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

[Jankovic]

You're confusing the contract multiplier with the minimum tick size. They're 2 different things.

They did not reduce the minimum tick for the mini Russell 2000. The minimum tick size was 0.10 and still is 0.10.

What they did was reduce the contract multiplier from $100 to $50. So, before, a single point (1.00) was worth $100, but now 1 point is worth $50.

0.10 x $100 is $10 <--- the old minimum price fluctuation
0.10 x $50 is $5 <--- the new minimum price fluctuation

This change, by the way, was a huge mistake in my opinion. Did volume double as a result? Did liquidity double? Last I checked the answer is no. That means that the only thing this change do was reduce volume and reduce liquidity... in other words, people should be getting fired and the top executives should issue an apology for being dumb-dumbs.

If 4 contracts is too risky for you, you're clearly undercapitalized for e-minis. The solution is to trade e-micros. There's lots of e-micro currency futures, there's e-micro gold, etc.

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

 

[Millionaire]

If you cant afford to trade NQ then trade QQQ instead, 100 shares is just 16K

 

[Overnight]

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...

...

Explain to me how you have $125,000 "exposure" on a single NQ contract, and how that might affect you?

 

[Overnight]

Volume went up by 50%, but not 100% as would be expected....

As an aside here, Russell still has a lot of open interest left over on ICE. Until it all clears out, you won't see full volume on CME.

https://www.theice.com/marketdata/reports/icefuturesus/DailyVolumeOI.shtml?futures=

 

[Handle123]

It's time to reduce the tick value, like the mini Russell 2000

The current price of the "mini" future contract is around 125,000 $
Five years ago the contract value was around 50,000$

The intraday price volatility is double compared to the mini SP or the miniDow

My trading strategy uses 4 contracts at time and for me it starts to be too risky

I hope the CME will consider to reduce the point value from 20$ to 10$

Learn to adapt, I had to. In the 90s' the big S&P500 was $500 a point, traded in nickels, needed $12,5k for margin and I traded 10-20 lots. Now to increase volume so those who are underfunded to come out of the woodwork they make ES at 1/10th the value of a point and increased tick size 5 times and have to trade 100/200 to be equal and fees cost more. You either learn to change or don't trade.

 

[i960]

4 different entry price....

So change it to 2 different entry prices? If your strategy is so rigid that you can't change the contract count used I don't know what to offer to solve that brain damage.

 

[southall]

As an aside here, Russell still has a lot of open interest left over on ICE. Until it all clears out, you won't see full volume on CME.

https://www.theice.com/marketdata/reports/icefuturesus/DailyVolumeOI.shtml?futures=

For the 6 months after the split the Russell 2000 futures were single listed only on the ICE.
Volume did not double after the split, was up only 60% in my estimation during that time.
If it increases when it moves over to CME exlusively, then we can assume it would have be even more liquid on CME had they kept the old multipler.

 

[SunTrader]

Some of us trader like large price moves - it keeps out trading costs down. The NQ has the lowest trade cost (0.48%) of all of the liquid CME contracts in relation to its average price range (ATR). You can always trade the RTY.

LOL keep trading costs down. A tick covers costs. A friggen tick !!!!!!!!!!!

Oh I forgot, split value it in half and then you need a whopping 2 ticks!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[southall]

LOL keep trading costs down. A tick covers costs. A friggen tick !!!!!!!!!!!
Oh I forgot, split value it in half and then you need a whopping 2 ticks!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you even trade?
If a trader does 10 trades a day, at 10 lot size = $400 a day = 100K a year in commission costs.
This is why it is essential for active traders to keep costs down.

 

[Overnight]

Do you even trade?
If a trader does 10 trades a day, at 10 lot size = $400 a day = 100K a year in commission costs.
This is why it is essential for active traders to keep costs down.

Well, put things into perspective here. If one is making 10 lot trades, assuming $4 RT per contract ($40 per position-life), then one should be making a lot more than $40 on that trade.

Just how if it was one contract, they should be making a lot more than $4 on that trade.

It all scales relative.

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.