It's my understanding that you are only getting paid because the rolldown on the future is in your favour (contango or backwardation). But you are always paying 2.5% over and above what the future is.
So if the rolldown is 10% in your favour on a long futures position, then if you are long you will be earning 7.5% and if you are short you will be paying 12.5%.
Well I'm not day trading, so the break even for me would be much higher. Of course it's true that with a large enough expected profit there will be a point when the tax advantages outweigh the costs.
But I have fairly conservative profit expectations - conservative because I'm definitely going to be paying those trading costs regardless of my profits - and I'd probably be looking at a very large account before it would at least theoretically make sense to spreadbet.
And there are other issues with spreadbetting firms, like counterparty risk and the fact they can play games with quotes - for example you are likely to be paying a significantly wider spread if youre doing the size required for the tax advantages to make snse. Plus they don't offer the same range of products as someone like IB.
I am willing to concede that I'm biased in favour of futures, and as I've said spreadbets will make sense for some people (as long as they aware of the risks and costs). But not me.
GAT
Thanx again.
I think with stocks and low volume stocks for sure, as you move higher in pound per point the spread gets wider and as you said they can do what they want.
But I know for a fact stuff like Nasdaq cash futures/Dow etc you could do £100 a point and still get the same price/spread as someone doing £2 a point. I am not sure if £100 would be classed as too small for you, but for most it's a very big position. (£100 for those that don't know is worth 1.1 million + on the Nasdaq 100)
Anyone with a decent system in place doing £100 a point daily I am sure will be very well off to say the least.