Why having large capital is advantageous to trading
Excess capital is the primary means of navigating around a trade which is moving against you. In a very basic case, consider a long position moving against you. With additional capital you could average in as the price drops or you could write options against your position. If you don't have the capital to handle when (not if) a trade move against you then you're at a significant disadvantage as your only option may be a liquidation. It is a general truism but the reasons are that the rules change dramatically when you simply have more capital. Here are some examples, limited to particular kinds of markets: Under $2,000 in capital Nobody is going to offer you a margin account, and if you do get one it isn't with the best broker on commissions and other capabilities. So this means cash only trading, enjoy your 3 business day settlement periods. This means no shorting, confining a trader to only buy and hold strategies, making them more dependent on luck than a more capable trader. This means it is more expensive to buy stock, since you have to put down 100% of the cash to hold a share, whereas someone with more money puts down less capital to hold the exact same number of shares. This means no covered options strategies or spreads, again limiting the market directions where a trader could earn Under $25,000 in capital In the stock market, the pattern day trader rule applies to retail margin accounts with a balance under $25,000 and this severally limits the kinds of trades you are able to take because of the limit in the number of trades you can take in a given time period. Forget managing a multi-leg option position when the market isn't moving your direction. Under $125,000 in capital Worse margin rules. You excluded portfolio margin from your post, but it is a key part of the answer Over $1,000,000 in capital Participate in private placements, regulation D offerings reserved for accredited investors. These days, as buy and hold investments, these generally have more growth potential than publicly traded offerings. Over $5,000,000 in capital You can easily get the compliance and risk manager to turn the other way on margin rules. This is not conjecture, leverage up to infinity, try not to bankrupt yourself and the trading firm. You wouldn't want to trade with too small amount of capital - it becomes harder and more expensive to diversify with a small account. Also, the bigger the account the more discounts and special may be offered by your broker (especially if you are a frequent trader).  You are also able to trade more often, and have a buffer against a few losses in a row not wiping out your entire account.
In today's low interest environment capital is cheap and relatively easy to come by. If a business has an idea for expansion it should be easy enough to get a business loan and have enough ROI that the interest is not a huge cost.   There are many more ways to pay for business growth than cutting taxes "First it is worth noting the two sided nature of the contracts (long one currency/short a second) make leverage in currencies over a diverse set of clients generally less of a problem.  In equities, since most margin investors are long ""equities"" making it more likely that large margin calls will all be made at the same time. Also, it's worth noting that high-frequency traders often highly levered make up a large portion of all volume in all liquid markets ~70% in equity markets for instance.  Would you call that grossly artificial?  What is that volume number really telling us anyway in that case? The major players holding long-term positions in the FX markets are large banks (non-investment arm), central banks and corporations and unlike equity markets which can nearly slow to a trickle currency markets need to keep trading just for many of those corporations/banks to do business.  This kind of depth allows these brokers to even consider offering 400-to-1 leverage.  I'm not suggesting that it is a good idea for these brokers, but the liquidity in currency markets is much deeper than their costumers." Because people investing capital want to understand their risk exposure.  They don't mind risk, they mind uncertainty and they mind interference with markets.    With Obama in office, the ever swelling regulatory state creates a great unknown: How much central government meddling will there be in incremental taxes, healthcare expenses, and so on. Stock trading (as opposed to IPO) doesn't directly benefit the company. But it affects their ability to raise additional funds; if they're valued higher, they don't need to sell as many shares to raise a given amount of money.  And the stockholders are part owners of the company; their votes in annual corporate meetings and the like can add up to a substantial influence on the company's policies, so the company has an interest in keeping them (reasonably) happy. Dividends (distributing part of the company's profits to the stockholders) are one way of doing so. You're still investing in the company. The fact that you're buying someone else's share just means you're doing so indirectly, and they're dis-investing at the same time. Well, if you are going long on a future option, you would not have to risk as much capital. I am interested in commodities, but I want to trade it more conservatively. But I do want to learn about them before I dive in, just so there are no surprises. This would clear out a lot more. 1) Leverage is the act of taking on debt in lieu of the equity you hold. Not always related to firms, it applies to personal situations too. When you take a loan, you get a certain %age of the loan, the bank establishes your equity by looking at your past financial records and then decides the amount it is going to lend, deciding on the safest leverage. In the current action leverage is the whole act of borrowing yen and profiting from it. The leverage factor mentions the amount of leverage happening. 10000 yen being borrowed with an equity of 1000 yen. 2) Commercial banks: 10 to 1 -> They don't deal in complicated investments, derivatives except for hedging, and are under stricter controls of the government. They have to have certain amount of liquidity and can loan out the rest for business. Investment banks: 30 to 1 -> Their main idea is making money and trade heavily. Their deposits are limited by the amount clients have deposited. And as their main motive is to get maximum returns from the available amount, they trade heavily. Derivatives, one of the instruments, are structured on underlyings and sometimes in multiple layers which build up quite a bit of leverage. And all of the trades happen on margins. You don't invest $10k to buy $10k of a traded stock. You put in, maybe $500 to take up the position and borrow the rest of the amount per se. It improves liquidity in the markets and increases efficiency. Else you could do only with what you have. So these margins add up to the leverage the bank is taking on. I think it's because there are people who build entire wealth-gain strategies around certain conditions.  When those conditions change, their mechanism of gaining wealth is threatened and they may take a short term loss as they transform their holdings to a new strategy. Gotcha.  