Robinhood IPO

The true top in the dot-com bubble had to have been the public offering of Palm in the year 2000. Does anybody remember that?

Likewise, Robinhood’s IPO portends to be the equivalent for retail investors gamblers. These sorts of things can only be determined in retrospect, so such statements are not predictive.

That said, Robinhood’s metrics are actually pretty good!

As of March 31, 2021, they have $81 billion in assets under custody and 17.7 million active users. After the IPO they will have 842 million shares outstanding, for a market cap of about $30 billion.

What do we compare this with? Interactive Brokers is a logical counterpart – both companies have functional controlling shareholders, so public investors are simply there for the ride.

IBKR’s public offering is about 22% of the “real” company, but I’ll put a lot of technical stuff aside and state their total market cap is $26 billion on 417 million shares.

This is very similar to Robinhood.

IBKR also provides very good data to the public. More so than Robinhood. For example, Robinhood does not disclose how many trades it executes, while IBKR does.

At Q1-2021, IBKR executed 306 million trades. They have 1.3 million customer accounts and total customer equity of $331 billion. Almost ten times less customers, but four times more customer equity.

In terms of the balance sheet, IBKR has a book value of $9.4 billion, and HOOD post-IPO is around $7.3 billion.

HOOD, however, is growing like a weed. Their Q2 estimate is 21.3 million active users and $102 billion in assets under custody.

The big difference is that HOOD isn’t making that much money (most of their revenues are being sucked up by operating costs), while IBKR is making a ton of money.

But given the amount of capital people are willing to dump into the Robinhood brokerage, coupled with encouraging them to gamble and/or pitch them financial products, makes me think that their valuation isn’t ridiculously stupid. It’s in the ballpark of where it should be.

Despite loving the IBKR platform (it truly is the best, once you use it, you can’t go back), I would not be an IBKR investor at this valuation, nor am I interested in HOOD stock.

My primary concern for HOOD investors is not the valuation. It is that their technology has some sort of problem where they end up like Knight Capital and simply blow themselves up. It’s a much more relevant possibility for them (simply because they are so new) compared to very seasoned brokers like IBKR that have been at it for decades.

Robinhood and overactive retail trading

Globe and Mail had an interesting article on the advent of Robinhood.

Robinhood is not currently available in Canada, but I’ve seen enough videos to come to an easy conclusion – it is the financial brokerage equivalent of crack cocaine.

There’s two items I’d like to discuss. One is commission-free trading, and the other is the psychological aspects of trading.

Robinhood allows commission-free trading of various products. The company’s business model makes money on payment for order flow, where the entity sells order flow to market making entities (such as Virtu – VIRT on the Nasdaq). The market makers execute on the trades and they pocket money buying on the bid, selling at the ask, and also making some informed speculation on the very short term future prices of securities depending on the order flow coming in (which is why you tend to see discontinuities on intraday trading – it is the market maker pulling away from the bid when there is a crush of supply pressure or pulling away at the ask when there is a crush of demand pressure).

For each share of stock traded, Robinhood made four to 15 times more than Schwab in the most recent quarter, according to the filings. In total, Robinhood got US$18,955 from the trading firms for every dollar in the average customer account, while Schwab made US$195, the Alphacution analysis shows.

I would suspect this magnitude difference (US$18,955 for a Robinhood dollar to $195 for a Schwab dollar) is a mis-print, but the 4-15 times magnitude of payment for order flow would intuitively sound like it is in the ballpark – reflecting the fact that customers purchase the most profitable type of items (call and put options) with large spreads. A market maker isn’t going to make much money if you buy 100 shares of Microsoft, but if you purchase 50 call options of some medium-capitalization security, it is virtually guaranteed that they will be paying at least a 25 cent (if not 50 cent or 1 dollar) spread on the trade.

In essence, there are two components to the cost of a trade. One is the commissions and fees associated with the trade – and for the most part, this is fairly transparent. The other less transparent cost of trading, which is much higher than the commission, is the slippage you pay for execution. If you want immediate execution, you must pay the spread. This is more costly than most commissions unless if you are trading the most liquid of securities.

There is a more subtle aspect to trading which applies when you have to take larger positions in companies, and that is how to acquire enough of the stock without materially impacting the stock price, but this is usually an institutional concern. This concern does sometimes happen at the retail level, especially in lower capitalization/volume stocks (e.g. my frustrations with trading Torstar, where it didn’t take much money to affect the stock price!).

So as a result of Robinhood’s price structure, they have an incentive to have their customers trade as much as possible, and ideally trade securities that will generate higher payment for order flow margins (i.e. high bid-ask spread options, especially multi-leg option positions such as Iron Condors!).

As a result, they make trading as easy as opening up an app on your iPhone and tapping a few keys and you’ve suddenly made a trade. You can trade on the bus, trade in bed, trade at the gym, etc, etc.

