the best price on a trade?
They're not negotiating trade rates for you, you set the trade rates in your order. What they might have is a slightly slower system, delivering your orders a second later than the competition would. If that's critical to you then you should look at that, otherwise look at their fees, customer support and research aids because that's where the broker value is. "Always use limit orders never market orders. Period. Do that and you will always pay what you said you would when the transaction goes through. Whichever broker you use is not going to ""negotiate"" for the best price on your trade if you choose a market order.  Their job is to fill that order so they will always buy it for more than market and sell it for less to ensure the order goes through. It is not even a factor when choosing between TradeKing and Scottrade. I use Trade King and my friend uses ScottTrade.  Besides the transaction fee (TK is a few $$ cheaper), the only other things to consider are the tools and research (and customer service if you need it) that each site offers. I went with TK and the lower transaction fee since tools and research can be had from other sources. I basically only use it when I want to make a trade since I don't find the tools particularly useful and I never take an analyst's opinion of a stock at face value anyway since everybody always has their own agenda."
I've worked at a bank, and even the best prop traders have low Sharpe ratios and large swings.  I would advise that the average person without access to flow information does not a chance, and will end up losing eventually. I'm a bit skeptical of some of the views the author states, in particular:  &gt; The likelihood of executing a trade at the best price depends on the length of the queue to buy or sell and the incentives to trade. Longer queues lead to longer delays to execute a trade. Delays typically lead to worse outcomes. Quite simply, it makes no sense to wait on a longer line to receive a worse execution.  Why would this be the case? If anything, I'd think that forcing through too many orders at once risks price slippage created by excess supply or demand. He argues that waiting in queue may impair price performance, but I'd think that possible favourable or adverse shifts in the price will average to zero over time.  If this is the case and they do average to zero, then I think funds are doing the savvy thing by putting relatively small, low-priority trades in to the flow at a rate that saves the most money on average. I can see why day traders may not be too thrilled with this, but that is such a small slice of the mutual fund/brokerage clientele.  In the broader picture, funds and brokerages are being squeezed so tightly on expense ratios that I'd think any cost saving/rebates they do get probably filter back to customers in the form of reduced fees. Take Robinhood as an example: they use their trading rebates to provide an extremely low cost trading platform for retail investors. That hardly seems unfair to me.  Any traders care to comment? This is all just speculation on my part and I've not looked at any time series data yet. Assuming US. The only con that I know of is that hassle factor. You have to remember to sell when you get the new shares, and your taxes become a bit more complicated; the discount that you receive is taxed as ordinary income, and then any change in the price of the stock between when you receive it and you sell it will be considered a capital gain or loss. It's not hard to account for properly if you keep good records. "You might consider learning how the ""matching"" or ""pairing"" system in the market operates.  The actual exchange only happens when both a buyer and a seller overlap their respect quotes.   Sometimes orders ""go to market"" for a particular volume.  Eg get me 10,000 Microsoft shares now.  which means that the price starts at the current lowest seller, and works up the price list until the volume is met.  Like all market it trades, it has it's advantages, and it's dangers.  If you are confident Microsoft is going to bull, you want those shares now, confident you'll recoup the cost.  Where if you put in a priced order, you might get only none or some shares. Same as when you sell.  If you see the price (which is the price of the last completed ""successful"" trade.  and think ""I'm going to sell 1000 shares"". then you give the order to the market (or broker), and then the same as what happened as before.  the highest bidder gets as much as they asked for, if there's still shares left over, they go to the next bidder, and so on down the price... and the last completed ""successful"" trade is when your last sale is made at the lowest price of your batch. If you're selling, and selling 100,000 shares. And the highest bidder wants 1,000,000 shares you'll only see the price drop to that guys bid.  Why will it drop (off the quoted price?).  Because the quoted price is the LAST sale, clearly if there's someone still with an open bid on the market...then either he wants more shares than were available (the price stays same), or his bid wasn't as high as the last bid (so when you sale goes through, it will be at the price he's offering).   Which is why being able to see the price queues is important on large traders. It is also why it can be important put stops and limits on your trades, een through you can still get gapped if you're unlucky.  However putting prices (""Open Orders"" vs ""(at)Market Orders"") can mean that you're sitting there waiting for a bounce/spike while the action is all going on without you). safer but not as much gain (maybe ;) ) that's the excitement of the market, for every option there's advantages...and risks... (eg missing out) There are also issues with stock movement, shadowing, and stop hunting, which can influence the price. But the stuff in the long paragraphs is the technical reasons." I used Oanda.com for Forex trading a couple years ago. I am in the US but I think it's available in the UK as well. At the time, they had no commissions and their spreads were comparable or better than other brokers. The spreads would just quite considerably when a big event like a Fed meeting or the unemployment figures come out, but I suspect that that is the same everywhere (or they have constant spreads and reject trades).  