ESIGNAL Explain Why You Charge Exchange FEES Twice????

In regards to only having to pay the exchange fees to one provider, there is a provision for Professional Subscribers to NYSE data. It's called MISU (Multiple Installation for Single Users). Perhaps that's the origin of the conflicting information.

In a nutshell, if a Pro subscriber is using multiple vendors, the firm can apply for MISU so they get a credit back from the NYSE for multiple exchange fees. The vendors report each user as they typically do and the firm/customer must apply for MISU. Here's the NYSE policy.

Most exchanges don't support a MISU policy and I've yet to see it cover non-pro subscribers in any case.

If for any reason you aren't satisfied with the response or explanation provided by eSignal Customer Service, feel free to email the Service Management team. You'll find the Customer Care link at the bottom of our standard Contact Us page. We will always do our best to explain any pricing or policy practice.

Thanks.
 
Quote from eSignal Support:

In regards to only having to pay the exchange fees to one provider, there is a provision for Professional Subscribers to NYSE data. It's called MISU (Multiple Installation for Single Users). Perhaps that's the origin of the conflicting information.

In a nutshell, if a Pro subscriber is using multiple vendors, the firm can apply for MISU so they get a credit back from the NYSE for multiple exchange fees. The vendors report each user as they typically do and the firm/customer must apply for MISU. Here's the NYSE policy.

Most exchanges don't support a MISU policy and I've yet to see it cover non-pro subscribers in any case.

If for any reason you aren't satisfied with the response or explanation provided by eSignal Customer Service, feel free to email the Service Management team. You'll find the Customer Care link at the bottom of our standard Contact Us page. We will always do our best to explain any pricing or policy practice.

Thanks.
More...

could you please answer my question above?

i dont want to visit the esignal site, as every time i do, i get esignal spyware on my machine.

thank you.
 
With market volumes increasing at over 150% in the last year and continuing, all vendors are looking for ways to cover added bandwidth, server loads, administrative costs, and technology investments.

As someone said, the exchanges generally make from 25% to 30% of their revenue from exchange fees. The CME is starting to charge delayed web sites fees now for access.

I've seen higher and lower priced vendors increasing their fees and exchange fees to help cover these increases. I'm afraid we'll all see more of this rather than less.

Chuck
 
Quote from Chuck_T:

With market volumes increasing at over 150% in the last year and continuing, all vendors are looking for ways to cover added bandwidth, server loads, administrative costs, and technology investments.

As someone said, the exchanges generally make from 25% to 30% of their revenue from exchange fees. The CME is starting to charge delayed web sites fees now for access.

I've seen higher and lower priced vendors increasing their fees and exchange fees to help cover these increases. I'm afraid we'll all see more of this rather than less.

Chuck
More...

thanks for attempting to answer chuck.

i am still a bit unclear.

although volumes are increasing, the costs of bandwidth and hardware are falling fast. so proportionally, the margins being earned by data vendors will be increasing (higher demand/customer revenues v proportionately lower costs). given the increase in demand, there will be an increase in suppliers to compete. this should in fact drive prices down, making your policy to add an extra fee to futures data self defeating. so i dont see why this justifies an additional cost for futures data.

what ever cme or other futures exchange charges for the data - real time or delayed is always passed on to the customer/end user anyhow. so i dont see why this justifies an additional cost for futures data.

i am aware of both higher and lower priced vendors than esignal also. i dont know of any vendor though that adds an additional fee for futures data (to be honest, i think i may have seen 1 or 2, but i cant remember who - so this is obviously a minority practice). so i dont see why this justifies an additional cost for futures data.

your description doesnt give any solid reason why this practice is in place. yes, you could say 'increased admin and hardware/services costs', but i dont see how delivering a data feed to the end user from the exchange requires any more admin or hardware on your part than delivering stock data. other vendors manage to do it without incurring additional costs, so why cant you?

cheers,

fred.
 
Well said!

It's always easy to hide under the umbrella of "increased costs". Such generic statements are usually used to fudge things up.

Quote from FredBloggs:

thanks for attempting to answer chuck.

i am still a bit unclear.

although volumes are increasing, the costs of bandwidth and hardware are falling fast. so proportionally, the margins being earned by data vendors will be increasing (higher demand/customer revenues v proportionately lower costs). given the increase in demand, there will be an increase in suppliers to compete. this should in fact drive prices down, making your policy to add an extra fee to futures data self defeating. so i dont see why this justifies an additional cost for futures data.

what ever cme or other futures exchange charges for the data - real time or delayed is always passed on to the customer/end user anyhow. so i dont see why this justifies an additional cost for futures data.

i am aware of both higher and lower priced vendors than esignal also. i dont know of any vendor though that adds an additional fee for futures data (to be honest, i think i may have seen 1 or 2, but i cant remember who - so this is obviously a minority practice). so i dont see why this justifies an additional cost for futures data.

your description doesnt give any solid reason why this practice is in place. yes, you could say 'increased admin and hardware/services costs', but i dont see how delivering a data feed to the end user from the exchange requires any more admin or hardware on your part than delivering stock data. other vendors manage to do it without incurring additional costs, so why cant you?

cheers,

fred.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top