Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
Yes starting Jan 1m 2016, and I do not want to tell what impact it has on registered professionals like us because we would need to pay $170 per exchange per FCM we get the data from. But again, only Jan 1, 2016 we would see the real impact. The above has been the info so far.
Correction: Retail will stay at 15 for all 4 exchanges, and pro going up to 85 per exchange.
Thanks,
Matt
Optimus Futures
There is a risk of loss in futures trading. Past performance is not indicative of future results.
Trading futures and options involves substantial risk of loss and is not suitable for all investors. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results. You may lose more than your initial investment. All posts are opinions and do not claim to be facts. Please conduct your own due diligence. Use only Risk capital when trading Futures.
1 800 771 6748 local 561 367 8686 email [email protected]
This is not helped by most brokers only bothering to offer the $5/$15 CME fee option, even though CME have a pricing option for top of book only at $1/$3.
I only use top of book, and even though it is small $, I detest paying more money to CME (a big greedy corporate) than I have to simply because my broker (AMP) has not got round to implementing the top of book option.
I see from a post a few back that OEC has, but I am not aware of any other brokers who offer the top of book option.
Given the CME fees are going up (based on your post) I sure hope some other brokers get round to offering top of book CME data/fees.
To make money on their data, and eliminate the freeloaders would be my guess.
Too many people view trading like a video game. And the professionals that trade for a living frankly don't care too much about a few dollars per month.
If your profession involved driving a lot, and your gas expenses were 1% and are going to double to 2%, it sucks, but in the grand scheme of things it means close to nothing.
And you want the gas company to do well, not go out of business -- after all, if there was no gas then your entire business would collapse.
@steve2222Its the data feed vendor that implements top of book and the platform provider, not the broker.
Call your platform provider and ask them to implement it via your broker/FCM.
I would GLADLY implement top of book if possible and the data feed vendors offers it.
For example: CQG always had top of book, but only on their native platforms.
Others platforms, if they use CQG, need to accommodate that.
Matt
Optimus Futures
There is a risk of loss in futures trading. Past performance is not indicative of future results.
Trading futures and options involves substantial risk of loss and is not suitable for all investors. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results. You may lose more than your initial investment. All posts are opinions and do not claim to be facts. Please conduct your own due diligence. Use only Risk capital when trading Futures.
1 800 771 6748 local 561 367 8686 email [email protected]
I would approach it from a different angle. I am not going to call anyone a freeloader, because the system has been set up in such a way where anyone with a brokerage account can get market data. So if someone wants to waste his time, stare at the screen all day, and in essence do nothing, it's their right.
However, its the exchange who fails to realize that they are taxing those who trade and/or promote the industry in one way or another. If someone trades just a small amount of 10 ES RTs a month, they already pay the CME 23 dollars, so why tax them another $15 which is the same as a perpetual paper trader who does no trades? So the policy of applying the same amount to traders and non traders is idiotic. The cost of technology should be $1 to traders and $14 to non traders. If there is trend of rising technology costs, dissemination of data, and/or other costs it should be distributed in a fair manner among the players. Again, its brokers and FCM who get hurt the most from this, because pro fees are just insane.
By the way, Brokers do care about the rising costs and the impact it has on traders .
Your truly, got on an airplane, set with the market data billing department of the CME, and addressed this discrimination. It was in the hope that someone at the top will get it. At least I can say I did something besides complaining on a forum.
Matt
Optimus Futures
There is a risk of loss in futures trading. Past performance is not indicative of future results.
Trading futures and options involves substantial risk of loss and is not suitable for all investors. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results. You may lose more than your initial investment. All posts are opinions and do not claim to be facts. Please conduct your own due diligence. Use only Risk capital when trading Futures.
1 800 771 6748 local 561 367 8686 email [email protected]
@mattz, isn't the broker capable of discounting the CME fee to its clients, if it wanted to? For example, to incentivise people to trade and cover the fee through broker commissions?
Naturally, the amount the broker makes isn't the same as CME, but could still implement what you described