I tend to agree that the value of a company doesn&#x27;t actually change substantially from one second to the next. But to focus on that is to ignore the value of having liquidity available. For an example of what can happen when there isn&#x27;t enough liquidity, take a look at the graph of RSP on the morning of August 24th.<p>For a more detailed description of the mechanics and motivation behind market making, I recommend &quot;A High Frequency Trader&#x27;s Apology&quot;: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.chrisstucchio.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;2012&#x2F;hft_apology.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.chrisstucchio.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;2012&#x2F;hft_apology.html</a><p>If traders, be they high-frequency or otherwise, can&#x27;t make money by making liquidity available, they won&#x27;t do it. Less liquidity means wider spreads, which means higher costs especially for smaller transactions (i.e. individual investors).<p>You could reasonably argue that HFT has caused expenses to increase for large investors who need to buy or sell large volumes of shares. But to the extent that is true, it is like saying that large investors used to get on average an unreasonably good deal at the expense of their counter parties. As in any free market, an especially good price for one party is by definition an especially bad price for the other party.