Market makers role
The role of the market maker is to make sure there is a bid and ask on a particular stock.  That's it.  The market maker ensures that there is a price at which you can buy and a price at which you can sell immediately, but these are not necessarily the best prices.  The majority of trades do not involve market makers and occur between two third parties. Whoever said a market order trades with the market maker is thinking of the way stock markets were years ago, not the way they are now. Market orders are supposed to execute immediately and at one time trading with the market makers was the method for executing immediately. If you issue a market order today, it executes with the best available limit order(s) on the other wide of the trade.  This may or may not involve a party that identifies as a market maker.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/tesla-no-longer-biggest-us-car-company-by-market-cap-as-stock-plunges-after-safety-distinction-eludes-model-s-2017-07-06) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Tesla Inc.&amp;#039;s stock plunged into bear market territory Thursday before bouncing slightly, after an independent highway-safety organization said the electric-car maker&amp;#039;s flagship Model S failed to qualify for any top safety award.  &gt; The stock&amp;#039;s TSLA, -5.58% selloff knocked Tesla from its perch as No. 1 U.S. car maker by market cap, a distinction the Silicon Valley company maintained for some three months.  &gt; Tesla&amp;#039;s stock has lost about $7.18 billion in market cap the past two sessions.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6lq6y2/tesla_no_longer_biggest_us_car_company_by_market/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~161131 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **Model**^#1 **Tesla**^#2 **safety**^#3 **rated**^#4 **stock**^#5" I don't know why a financial investor or a retail trader would do this. But I can guess why a market maker in options would do this. Let us say you buy an option from an option market maker and the market maker sold the option to you. He made a small profit in the bid-ask spread but now he is holding a short position in the option with unlimited risk exposure. So to protect himself, he will take an offsetting position in the underlying and become delta neutral, so that his position is not affected by the moves in the underlying. In the end, he can do this because he is not in the market to make money by betting on direction, unlike the rest of us poor mortals. He is making money from the bid-ask spread. So to ensure that his profits are not eroded by an adverse move in the underlying, he will continuously seek to be delta neutral. But once again, this is for a market maker. For market takers like us, I still don't understand why we would need to delta hedge. Oh that ought to do it.  Gaming systems not using DirectX? Better make our own game system.  Windows Phone sucks? Phone makers just aren't using it right. Better make our own phone.  Every market they enter, they create a loss leader and try to push out the competition. Well I think consumers are onto this. Windows Phone sucks. Android and IOS will continue to lead the market. Market Makers are essentially just there to process the buys and sells of traders, so just like you and I buy and sell at the ask and bid prices they do to. They are just completing the process of making our orders a reality. Market makers are just representative of brokers, meaning that when you place your order at ask or bid, you are placing that particular brokers order at ask or bid. People often say that certain brokers have too many shares and claim that they are games when really that just means that there happen to be a lot of people using a particular broker all at once, or more troubling, perhaps even company execs using a broker, to sell a large amount of shares. "This is a complicated subject, because professional traders don't rely on brokers for stock quotes.  They have access to market data using Level II terminals, which show them all of the prices (buy and sell) for a given stock.   Every publicly traded stock (at least in the U.S.) relies on firms called ""market makers"".  Market makers are the ones who ultimately actually buy and sell the shares of companies, making their money on the difference between what they bought the stock at and what they can sell it for.  Sometimes those margins can be in hundreds of a cent per share, but if you trade enough shares...well, it adds up. The most widely traded stocks (Apple, Microsoft, BP, etc) may have hundreds of market makers who are willing to handle share trades.  Each market maker sets their own price on what they'll pay (the ""bid"") to buy someone's stock who wants to sell and what they'll sell (the ""ask"") that share for to someone who wants to buy it.   When a market maker wants to be competitive, he may price his bid/ask pretty aggressively, because automated trading systems are designed to seek out the best bid/ask prices for their trade executions.  As such, you might get a huge chunk of market makers in a popular stock to all set their prices almost identically to one another.  Other market makers who aren't as enthusiastic will set less competitive prices, so they don't get much (maybe no) business.  In any case, what you see when you pull up a stock quote is called the ""best bid/ask"" price.  In other words, you're seeing the highest price a market maker will pay to buy that stock, and the lowest price that a market maker will sell that stock.  You may get a best bid from one market maker and a best ask from a different one.  In any case, consumers must be given best bid/ask prices. Market makers actually control the prices of shares.  They can see what's out there in terms of what people want to buy or sell, and they modify their prices accordingly.  If they see a bunch of sell orders coming into the system, they'll start dropping prices, and if people are in a buying mood then they'll raise prices. Market makers can actually ignore requests for trades (whether buy or sell) if they choose to, and sometimes they do, which is why a limit order (a request to buy/sell a stock at a specific price, regardless of its current actual price) that someone places may go unfilled and die at the end of the trading session.  No market maker is willing to fill the order. Nowadays, these systems are largely automated, so they operate according to complex rules defined by their owners.  