Clearly they’re trying to turn it into a legalized version of casino gambling, without telling the consumer that the expected value of their transactions are probably going to be higher at a casino.

So this leads me to the second item of this post, and this is psychology. There is a book called Nudge which you should read and Robinhood employs many of these tricks.

Just viewing the plethora of Youtube videos of people “minting coin” (e.g. “How I Made $30,000 in 1 Week Stock Trading on Robinhood“), and the general “millennial” attitude of these market participants, makes it definitely a herd mentality atmosphere, coupled with the “missing out” psychological sentiment – other people are making money, seemingly by tapping buttons on their phone in bed, why can’t I??? Robinhood couldn’t purchase this type of marketing. Contrast this with Interactive Brokers, where you get some very dry videos that few people in relation will click on.

The other phenomena is the advent of more sophisticated “trading rooms”, which has existed since the dawn of time (yes, pre-digital world), where people with their Robinhood accounts can band together to pumping up securities and purchasing and selling the hot tip of the day, just like a huckster at a horse racing track. There is so much rich history in herd mentality in stock trading that it would fill volumes, but for example, I’m going through a book called “Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds“, which was published in 1841, and its first chapter is about after Louis the 14th bankrupted France, eventually there was a mania in paper currency and the corporation that was created to exploit the Louisana Territory – people were lined up to subscribe and shares were bidded up to the roof. It didn’t end well.

Another great example is the “bucket shops” of the late 19th and early 20th century. A book written on behalf of Jesse Livermore is a good chronicle of this form of legalized gambling (in the name of speculating on the prices of securities), but it basically has the same rhythm to it.

There are all sorts of stories of financial malfeasance, and they all prey on the same human psychological ‘nudges’ that we see today. The only difference is the medium, and our digital age. Our psychological failures are the same and have not evolved with technology.

Robinhood is indeed marketing brilliance, and the net asset value in these accounts gets transferred to the shareholders of Robinhood, the market makers, and the counterparties to the trades that get executed on the platform. I generally do not have much sympathy for those that lose money in this manner. I just hope they do not ruin their lives in the process.

The blowup in oil – and what’s next

I posted about it the oil situation earlier, and here are some ramifications: Interactive Brokers took a $88 million hit on client margin accounts on oil futures:

Several Interactive Brokers LLC (“IBLLC”) customers held long positions in these CME and ICE Europe contracts, and as a result they incurred losses in excess of the equity in their accounts. IBLLC has fulfilled the firm’s required variation margin settlements with the respective clearinghouses on behalf of its customers. As a result, the Company has recognized an aggregate provisionary loss of approximately $88 million.

Other financial institutions and/or funds were probably cleaned out on this transaction as well.

Anybody investing in the USO ETF (US Oil) is actually investing in a combination of the two front month futures contracts (retail is crazy to use this ETF as an oil instrument – if they really feel like ‘safely’ speculating on oil, better to put some money in XOM, COP, or if they insist on Canada, SU or CNQ). At the time of the May 2020 contract calamity, USO had zero exposure (they already rolled over to June), but today there was visibly obvious trading action on the charts that are classic liquidation trade signs:

Whenever you see “V” type charts, especially sharp ones that you see here, this is most likely due to a function of margin trading and customers getting cleared out en-masse – a cascade of market sell orders in the accounts with insufficient equity. Conversely if you’re bright enough to put some layered orders on the buy side (and have sufficient fortitude to not catch the absolute bottom since you have no idea when the forced selling will end) you can make huge profits in a very short period of time.

Needless to say the negative oil prices on the May 2020 contract (coupled with some rumours of Supreme Leader Kim) has increased the perception of market volatility and risk, and I have been nimble enough to reduce risk and get out of the way of any potential blowups of this magnitude. The net result of this is that a whole bunch of oil producers are going to go belly up and this will drastically reduce the supply going forward, probably at a higher rate than the decrease in demand exhibited to date.

Now my next question is: Are banks the next to drop? They are ultimately backstopped by central banks, but I deeply suspect they are in more trouble than it may seem. People looking for “safe dividends” in Canadian financial banks should be very, very cautious right now. It’s very difficult to predict how much of their lending will go belly up.

Interactive Brokers – Sports Betting

Interactive Brokers (IEX: IBKR), in terms of their competitive positioning, has always been a cut above the mainstream retail brokerages. Their advantage in technology and automation (which results in significantly reduced costs) has been whittled away over the past decade by competition (indeed, commission-free trading has enabled most retail brokerages to rip off their customers on execution slippage yet give the appearance of cheapness), but they continue to find ways to experiment with new ways of finding new markets.

One is broaching the connection between sports betting and securities trading – there are characteristics in common with both branches.

A press release on July 1st announces that IB has a sports exchange where people can trade (imaginary money) futures on sport event outcomes.