So they essentially are just your normal dude that puts money in the stock market, just bigger money.  For example, I may buy a few stocks in Apple in the hopes that I can exit at a higher price and have higher dividends.  Those big investors are doing the same thing for the 2 benefits I said earlier, but they have more money to invest.  Or do they get other benefits that us average stock holders dont get?  Thanks for the first reply. HFT allows those with access to leverage sub-second propagation delays in pricing, which screws those without access to HFT systems. And since market-based capital gains are a ponzi scheme, this means that HFT essentially creates a money funnel from those without to those with.   I honestly don't see how HFT benefits the market at all - it only benefits those with HFT systems to the detriment of those without. A transaction tax that makes HFT untenable simply removes HFT systems from the equation. The markets stay liquid; stocks stay fungible.   The markets ran just fine for almost a century without HFT. "Their high savings isn't why they have to export capital, the issue is that domestic depositors don't have access to the sky-high interest rates over the last 2 decades in China. There is definitely correlation between asset levels and debt.  I miss-typed in my previous post. I meant to say that the amount of debt is overstated, precicesly because wealth is high relative to income due to the high savings rate.  Ultimately, there isn't a good answer yet to your question. The seminal work (which has received many updates in the last 6 years) that first attempted to understand the disconnect between the ultra-high interest rate in China and the high levels of capital exports is called ""Growing Like China,"" by Song, Storesletten, and Zilibotti published in the American Economic Review in 2011.  Global debt according to the IIF is 327% of GDP. So China is actually a little below average in terms of total debt to GDP. And when you're growing at 5%+ a year, it is okay to lever up a little bit.   On top of all of this, the Chinese government is well aware of these issues and will almost certainly make some comments October 18th and over the next week about constraining debt growth.  This is all complicating the issue though, when you have a huge supply of money to lend, interest rates fall and companies take on more debt. So in general you would expect savings and debt levels to move together." Most of stock trading occurs on what is called a secondary market. For example, Microsoft is traded on NASDAQ, which is a stock exchange. An analogy that can be made is that of selling a used car. When you sell a used car to a third person, the maker of your car is unaffected by this transaction and the same goes for stock trading. Still within the same analogy, when the car is first sold, money goes directly to the maker (actually more complicated than that but good enough for our purposes). In the case of stock trading, this is called an Initial Public Offering (IPO) / Seasoned Public Offering (SPO), for most purposes. What this means is that a drop of value on a secondary market does not directly affect earning potential. Let me add some nuance to this. Say this drop from 20$ to 10$ is permanent and this company needs to finance itself through equity (stock) in the future. It is likely that it would not be able to obtain as much financing in this matter and would either 1) have to rely more on debt and raise its cost of capital or 2) obtain less financing overall. This could potentially affect earnings through less cash available from financing. One last note: in any case, financing does not affect earnings except through cost of capital (i.e. interest paid) because it is neither revenue nor expense. Financing obtained from debt increases assets (cash) and liabilities (debt) and financing obtained from stock issuance increases assets (cash) and shareholder equity. "not trying to be insulting, but i would contend your response should be the one dissected in econ 101.  why? because yours is the theory du jour among business interests and economic commentators in the media. the fact is that this brand of ""free market"" capitalism rests on a series of impractical assumptions.  first is that investors are perfectly rationale allocators of capital.  from this, that excess capital is invested - at all, let alone in a productive fashion.  next, that taxation (presumably what is considered ""high"") has caused unproductive investing practices, when in fact the inverse is true - decreases in effective income tax rates (personal and corporate) combined with the reduction of passive taxes (like the estate tax) have resulted in the incentive for investors to sit on their capital and do nothing to return it to the system.   finally, and perhaps most egregiously, that investing profits back into expansion and worker compensation is misallocation of resources. the entire article serves to demonstrate that this line of thinking is a self defeating concept. giving precedence to the relatively elite investor class ensures that capital is allocated according to their whims, and often times that simply means into their bank accounts. this starves the system.  so i don't expect to change your mind, but i would like others to know that what you are saying is widely debunked, chicago school nonsense that gets a lot of air time from self serving interests across popular media.  a few hours of unbiased research will make this evident. it is somewhat ironic that the theory has limited standing academically, as it works only in an academic/theoretical setting." They return capital to investors every year to keep the fund size smaller, since there are a set number of money-making opportunities in the space.  In other words, if they will make $1 billion per year regardless of invested capital, why not lever up a few times so you don't have to put as much in? &gt; Stock markets are supposed to be about investment and providing capital to companies for operations and research. High frequency trading is only about gaming the market and nothing else. Arguments that this provides more capital or liquidity don't make any sense because the speed of trading is such that listed companies cannot take advantage and only high frequency traders are served.  I used to feel this way about derivatives but a commentator on reddit disabused me of that notion -   http://www.reddit.com/r/Entrepreneur/comments/11bqnk/what_you_wont_see_on_the_front_page_of_reddit_the/c6lnqow  If the only function of the stock market is investment and provide capital to companies, why have a secondary market at all? Theoretically, it's a question of rate of return. If a desired or acceptable rate of return for market makers' capital is X, and X is determined by the product of margin & turnover then higher turnover means lower margin for a constant X.  Margin, in the case of trading, is the bid/ask spread, and turnover, in the case of trading, is volume. Empirically, it has been noted in the last markets still offering such wide-varying evidence, equity options: http://faculty.baruch.cuny.edu/lwu/890/mayhew_jf2002.pdf