Very few trades actually involve human intervention, because people can't digest the information at a fast enough pace to keep up with automated platforms. So that's the basics of how share prices work.  I hope this answered your question without being too confusing! Good luck!" The stock market exists for two reasons. It lets companies raise money to invest, and it lets company owners cash out and get money instead of part-ownership of a company when they are ready to do so. But to accomplish these goals effectively, it needs many more transactions than just those kinds of transaction, because you have to be able to find a buyer when you need one and to have a market price. So there are also a lot of transactions that are just to try to make short-term profit. But we need those transactions to provide the market liquidity to let the stock market work properly for its actual purposes. "That article, like almost any article written by a non-expert and quoting only ""research"" from lobbying groups, hugely misses the point. The vast majority of orders that end up being cancelled are cancelled as a standard part of exchanges' official market-maker programs. Each exchange wants you and me to know that it has liquidity -- that when we go to buy or sell some stock, there will be someone waiting on the other side of the trade.  So the exchange pays (via lowered fees or even rebates) hundreds of registered market makers to constantly have orders resting in each product's order book within a few ticks of the current NBBO or the last trade price.  That way, if everyone else should suddenly disappear from the market, you and I will still be able to trade our shares for a price somewhat close to the last trade price. But market makers who are simply acting in this ""backstop"" role don't actually want to have their orders filled, because those orders will almost always lose them money. So as prices rise and fall (as much as tens of times per second), the market makers need to cancel their resting orders (so they don't get filled) and add new ones at new prices (so they meet their obligations to the exchange).  And because the number of orders resting in any given product's order book is vastly larger than the number of actual trades that take place in any given time period, naturally the number of cancellations is also going to hugely outweigh the number of actual trades.  As much as 97% to 3% (or even more). But that's completely fine! You and I don't have to care about any of that.  We almost never need the market makers to be there to trade with us.  They're only there as a backstop.  There's almost always plenty of organic liquidity for us to trade against.  Only in the rare case where liquidity completely dries up do we really care that the registered market makers are there.  And in those cases (ideally) the market makers can't cancel their orders (depending on how well the exchange has set up its market maker program). So, to answer your question, the effect of standard order cancellation on a stock is essentially none.  If you were to visualize the resting orders in a product's book as prices moved up and down, you would essentially see a Gaussian distribution with mean at the last trade price, and it would move up and down with the price.  That ""movement"" is accomplished by cancellations followed by new orders. P.S. As always, keep in mind that your and my orders almost never actually make it to a real stock exchange anymore.  Nowadays they are almost always sent to brokers' and big banks' internal dark pools.  And in there you and I have no idea what shenanigans are going on.  As just one example, dark pools allow their operators and (for a fee) other institutional participants access to a feature called last look that allows them to cancel their resting order as late as after your order has been matched against it! :( Regarding the question in your comment ... If Alice is sending only bona fide orders (that is, only placing an order at time T if, given all the information she has at time T, she truly wants and intends for it to be filled) then her cancellation at a later time actually adds to the effectiveness of and public perception of the market as a tool for price discovery (which is its ultimate purpose). [In the following example imagine that there are no such things as trading fees or commissions or taxes.] Let's say Alice offers to buy AAPL at $99.99 when the rest of the market is trading it for $100.00.  By doing so she is casting her vote that the ""fair value"" of a share of AAPL is between $99.99 and $100.00. After all, if she thought the fair value of a share of AAPL was higher --  say, between $100.00 and $100.01 -- then she should be willing to pay $100.00 (because that's below fair value) and she should expect that other people in the market will not soon decide to sell to her at $99.99. If some time later Alice does decide that the fair value of AAPL is between $100.00 and $100.01 then she should definitely cancel her order at $99.99, for exactly the reason discussed above.  She probably won't get filled at $99.99, and by sitting there stubbornly she's missing out (potentially forever) on the possibility to make a profit. Through the simple act of cancelling her $99.99 order, Alice is once again casting a vote that she no longer thinks that's AAPL's fair value.  She is (very slightly) altering the collective opinion of the entire market as to what a share of AAPL is worth.  And if her cancellation then frees her up to place another order closer to her perceived fair value (say, at $100.00), then that's another vote for her honest optinion about AAPL's price. Since the whole goal of the market is to get a bunch of particpants to figure out the fair value of some financial instrument (or commodity, or smart phone, or advertising time, etc.), cancellations of honest votes from the past in order to replace them with new, better-informed honest votes in the present can only be a good thing for the market's effectiveness and perceived effectiveness. It's only when participants start sending non-honest votes (non bona fide orders) that things start to go off the rails.  That's what @DumbCoder was referring to in his comment on your original question." If real investors are leaving the marketplace, and only gamblers are left, then it is no longer an investment platform.  The market was designed, and allowed by our people &amp; govt, to be an investment platform for effective resource allocation.  A Gambling engine is not an effective resource allocation mechanism.