“We expect this promotion to attract customers who may be new to the Interactive Brokers platform, and who are more familiar with spectator sports than they are with the financial markets,” said Thomas Peterffy, Chairman of Interactive Brokers.

“Our intention is to teach people about the probabilistic nature of markets, trading and investing. We are illustrating this by our Simulated Sports Betting Exchange where each winning bet pays 100. A player who assesses a team’s chances to win at, say 40% may want to buy a bet at less than 40 or sell it at more than 40. As more information emerges and as the event gets under way, these odds will change and the price of the bet will begin to fluctuate, similar to the price of a stock,” Peterffy said.

“By partaking in this promotion, our players will learn about our platform, how to trade and make investments and how to keep track of their finances, all while being entertained. We are betting that many of these participants will also try our free demo brokerage account and that eventually many will become Interactive Brokers’ clients,” he added.

People that are successful in the virtual sports betting will be able to receive an IB account with up to $1,000 in commission credits (first million people to do that). They are given a virtual account of USD$1,000 in currency, and if they accumulate USD$1,000 in virtual profits they can use that to offset commissions in a future IB account.

It is a fascinating promotion, to say the least. I’d expect nothing less from IB.

I don’t do sports betting but I can easily see the connection between the two.

Interactive Brokers / IEX / Commission-Free Brokerages

Interactive Brokers has always been the leading innovator in the brokerage realm. Normally companies that last 40 years get stale and eventually break when they can’t keep up with technological or market trends, but IBKR has been surprisingly agile and has most definitely been on the leading edge of the curve the whole time – being able to develop their business (e.g. TWS giving all of its users institutional-quality levels of market access), create a moat (e.g. TWS, margin rates, trading execution, and on and on), and also have the ability to get out of businesses that no longer work for them (e.g. the disposition of their market making).

They were the first brokerage available to retail customers that offered two-factor authentication, something that makes me sleep a lot better at night. I would not recommend using any brokerage that does not use two-factor authentication for serious amounts of money.

IBKR is slowly getting into the banking and cash management side of things, which is another huge avenue for future growth. They clearly have an organic growth policy so when this policy will eventually pay out in spades is unknown, but I think they are on the right track.

Unfortunately, IBKR’s stock is only 18% publicly available – the trading entity (IBKR) only owns a slim minority (17.8%) of shares of the operating firm. Most of the stock is owned by the founder and CEO, Thomas Peterffy, who I regard as the Steve Jobs of the online trading business. He has been outspoken on many issues concerning the brokerage world and one of them is the issue of high-frequency trading and brokerages effectively ripping off their own customers.

This is one of the reasons why Interactive Brokers decided to re-list their shares on IEX instead of Nasdaq, starting in October.

In one of the typical understatements by Peterffy, he states:

We at Interactive Brokers understand that being the first listing on a new exchange may entail certain risk, but we think that individual and institutional customers who own and trade our stock will receive better execution prices and that advantage will outweigh the risk.

Peterffy has an advantage in that he doesn’t have to care whether IBKR trades in liquid amounts, and indeed doesn’t even have to care how much IBKR stock trades for since they have no need or reason to raise capital. Indeed, one of their strategic purposes for IBKR stock to trade was as a marketing vessel for institutional clients and given the statistics IBKR releases, it seems to be working quite well. It was only about a decade ago that they made the corporate decision to actually spend money on advertising. IBKR’s rise is well worth the history lesson, but I won’t go into it too deeply here.

Instead, what I want to focus on is the upcoming hype that came with Wealthsimple Canada’s announcement that they will have a commission-free stock trading platform in Canada coming soon.

The question a customer should ask is how brokerages make money.

In short order, some answers are the following (in no particular order):

a) Trading commissions
b) Interest revenues on customer credit balances
c) Foreign exchange differentials
d) Margin interest (i.e. customers borrowing money from the brokerage to invest)
e) Stock lending (if a customer buys stock, the brokerage can lend them out for short selling, which they will earn interest for the borrow)
f) Selling (or using) customer trading data
g) Selling order flow

Item (g) is what I will focus on. Firms such as Virtu (Nasdaq: VIRT) make a lot of their “bread and butter” purchasing order flow from retail firms and giving their clients less than optimal executions. As a result, while customers can save $5 or $10 on a trading commission, they are instead paying for it with a reduction in the ability to shave more money from the bid-ask spread.

After Flash Boys, people have been more conscious of this, but your average retail investor only believes the cost of trading is the commission, which is most certainly not true.

While the actual dollar amounts are inconsequential when trading with low sized accounts and the choice of brokerage has little bearing on the overall result, trading execution becomes much more critical with higher amounts of money and choosing a brokerage that makes money by offering inferior trading executions will cost customers real amounts of money, well beyond any commissions that would be saved. The more a customer anticipates trading, especially in lower liquidity securities, the more they will likely lose in inferior execution costs.

In finance and business, there is nothing that is truly “free”, and commission-free trading is most certainly included in that category.