I own the 50th stock exchange of the United States. This tax will destroy their markets. The interpretation that trading is secondary to the financing of a company makes what happens to the company afterward irrelevant is so preposterous that there are many companies that will never reach their full value when the argument for why it isn't ever possible for stocks to reach full fair value is exactly the frictions that this tax creates. If you don't understand this... there is no hope for you as a stock trader, financial analyst, or any other occupation to which liquidity is required to have efficiency in order to prosper through hard times. Since one group of individual political organizations can simply shrug off this issue by adding that the tax is controversial, then there should be at least some people who do understand the liquidity traps Japan brought to themselves shouldn't see the future any differently if this tax is really implemented. Also, there will be less than the amount estimated raised, and nearly every market where this will be implemented or has been implemented has never recovered to their highs. Great investments, so anybody who talks about those countries now in the United States should not be paid attention to since liquidity is reduced to a point where the exponential raise of geometric weights predominantly chosen as the broad benchmarks we measure performance to won't ever be able to overcome the undersiding caused by this weighting. Beware anybody who hasn't mentioned why it always seems like we go down faster than up, because now these markets will always go down faster than up, but it isn't that that was the way it has always been so much so than that it won't allow wealth to transfer to third parties except through overtrading, manipulation, and far worse categorical technical difficulties and compliance issues than the USA has or will ever have. Pity. Those countries had a good chance of not going back to war due to economic difficulty, but that's what's going to happen and whether you'd like to debate with me, if you're argument is that there will be any benefit to this is only to the governments and socialists who support such a measure. Note the Englishman doesn't have to know whether this is stupid or not, but those who have been unable to compete with US Powerhouse of Wealth will continue to be unable to compete and far into the future as well.
I'll say it again, just in case it did not sink in. I'm not proposing a tax for the purpose of raising money -- I strongly oppose that. I'm proposing a tax for the purpose of protecting traders and the markets from harmful practices. This is, as far as I can tell the simplest fix --much easier to implement than software or regulatory fixes-- for some undesirable trading activities that have a long range effect of harming liquidity and creating an unbalanced playing field that ultimately drives traders from the market. Traders benefit from the widest participation possible.
Piezoe, the effect of your "tax" isn't any different than the ftt so forget about it. There shouldn't be transactional friction. Plenty of people on here know you don't trade so find something else to suggest. Supply and Demand's Invisible Hand takes enough care of what your concern is and if you want to know more talk to emg.
The vast majority of shenanigans could be eliminated if orders had to stay live for some minimum amount of time (say 1 sec), and if all trades had to be in whole cents (i.e. no sub-pennying or internalization). There is no need to add a tax to achieve a cleaner market.
This is still transactional friction and an unneeded speed limit bottleneck. <u>None</u> of these suggestions are helpful.
Those are excellent suggestions, however they require exchanges to alter their order handling software. What I proposed was something that would accomplish the same thing across all exchanges with only a minor change in accounting software. Nevertheless, I like your suggestions very much. Note to those who rely on ad hominem arguments: do not expect a reply from me. I suggest you use vikana's post as a model for how to constructively add to a discussion.
No need to compare Vikana's proposition technical implications with yours, anyone who propose any kind of tax when more than 9 accounts out of 10 are in deficit at the end of the year is just an idiot. Why not give the remaining chosen few profits to the government? It sounds so good...
EU FTT could face legal issues (in german) http://www.boersen-zeitung.de/index.php?li=1&artid=2013123023