I know it can be ambiguous at times, but people need to understand there are

• data providers (eg CQG, Continuum, Rithmic, TT)
• software providers (eg CQG, TT, Ninja, Sierra Chart, Brokers proprietary front ends)
• Introducing brokers (eg Ninja, Edge etc)
• FCMs (eg Phillips) and
• Exchanges (eg CME & ICE).

A problem in any one of those categories can but not always effect the other categories, but that doesn't mean the others are responsible. For example if the CME matching engine goes down, everybody in every category is effected. It doesn't matter who your broker, data provider or software provider is. Even within these categories, things can happen that only effect a subset of people. A data provider may lose connectivity from a provider that impacts say their Hong Kong data center. In that case only people dependent upon that data center might be effected. Blanket statements about your broker often misses the issue at hand.

The Phliips issue was an (FCM) clearing issue. Hence it effected clients of Phillips and their IBs such as Ninja. I suspect but do not know for sure, that all customers, regardless of software, data, order routing were effected.
The TT issue was a CME order routing issue, and hence effects anybody using software that uses TT for routing CME orders no matter who your broker was. Orders for other exchanges were unaffected.
The CQG issue again appears to be an order routing issue, and hence probably effects anybody using software that uses CGQ for routing CME orders no matter who your broker is.

Hence while the end result may be the same, the cause, and hence the responsible party, can be very different.

Thanks for the details. So, CQG does Order routing – is it standard for all brokers to use some routing engine or some brokers does directly to the exchange? Do you know whether Thinkorswim or Tradovate or any broker routes directly to the exchange or they go thru some providers like CQG always?

SMCJB 

I know it can be ambiguous at times, but people need to understand there are data providers (eg CQG, Continuum, Rithmic, TT) software providers (eg CQG, TT, Ninja, Sierra Chart, Brokers proprietary front ends) Introducing brokers (eg Ninja, Edge etc) FCMs (eg Phillips) and Exchanges (eg CME & ICE). A problem in any one of those categories can but not always effect the other categories, but that doesn't mean the others are responsible. For example if the CME matching engine goes down, everybody in every category is effected. It doesn't matter who your broker, data provider or software provider is. Even within these categories, things can happen that only effect a subset of people. A data provider may lose connectivity from a provider that impacts say their Hong Kong data center. In that case only people dependent upon that data center might be effected. Blanket statements about your broker often misses the issue at hand. The Phliips issue was an (FCM) clearing issue. Hence it effected clients of Phillips and their IBs such as Ninja. I suspect but do not know for sure, that all customers, regardless of software, data, order routing were effected. The TT issue was a CME order routing issue, and hence effects anybody using software that uses TT for routing CME orders no matter who your broker was. Orders for other exchanges were unaffected. The CQG issue again appears to be an order routing issue, and hence probably effects anybody using software that uses CGQ for routing CME orders no matter who your broker is. Hence while the end result may be the same, the cause, and hence the responsible party, can be very different.

I received emails about the CQG issue from AMP, where I have an account. They just sent out the following:

Quoting 

CQG - Order Routing Problems - Resolved CQG says their Order Routing issues is Resolved - now working. What this means: If you see Open Position on your trading platform, you CAN assume this was NOT affected CQG issue today and you can manage it as you desire. We are continuing to maintain 100% Exchange margin requirements until fully resolved. We will continue to provide you updates as they develop.

I did not trade or have any open positions in this account so I was not affected. But it's a very good reminder to have at least one backup account.

larrynq 

Thanks for the details. So, CQG does Order routing – is it standard for all brokers to use some routing engine or some brokers does directly to the exchange? Do you know whether Thinkorswim or Tradovate or any broker routes directly to the exchange or they go thru some providers like CQG always?

The reason I used ambiguous in my previous reply is that some companies provide multiple services. CQG (and TT) are both data providers, order routers and also have their own software, but they also provide data services and order routing, and even software as a commercial service to others (for example Tradestations Futures+ software is just a white labeled reduced functionality version of the TT software).

