How is Interactive Brokers Cheaper?

Quote from Humpy:

Across the pond most traders use spread bet brokers even for US futures.

Simple figures = simple calculations

Probably cheaper too


you have never used a spread broker.
 
Quote from TraDaToR:

ECN are applying rebates to get more liquidity providers and thus mure volume on their venue. The providing rebate is also slightly < to the removing fee so that any transaction( implying a provider and a remover per se ) is generating revenue for the ECN.

What is so complicated about it?
The complicated thing is that your explanation makes too much sense and it is lacking an evil conspiracy theory to rip off the poor small retail trader :cool:
 
Quote from zdreg:

you have never used a spread broker.

Not a sensible comment dreggs

current spread prices are

FTSE 5235.8 - 5237.8
Dow 10349 - 10355
S&P 1105.1 - 1105.7

You can check it out on Finspreads.com

For instance - one could buy $100 on the Dow and if it went up 100 points then one makes

$100 * 100 = $10,000 tax free

And no I don't work for them before you ask
 
Quote from FutsTrader111:

Futures are pretty good under the unbundled if you do 1000-10,000 EMini ES contracts per month, its $0.35/contract, then add another $1.14 Tier 1 - Total $1.49/contract


Bundled is $2.40/contract.

Although commissions are lower than my present futures broker, I don't care too much for TWS platform.

If only IB would not charge the DAILY carrying fees... I would move all my spread trading to IB if it were not for these fees. (They do add up for larger spread positions which are held for longer periods...)

I know I can go 'bundled' but bundled commissions are not competitive anymore...:(
 
Free trade ???????

Not if it doesn't suit USA authorities/business hoods

Take the example of on-line poker.
It's obvious US casinos are desperate to keep poker players in their vast investment casinos and have bribed Congress to outlaw on-line playing.

Playing from the comfort of home beats dragging all the way to an expensive hotel in a desert imho and only a noob would play roulette with a double zero

double standards rule OK

:eek:
 
Quote from Humpy:

Across the pond most traders use spread bet brokers even for US futures.

Simple figures = simple calculations

Probably cheaper too
Cheaper ? ? ? ? only if you are a total moron, you need to add spreads to the cost, they add like three or four times commissions to the 'normal' costs. DUH !
 
Sorry mate, any idea how an ECN works??

Quote from BPtrader:

My answer is as follows:

First of all, ask a simple question: Why does a broker pay you for "adding liquidity"?

Theoretically, a broker cannot care less if you "add" or "remove" liquidity, liquidity has nothing to do with a broker, a broker will be happy if it gets the commission. Then, why, why, why, does a broker so eagerly want you to "add liquidity"?

OK, the broker will say: Not me, I didn't pay a trader to "add liquidity." Then you must ask this question: who the hell cares so much that he is willing to pay me?

If someone is willing to pay you to "add liquidity," it must be good for that person, not for you. In trading, "good" means making money, this money has to come from someone.

Have you ever done target shooting? In target shooting, there are two things: a shooter and a target. When someone pays you to "add liquidity," he is making you a target. That is my definition.

Back to a broker telling you: it's good for you to "add liquidity," you will get rebate, you will make money, you will make a lot of money by "adding liquidity."

Well, I am telling you: the broker is lying to you, you have been deceived.
 
The OPs obvious agenda was to bash IB comission rates.

His name relates to futures.

He does not understand ECN rebates and will not listen to the IB rep.

Why are you dogging on the subject when you could just read the comission schedule and move along?

Because you have an agenda.
 
That tax cloud arising !!

The Wall Street Journal brings more bad news. A headline reads "Lawmakers Weigh a Wall Street Tax." The first mention of this was in October. The proposal has not died as Congress seeks new ways to finance its profligate spending. Both houses are considering legislation.

The tax would fall on financial exchanges of all kinds. It is not a tax on Wall Street. It is a tax on anyone who buys and sells securities.

James Tobin originated the notion in the 1970s. Larry Summers supported it. Robert Kuttner supports it. That’s three Keynesian economists right there. It must be a bad idea.

The tax seeks to raise $100 to $150 billion by taxing the value of every financial trade. The rate on stocks would be 0.25 percent. That does not sound like much, but it’s actually huge compared to what investors pay today when they transact. The brokerage cost of transacting is as little as $7 for a $10,000 or a $100,000 or even a $1,000,000 transaction. That’s 0.07 percent, or 0.007 percent, or 0.0007 percent, respectively. The transactions tax would be $25 or $250 or $2,500 on these transactions, respectively. That’s $25 added to $7, $250 added to $7, and $2,500 added to $7.

Due to the quirks of influence-peddling, the proposed tax would be 0.02 percent on options, futures, and other derivatives.

Hey might see a few of you ultra mobile guys over here ?
P.S. Forget the shades but remember your brollies
:)
 
this thread is a total scam..... anyone trading for any time knows the difference between direct access brokers and "EMAIL BROKERS"........AGREE 1000 % tyhe opening poster just wanted to bash IB and confuse people who are newbies looking for honest advice...
 
Back
Top