It seems ridiculously patronizing to try to lock people that aren’t already rich out of legitimate investment opportunities while other types of gambling like lotteries remain perfectly legal.

Well "ridiculously patronizing" is a way to see laws. People can always look after themselves.

Another way to look at laws is that they protect the public from the predatory forces that we can't seem to just outlaw outright. Because PACs get in the way of legislation for the public good.

I'm sure there's some other way to look at it but I've already found at least one I agree with.

I’m not arguing all laws are patronizing. Some things have potential harms that are hidden, I think fda and food safety regulations are good ideas. Some things require specific knowledge to do safely, like driving a car.

But regulating something where the sole requirement to access it is to just have more money, is ridiculous. If trading options is so dangerous, requiring a license might make sense. Requiring that you just be rich to do it makes no sense.

There are a number of types of investment for which you need to be qualified. VC funds generally require a minimum net worth before you can invest. And the rationale is the same: they are both investments in which it's possible to lose a lot of money before you make any. Discouraging people who would be greatly affected by several losses in a row has some merit.

The accredited investor rule is the very worst example of this. It has no merit at all, it’s just gatekeeping for the sake of it.

Someone with low funds might be qualified to understand investment. They just don't have the means.

It's specifically around pattern day trading. It's relatively high-volume trading in a low-balance margin account. This isn't what "legitimate investment opportunities look like."

I guess, on average, it made these people poorer. But yes it's kind of government baby-sitting its citizens.

What? You have a much higher chance of making money buying a stock than you do of winning the lottery.

If you’re talking about “Most of the time”, most of the time you will lose the lottery, but make money on buying a stock, on average at the overall rate of return of the market as a whole.

You don't get a market return from day trading. The only way you can make money off of day trading is by providing liquidity and the amount of liquidity needed in a market is limited by volume. It's easy for commercial investors to push out retail traders because they can provide more liquidity.

Retail investors (aka people buying stocks as investment) are unaffected by that limit.

> You don't get a market return from day trading. The only way you can make money off of day trading is by providing liquidity and the amount of liquidity needed in a market is limited by volume.

This isn't true in the slightest. Market makes might favor liquidity providing strategies but the vast majority of day traders do not. Retail day traders are trading lower volumes and do not move markets. They are much more advantaged in this respect (although they typically lack the informational edge of pros).

> It's easy for commercial investors to push out retail traders because they can provide more liquidity.

This just also isn't true at all. Everything has a price, including liquidity and as a perfectly fungible good, it doesn't matter who the seller is. Exchanges operate on price-time priority so if you provide liquidity at a better price, or before someone else, then it doesn't matter how big you are or how much you provide (within the context of vanilla ETPs relevant to day trading).

> I'm not a fan of lotteries either but when someone plays a lottery, they have fair odds of winning.

You do realize that lotteries have negative expected value right? That means that the net losses of losers exceed the net gains of winners...it's the epitome of unfair.

> With trading, most of the time, they will lose and someone with millions in the bank will win.

This just sounds like someone with an anti Wall Street chip on their shoulder. In most industries, the "winners" have millions in the bank...that's how they got the millions.

For every $1 spent on state lotteries, only about $0.65 is paid out as prizes [0]. Contrast that with something like roulette, which isnt particularly high EV for a casino game. It pays out about $0.95 for every $1 wagered.

[0] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-percentage-of-stat...

It's already applicable for Options Trading.

Not sure what you're talking about.

There is no restriction on being able to trade options with less than 25k in an account.

They mean that all the pattern day trading rules apply to options just the same as stocks, i.e. you cannot be an options day trader with less than 25k in the account.

The comment they replied to doesn't imply that it doesn't apply to options, it's clear they're saying restrictions will be added to options plays.

My apologies for the very limited words that I'd used earlier.

I'd indeed meant that the pattern day trade restrictions of USD 25k also applies to Options Traders who seek to day-trade Options in the U.S.

This was just my observation/information-sharing, and not a disagreement with anyone.

Bullshit rule that only serves to help market makers.