A perfect example of what I am saying is (edit) this thread. Ninja's issue was caused by a Phillips back end issue, not anything to do with NT. Also (/edit) many AMP Sierra Chart users seemed to have a problem a few weeks back, but the real cause was TT's order routing, not AMP or Sierra Chart! Hence as @bobwest said, saying saying "My broker XYZ sucks because I can't cancel my order" doesn't really help. We really need to know who your broker is, what software you are using, and who the data provider/order router is. They are probably 3 different people and only 1 of the 3 is to blame!

Note that an extension of this is that it should also be noted that the data provider/order router can vary by broker and software!

Hi Everyone,

We wanted to provide an update on the CQG server issue on Tuesday, March 16th, which interrupted their order routing system.

The technical issue has since been resolved however orders and positions for a limited number of clients were impacted. Included below is the latest information we have as of 10:30 PM CT on Tuesday, March 16th:

• Positions should reflect accurately in the trading platform following Phillip Capital’s March 16th statement run later this evening. If you see a discrepancy or do not recognize a position, do not take any action on the position. Alternatively, please email us at [email protected].
  
• If you have a “stuck” order in your trading platform and are unable to cancel, please email us at [email protected] with the applicable details (buy or sell, # of contracts, etc). As a reminder, never take any action on orders or positions you feel may be incorrect.

To verify any questions you may have regarding an order status or position discrepancies, please submit your inquiry and the applicable details to [email protected]. This will allow for the most efficient processing and a timely resolution.

Thanks for your patience as this issue is resolved.

Thank you,
NinjaTrader Brokerage

Thanks a lot. This is very helpful and one final question – Do you know any broker/ charting where they are less dependent on 3rd party providers? Or is there a place to find out by broker and what 3rd party firms they use? Lately I’ve been affected by too many issues and trying to understand if there is any platform/Charting software out there where it is fully integrated or less dependent where they provide data and routing directly. Thanks again for detailed response

SMCJB 

The reason I used ambiguous in my previous reply is that some companies provide multiple services. CQG (and TT) are both data providers, order routers and also have their own software, but they also provide data services and order routing, and even software as a commercial service to others (for example Tradestations Futures+ software is just a white labeled reduced functionality version of the TT software). A perfect example of what I am saying is (edit) this thread. Ninja's issue was caused by a Phillips back end issue, not anything to do with NT. Also (/edit) many AMP Sierra Chart users seemed to have a problem a few weeks back, but the real cause was TT's order routing, not AMP or Sierra Chart! Hence as @bobwest said, saying saying "My broker XYZ sucks because I can't cancel my order" doesn't really help. We really need to know who your broker is, what software you are using, and who the data provider/order router is. They are probably 3 different people and only 1 of the 3 is to blame! Note that an extension of this is that it should also be noted that the data provider/order router can vary by broker and software!

SMCJB 

I know it can be ambiguous at times, but people need to understand there are data providers (eg CQG, Continuum, Rithmic, TT) software providers (eg CQG, TT, Ninja, Sierra Chart, Brokers proprietary front ends) Introducing brokers (eg Ninja, Edge etc) FCMs (eg Phillips) and Exchanges (eg CME & ICE). A problem in any one of those categories can but not always effect the other categories, but that doesn't mean the others are responsible. For example if the CME matching engine goes down, everybody in every category is effected. It doesn't matter who your broker, data provider or software provider is. Even within these categories, things can happen that only effect a subset of people. A data provider may lose connectivity from a provider that impacts say their Hong Kong data center. In that case only people dependent upon that data center might be effected. Blanket statements about your broker often misses the issue at hand. The Phliips issue was an (FCM) clearing issue. Hence it effected clients of Phillips and their IBs such as Ninja. I suspect but do not know for sure, that all customers, regardless of software, data, order routing were effected. The TT issue was a CME order routing issue, and hence effects anybody using software that uses TT for routing CME orders no matter who your broker was. Orders for other exchanges were unaffected. The CQG issue again appears to be an order routing issue, and hence probably effects anybody using software that uses CGQ for routing CME orders no matter who your broker is. Hence while the end result may be the same, the cause, and hence the responsible party, can be very different.

