Skip to main content
diversification.com
← Back to P Definitions

Payment for order flow

What Is Payment for Order Flow?

Payment for order flow (PFOF) is a compensation model in financial markets where a brokerage firm receives payments from a market maker for directing client buy and sell orders to them for execution. This practice is a key component of modern market microstructure, particularly in equity and options trading. Rather than charging clients a direct commission on trades, brokers earn revenue by selling their clients' order flow to wholesale market makers. This allows market makers to fulfill orders internally and potentially profit from the bid-ask spread on those trades. Payment for order flow facilitates commission-free trading for many investors, but it also raises questions regarding potential conflict of interest for brokers and the quality of trade execution.

History and Origin

The practice of payment for order flow has been present in U.S. financial markets since at least the 1990s and has consistently been legal, though often controversial.15, Historically, brokers primarily generated revenue through direct commissions charged to clients for executing trades. However, with advancements in technology and increasing competition, particularly with the rise of electronic trading and high-frequency trading firms, the industry shifted. The widespread adoption of commission-free trading by major brokerage firms in the mid-2010s, notably pioneered by platforms like Robinhood, propelled payment for order flow into the spotlight as the primary revenue stream for many of these firms.,14 This shift allowed brokers to eliminate explicit trading fees for retail investors, fundamentally changing the landscape of retail investing.13

Key Takeaways

  • Payment for order flow (PFOF) is compensation brokers receive from market makers for routing customer orders to them.
  • It enables commission-free trading for many retail investors, as brokers earn revenue indirectly.
  • Critics argue PFOF creates a conflict of interest for brokers, potentially compromising best execution for clients.
  • Regulators, including the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), scrutinize PFOF due to concerns about market transparency and fairness.
  • PFOF rates are significantly higher for options trading compared to equities, which may incentivize brokers to encourage options activity.

Interpreting the Payment for Order Flow

Payment for order flow is interpreted primarily as a revenue mechanism for brokerage firms and an incentive for market makers to secure consistent order flow. From the perspective of a broker, higher payment for order flow translates directly to increased revenue, especially in a commission-free trading environment. For market makers, obtaining order flow, particularly from retail investors who are generally considered less informed, allows them to internalize trades and profit from the bid-ask spread.12

The controversy surrounding payment for order flow often centers on whether brokers can truly provide best execution for their clients while also receiving compensation for routing orders. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requires brokers to disclose their PFOF arrangements and ensure best execution, meaning orders must be executed at the most favorable price and speed available., However, concerns persist that the incentives from payment for order flow might lead brokers to route orders to market makers who pay the most, rather than those who consistently offer the best possible price improvement for the customer.11

Hypothetical Example

Consider a retail investor named Sarah who wants to buy 100 shares of XYZ Corp. through her brokerage firm, "RapidTrade." RapidTrade offers commission-free trading.

  1. Sarah places an order: Sarah places a market order to buy 100 shares of XYZ Corp.
  2. RapidTrade routes the order: Instead of sending Sarah's order directly to a stock exchange's order book, RapidTrade routes it to "Alpha Markets," a wholesale market maker with whom RapidTrade has a payment for order flow agreement.
  3. Alpha Markets pays RapidTrade: For routing Sarah's order (and many others), Alpha Markets pays RapidTrade a small fee, perhaps $0.002 per share. So, for Sarah's 100 shares, RapidTrade earns $0.20.
  4. Alpha Markets executes the trade: Alpha Markets executes Sarah's order. They might fill it from their own inventory or match it with another order internally. If the National Best Bid and Offer (NBBO) for XYZ Corp. is $50.00 bid and $50.05 ask, Alpha Markets might execute Sarah's buy order at $50.03, providing her with a slight "price improvement" compared to the exchange's ask price, while still profiting from the spread.

In this scenario, Sarah pays no direct commission, but RapidTrade generates revenue through the payment for order flow from Alpha Markets.

