CME: The Mini Nasdaq is not so mini...!!

[southall]

Suntrader is correct. Even at $5 per tick, each contract's total expenses should be covered with 1 tick profit unless you have a really expensive broker.

You and Suntrader are only thinking about profits.

What about the losing trades?

Winning trades have to cover all your losing trades + all slippage (on both losing and winning trades) + all commissions (on both losing and winning trades).

Anything left over is your net profit.

 

[Overnight]

You and Suntrader are only thinking about profits.

What about the losing trades?

Winning trades have to cover all your losing trades + all slippage (on both losing and winning trades) + all commissions (on both losing and winning trades).

Anything left over is your net profit.

Well, for sure. But I reckon' that the general idea is the "cost of doing business" on each trade. I guess Sun was speaking about how in a winning trade the one tick would cover the trading expense. On a losing trade the "cost of doing business" would add to the loss. But it is still the same on either side.

Whether winning or losing, you have a single tick subtracting from your win/loss in cost, per contract.

 

[chris500]

I am not confusing nothing
In short, the Mini Nasdaq has become too big.
ICE did the right thing to split the contract value of the RTY (TF) to half value
CME has to take the same decision, period

Your "solution" to trade micros is offensive to my intelligence and to your intelligence...

As regards the DAX....well there's the mini Dax that is 5 times smaller

If you cut the multiplier in half, you also cut your profits in half.

It's as easy as that.

Let's say right now your average profit per day trading 1 contract is $500. After the change, you need to trade 2 contracts to make the same $500.... but now of course you're paying fees/commissions for 2 contracts, reducing your profit. And if the liquidity doesn't double, you're also reducing your profit because of added slippage costs.

What kind of trader wants to cut his profit in half? Certainly, not a profitable one.

But, a losing trader sure wouldn't mind cutting his losses in half. Are you a losing trader?

 

[Overnight]

If you cut the multiplier in half, you also cut your profits in half.

It's as easy as that.

Let's say right now your average profit per day trading 1 contract is $500. After the change, you need to trade 2 contracts to make the same $500.... but now of course you're paying fees/commissions for 2 contracts, reducing your profit. And if the liquidity doesn't double, you're also reducing your profit because of added slippage costs.

What kind of trader wants to cut his profit in half? Certainly, not a profitable one.

But, a losing trader sure wouldn't mind cutting his losses in half. Are you a losing trader?

You're out of your corn-fed mind.

Trade old CME TF at $10 per tick per contract. Make 10 ticks, make 100 bux on a single contract.

Trade new CME RTY and make $5 per tick per contract. Make 10 ticks, make 50 bux on a single contract.

Did the costs for trading RTY double over the old TF?

I think they did not. Correct me if I am wrong.

You guys are so caught up in the costs of trading contracts that I wonder who else here really trades. Why does this matter to people, unless they are doing hundreds of thousands of contracts per month? Geez, what is the big deal?

 

[chris500]

You're out of your corn-fed mind.

Trade old CME TF at $10 per tick per contract. Make 10 ticks, make 100 bux on a single contract.

Trade new CME RTY and make $5 per tick per contract. Make 10 ticks, make 50 bux on a single contract.

Did the costs for trading RTY double over the old TF?

I think they did not. Correct me if I am wrong.

You guys are so caught up in the costs of trading contracts that I wonder who else here really trades. Why does this matter to people, unless they are doing hundreds of thousands of contracts per month? Geez, what is the big deal?

In your example, you've cut your *profit* in half. Why would you want to do that?

Before, you had $100 in your pocket.
But now, you have $50 in your pocket.

You want less money in your pocket??

 

[Overnight]

In your example, you've cut your *profit* in half. Why would you want to do that?

Before, you had $100 in your pocket.
But now, you have $50 in your pocket.

You want less money in your pocket??

How does the contact splitting in half equal a doubling in cost in trading it? I don't get it.

I am an injit. Remember, we are talking about cost to trade here.

I trade the old CME TF, it gives me $100 on a single contract. Minus trade fee, I am out 5 bux.

I trade the new CME RTY, it gives me $50 on a single contract. Minus trade fee, I am out 5 bux.

The fee has not changed, just the profit per tick.

So now you have to trade 2 contracts to make the same profit per tick. How the hell does having to pay double the single contract fee = losing half the profit? I don't get that math.

 

[chris500]

How does the contact splitting in half equal a doubling in cost in trading it? I don't get it.

I am an injit. Remember, we are talking about cost to trade here.

I trade the old CME TF, it gives me $100 on a single contract. Minus trade fee, I am out 5 bux.

I trade the new CME RTY, it gives me $50 on a single contract. Minus trade fee, I am out 5 bux.

The fee has not changed, just the profit per tick.

So now you have to trade 2 contracts to make the same profit per tick. How the hell does having to pay double the single contract fee = losing half the profit? I don't get that math.

I'm not talking about costs. You're talking about costs.

I'm talking about profits.

If you continue to trade 1 contract, you've cut your profit in half.
You need to double the amount of contracts you trade to maintain your profit.

But now that you've doubled the number contracts, you actually do increase the fees you pay to the exchange, the NFA and the broker. And, unless the liquidity doubles, you will also have increased slippage costs.

So, the winners are:

The exchange (they double their fees)
The NFA (they double their fees)
The Broker/FCM (they double their fees)
TT/CQG/Rithmic/etc (they double their fees, assuming you pay a per side platform fee)

The losers:

The trader

 

[algofy]

I'm not talking about costs. You're talking about costs.

I'm talking about profits.

If you continue to trade 1 contract, you've cut your profit in half.
You need to double the amount of contracts you trade to maintain your profit.

But now that you've doubled the number contracts, you actually do increase the fees you pay to the exchange, the NFA and the broker. And, unless the liquidity doubles, you will also have increased slippage costs.

So, the winners are:

The exchange (they double their fees)
The NFA (they double their fees)
The Broker/FCM (they double their fees)
TT/CQG/Rithmic/etc (they double their fees, assuming you pay a per side platform fee)

The losers:

The trader

Hate to admit it here ON but he's right on this one.

 

[southall]

As well as increased fees after a split, which is bad enough, there is also the issue of reduced liquidity:

If market depth and volume does not double, then all traders will have to pay more in the way of slippage/skid during fast market moves compared to before the split.

 

[Jankovic]

If you cut the multiplier in half, you also cut your profits in half.

It's as easy as that.

Let's say right now your average profit per day trading 1 contract is $500. After the change, you need to trade 2 contracts to make the same $500.... but now of course you're paying fees/commissions for 2 contracts, reducing your profit. And if the liquidity doesn't double, you're also reducing your profit because of added slippage costs.

What kind of trader wants to cut his profit in half? Certainly, not a profitable one.

But, a losing trader sure wouldn't mind cutting his losses in half. Are you a losing trader?

My strategy needs four contract at time.
My strategy should work very well with 6 contracts, but not with 3 contracts
Tha fact that I do not use 6 contract depends from the contract value
When the NQ was at 2,000 I used 8 contracts and was comfortable for me

So the value of the actual contract starts to be too big. That's all.
I prefer to use more contracts paying more commission, but with a strategy that works
If the NQ goes above 7,000 I have to change instrument or change my strategy

I am start to be very unconfortable due to this thing
Hope CME will consider this instance that is quite logic