Thank you very much SMCJB.

What SMCJB are providing here is a very good, clear and precise explanation of the infrastructure of the futures trading set-up, and it is important for everybody to be aware of that.

Of course many will and correctly turn to their broker (Introduction Broker - IB) as many will see the IB as the central spot, but still it important to bear the infrastructure in mind.

Regarding the CQG problem yesterday I did not having any problem, but this might be due to that I am trading out of Europe and hence trough CQG Europe server which might just prove SMCJB point that even if the data provider (in this case) CQG has problem it might not be with all servers ( not all data providers has placed servers global)

In other messages it is quoted from CQG that they went on Exchange required margins for all trades, (this was communicated in the forum late yesterday evening US time) - As of writing this approx. 9:30 AM European time I am able to trade on the normal CQG intraday trading margins, but CQG might overnight have issued more information that I am not aware of as of writing.

For the sake of clarification I am trading on Sierra Chart platform and using Trade Future 4 Less as IB and FCM is Dorman.

Investigating the CQG problem mentioned here in the forum I checked Sierra Charts Support Forum and it appears that Sierra Charts are aware of many CQG issues, please see:

https://www.sierrachart.com/SupportBoard.php?ThreadID=46231

larrynq 

Do you know any broker/ charting where they are less dependent on 3rd party providers? Or is there a place to find out by broker and what 3rd party firms they use?

Everybody is dependent upon somebody for data! In the old XTrader TT model, FCM's had their own data gateways, so in that sense they were dependent upon themselves for data. I believe most brokers have multiple platform and multiple data providers. Not sure there is a universal list.

TraderMich 

In other messages it is quoted from CQG that they went on Exchange required margins for all trades, (this was communicated in the forum late yesterday evening US time) - As of writing this approx. 9:30 AM European time I am able to trade on the normal CQG intraday trading margins, but CQG might overnight have issued more information that I am not aware of as of writing. For the sake of clarification I am trading on Sierra Chart platform and using Trade Future 4 Less as IB and FCM is Dorman.

CQG are a data and software provider they are not a broker or FCM. Hence CQG do not set margin requirements. While the messaging may be coming to you through CQG in this case the margin requirement is being set by 'Trade Future 4 Less' or more likely Dorman. Somebody else using CQG through different brokers will have different margin requirements.

SMCJB 

Everybody is dependent upon somebody for data! In the old XTrader TT model, FCM's had their own data gateways, so in that sense they were dependent upon themselves for data. I believe most brokers have multiple platform and multiple data providers. Not sure there is a universal list. CQG are a data and software provider they are not a broker or FCM. Hence CQG do not set margin requirements. While the messaging may be coming to you through CQG in this case the margin requirement is being set by 'Trade Future 4 Less' or more likely Dorman. Somebody else using CQG through different brokers will have different margin requirements.

Appreciate you comment SMCJB, but CQG are setting the margins - Please refer to the Sierra Charts link from this it can also be seen - SC is pointing out CQG mistage in risk calculations based on margins.

TraderMich 

Appreciate you comment SMCJB, but CQG are setting the margins - Please refer to the Sierra Charts link from this it can also be seen - SC is pointing out CQG mistage in risk calculations based on margins.

The software performs the margin calculation (as discussed in the Sierra Chart Thread, Post 10) but Exchanges and Brokers set the margin rates, not software or data providers. So the calculation could be wrong, but CQG are not setting the margin rates. Also the issue of Software charging two margins for Bracket Orders is a long standing problem and is not specific to CQG.