Practical Applications

Payment for order flow manifests across various facets of financial markets and regulation. It is most prominently observed in the business models of many online brokerage firms that offer commission-free trading for equities and options trading. For these brokers, PFOF is a significant, if not primary, source of revenue, allowing them to attract a large base of retail investors.,10

From a market maker's perspective, acquiring order flow through PFOF provides a predictable stream of customer orders, especially those from less informed retail traders, which helps them manage their liquidity and profitability from the bid-ask spread.9,8 Regulatory bodies like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) actively monitor payment for order flow arrangements. The SEC, in particular, has consistently reviewed and proposed changes to rules impacting PFOF, citing concerns over potential conflicts of interest and the overall fairness and transparency of market structure.7,6

Limitations and Criticisms

Despite enabling commission-free trading, payment for order flow faces substantial criticism, primarily centered on potential conflicts of interest and a lack of transparency. The core concern is that a [brokerage firm](https://diversification. unstoppable to earn revenue from payment for order flow by routing orders to specific market makers, they might prioritize their own financial gain over securing the absolute best execution price for their clients.5 While brokers are legally obligated to seek best execution, critics argue that the incentives inherent in PFOF arrangements can create a subtle, yet significant, bias.

Another criticism is that PFOF can lead to market segmentation, where retail investor orders are primarily routed off-exchange to wholesalers, rather than contributing to the public order book of a stock exchange. This segmentation can make the broader market less transparent.4 SEC Chair Gary Gensler has voiced concerns that PFOF creates "an inherent conflict of interest" and has indicated that a ban on the practice is "on the table.",3 Countries like the U.K., Canada, and Australia have already banned PFOF, highlighting international regulatory differences. Furthermore, instances where brokers faced regulatory action, such as a 2019 FINRA fine against Robinhood related to its PFOF practices and alleged failure to ensure best execution, underscore the regulatory challenges and ongoing scrutiny of this model.2,1

Payment for Order Flow vs. Direct Market Access

The distinction between payment for order flow and direct market access lies in who controls the order routing and how revenue is generated.

Payment for Order Flow (PFOF):

  • Mechanism: Brokerage firms receive compensation from market makers for routing customer orders to them.
  • Revenue Model: The broker makes money from the payments received for order flow, allowing them to offer commission-free trading to retail investors.
  • Order Routing Control: The broker determines where the order is routed, typically to a market maker with a PFOF agreement.
  • Potential Conflict of Interest: Concerns exist that brokers may prioritize payments over achieving the absolute best execution for their clients.

Direct Market Access (DMA):

  • Mechanism: Investors, typically institutional traders or very active individuals, can send orders directly to a stock exchange's order book.
  • Revenue Model: The broker providing DMA services charges a commission or a fee for the access, rather than earning from order flow.
  • Order Routing Control: The client or their sophisticated trading algorithms have direct control over where and how their orders are placed on the exchange.
  • Transparency: Offers higher transparency as orders are placed directly on public exchanges.

While payment for order flow enables accessible, zero-commission trading for many, direct market access appeals to those seeking greater control over their order routing and execution, often willing to pay explicit fees for that privilege.

FAQs

What does "payment for order flow" mean in simple terms?

Payment for order flow means that your brokerage firm receives money from a specialized trading firm, called a market maker, for sending your buy or sell orders to them to be completed. This is how many brokers can offer commission-free trading.

Is payment for order flow legal?

Yes, payment for order flow is legal in the United States, although it is subject to strict disclosure requirements and regulatory oversight by bodies like the Securities and Exchange Commission. Some other countries, however, have banned the practice.

How does payment for order flow affect my trades?

While it allows you to trade without paying direct commissions, critics argue that payment for order flow can create a potential conflict of interest for your broker. This is because the broker might be incentivized to route your order to a market maker that pays them more, rather than necessarily the one that offers you the absolute best possible price or fastest execution for your trade, even though brokers are legally required to seek best execution.

Do all brokerage firms use payment for order flow?

No, not all brokerage firms engage in payment for order flow. Some brokers, particularly those catering to active traders or institutions, may charge commissions and route orders directly to stock exchanges or offer direct market access. Firms like Fidelity and Vanguard are often cited as brokers that do not primarily rely on PFOF.