They did not push the high leverages like other brokers were at the time. I considered this to be very reputable, because though the profits to be gotten through 100:1 leverage are great advertising, the reality is that one unexpected spike and a newbie would lose a bunch of money in a margin call. Well they do have incentive, the more volume you trade the more they make in commission. The shop is mostly daytrading oriented but you can do whatever you want. From what I gather, alot of their revenue comes in the form of training programs (although they offer one for free when you sign up, mostly in equities) which are completely optional. Also, they're willing to sponsor me for my 7, which is good. I mean this is a super risky career move but you roll the dice when you enter prop trading, in more ways than one. I was wondering what relations are between brokerage companies and exchanges? Are brokers representing investors to trade on exchanges? Yes...but a broker may also buy and sell stocks for his own account. This is called broker-delaer firm. For individual investors, what are some cons and pros of trading on the exchanges directly versus indirectly via brokers? Doesn't the former save the investors any costs/expenses paid to the brokers? Yes, but to trade directly on an exchange, you need to register with them. That costs money and only a limited number of people can register I believe. Note that some (or all?) exchanges have their websites where I think trading can be done electronically, such as NASDAQ and BATS? Can almost all stocks be found and traded on almost every exchange? In other words, is it possible that a popular stock can only be found and traded on one exchange, but not found on the other exchange? If needed to be more specific, I am particularly interested in the U.S. case,and for example, Apple's stock. Yes, it is very much possible with smaller companies. Big companies are usually on multiple exchanges. What are your advices for choosing exchange and choosing brokerage companies? What exchanges and brokerage companies do you recommend? For brokerage companies, a beginner can go with discount broker. For sophisticated investors can opt for full service brokers. Usually your bank will have a brokerage firm. For exchanges, it depends...if you are in US, you should send to the US exchanges. IF you wish to send to other exchanges in other countries, you should check with the broker about that. You must understand that: So, if you -- the prospective buyer -- are in Waukegan, do you take the train all the way to New York City just to buy 100 shares of stock?  No.  That would be absurdly expensive.  So, you hire an agent in NYC who will broker a deal for you in the exchange. Fast forward 100 years, to the time when instant communications is available.  Why do we now still need brokerages, when the Exchanges could set up web sites and let you do the trading? The answer is that the Exchanges don't want to have to develop the accounting systems to manage the transactions of hundreds of thousands of small traders, when existing brokerage firms already have those computerized processes in place and are opening their own web sites. Thus, in 2017 we have brokerage firms because of history. +1 to YosefWeiner. Let me add: Legally, technically, or at least theoretically, when you buy stock through a broker, you own the stock, not the broker. The broker is just holding it for you. If the broker goes bankrupt, that has nothing to do with the value of your stock. That said, if the broker fails to transfer your shares to another broker before ceasing operation, it could be difficult to get your assets. Suppose you take your shoes to a shoe repair shop. Before you can pick them up, the shop goes bankrupt. The shoes are still rightfully yours. If the shop owner was a nice guy he would have called you and told you to pick up your shoes before he closed the shop. But if he didn't, you may have to go through legal gyrations to get your shoes back. If as his business failed the shop owner quit caring and got sloppy about his records, you might have to prove that those shoes are yours and not someone else's, etc. There is no reason to try to build a commission discount into the contract when you are not represented by a buyer's agent. Make your offer is 3% lower than it would be otherwise. Then the seller's agent becomes your best ally. He knows he'll get the whole commission, so it's in his best interest to make the deal happen. Even if he believes another unrepresented buyer will come along, the difference in his commission will be minuscule and probably not worth his time. If you get the price you offered, does it matter whose pocket the discount came out of? On the other hand, if you enter negotiations that stall at an amount less than half of the commission, then mention a discounted commission. At that point the deal is so close that the seller and agent may be able to bridge the gap themselves. I've looked into Thinkorswim; my father uses it. Although better than eTrade, it wasn't quite what I was looking for. Interactive Brokers is a name I had heard a long time ago but forgotten. Thank you for that, it seems to be just what I need. Lower fees are always better, everything else equal. A lower fee makes your transaction overall a better deal, all else equal.  Other transactions costs (like the SEC fee on sales) are mostly the same across brokers and there is unlikely to be any difference in execution quality either.  When comparing brokers be sure to consider the other issues: To me, most of these are minor issues.  For that reason, I'd say let transaction cost be your guide. I hear a lot of talk about the quality of the interface.  If you just want to buy or sell a stock, they are all pretty easy.  Some brokers have better tools for monitoring the market or looking at technical indicators, if you are into that. "In fact, it's quite the opposite. If someone is willing to sell some stock as low as $30/share, and someone else is willing to pay $31/share, one of those individuals is going to get a good deal - unless HFT acts as the middle-man and snags the extra dollar. In which case the individuals get the worst price they would accept and someone with fast collocated computers gets to skim some profits (while adding no value, the order could have happened without the so called ""liquidity"" that HFT claims to add).  It's not exactly that simple, but that's the basic effect. It's an unnecessary middleman that skims profits away from individuals on both sides.  I would like to see a return to ""investing"" back to the meaning of the word, instead of gambling on daily or short-term fluctuations. I wouldn't mind a long-term holding requirement (3 months?) for every purchase, and a daily exchange-calculated set price (calculated by actual orders placed) that everyone who buys/sells a particular stock on a given day pays.  Yes, my ideas would destroy an entire industry. I'm ok with that because it would encourage people to *really* invest in companies." One implication is the added fees if you are investing in something with a trading cost or commission, such as your stock purchase. If you pay low costs to trade (e.g. with a discount broker) and don't switch your investments often, then costs overall should remain reasonable .. but always be aware of your costs and seek to minimize them. "I've never used them myself, but Scottrade might be something for you to look at. They do $7 internet trades, but also offer $27 broker assisted trades (that's for stocks, in both cases). Plus, they have brick-and-morter storefronts all over the US for that extra ""I gotta have a human touch"". :-)  Also, they do have after hours trading, for the same commission as regular trading."