You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
low commission broker???
- Thread starter Lt. Dan
- Start date
Why nobody discuss about lowtrades?
It is very reasonable comission.
1 - 50 Trades $5.00
51 - 100 Trades $4.75
101 - 200 Trades $4.50
201 - 300 Trades $4.00
301 - 400 Trades $3.50
401 Plus Trades $2.99
Trailing Stops - No additional Charge
Logical Orders - No additional Charge
http://www.lowtrades.com/
It is very reasonable comission.
1 - 50 Trades $5.00
51 - 100 Trades $4.75
101 - 200 Trades $4.50
201 - 300 Trades $4.00
301 - 400 Trades $3.50
401 Plus Trades $2.99
Trailing Stops - No additional Charge
Logical Orders - No additional Charge
http://www.lowtrades.com/
I quoted the fee for the number of shares that the OP stated (50-100) unlike your hypothetical (200 shares) which is designed only to make IB look better. Now who is the one promoting brokers on this website?Quote from jimrockford:
Nope. MB Trading also charges SEC fees, which increase the cost of trading substantially above the price you gave.
IB will let you trade 200 shares for $1, including all SEC and ECN and other fees. This will cost you well over $2 at MB Trading.
Watch out. People give a lot inaccurate information promoting brokers on this website.
You are correct about SEC fees also being passed along by MBT, they are of course dependent on the price of the stock being traded.
I have no relation with MBT other than being a satisfied customer. Unlike many ET posters that have complained about IB's customer service I have had only positive interactions with MBT.
OP, you may want to look into monthly minimum activity fees and/or data fees of whatever broker your choose as well, something that JR conveniently omitted from his promotion of IB.
IB Reviews: http://www.elitetrader.com/br/?action=view&R_FirmID=43
MBT Reviews: http://www.elitetrader.com/br/index.cfm?action=view&R_FirmID=124
Quote from winter:
I quoted the fee for the number of shares that the OP stated (50-100) unlike your hypothetical (200 shares) which is designed only to make IB look better. Now who is the one promoting brokers on this website?
You are correct about SEC fees also being passed along by MBT, they are of course dependent on the price of the stock being traded.
I have no relation with MBT other than being a satisfied customer. Unlike many ET posters that have complained about IB's customer service I have had only positive interactions with MBT.
OP, you may want to look into monthly minimum activity fees and/or data fees of whatever broker your choose as well, something that JR conveniently omitted from his promotion of IB.
IB Reviews: http://www.elitetrader.com/br/?action=view&R_FirmID=43
MBT Reviews: http://www.elitetrader.com/br/index.cfm?action=view&R_FirmID=124
Winter,
Your comparison between IB and MBT was totally misleading, because you omitted MBT's SEC fees.
Your next post then suggests that I chose the trade size of 200 shares in order to make IB look better. The truth is that IB is substantially cheaper at the trade size of 50-100 shares you chose as well. IB would charge only $1, while MBT would charge $1 plus SEC fees. I correctly pointed out that IB's relative advantage grows even larger at a trade size of 200 shares. I think you should apologize for your second misleading comparison in a row.
I also think we both neglected to mention that a simple-minded comparison of commission costs is unwise, because any commission savings can be wiped out and greatly exceeded by poor quality of order execution. I know nothing of MBT's order execution quality, but I would be surprised if it comes even close to matching IB's.
IB does have a weakness in the area of customer service. I know nothing of MBT's customer service, so I cannot compare. I will say that for a serious trader, in my opinion, IB's superiority in the areas of commissions and order execution quality and other areas is more important than its customer service issues, and justifies tolerating, to the extent necessary, IB's customer service weakness.
I would also like to deny your suggestion that I am promoting IB. I promote, instead, the interests of my fellow traders, who need to be informed about the choices available to them. This is why I have posted both positive and negative information about IB, and at times, I have been very, very critical of them, at times, in my efforts to motivate them to address various problems. So please don't try to persuade people that I say good things about IB for the same reasons as an IB employee might do so. I also think that my postings have adhered to a much higher standard of accuracy and fairness than have yours in this thread.
I first began posting on ET about my constructive criticisms of IB, in an effort to get them to address various problems. My focus gradually shifted more toward one of defending IB against sometimes outrageously unfair and deceptive attacks on them, and also toward one of educating fellow traders about such things as how best to protect against risks of broker fraud and bankruptcy, areas where IB is particularly strong and safe and superior to other brokers. If you look at my earlier postings, criticizing IB, it is clear that I have not promoted IB as would an employee, but that I have praised it as an objective independent customer expressing his own opinions, sometimes negative, but usually positive.
I should also mention that IB's monthly minimum fee of $10 is very small, and is waived if you generate a mere $30 in commissions for the month. I omitted any mention of this info, because it is not significant to the active serious trader.
Quote from JayS:
200 shares at IB is $1.00 total not $2.00. Just an FYI.
Somebody else, other than winter, who I won't name, posted a comparison of IB and MBT that was even more incorrect and misleading than was winter's comparision. JayS then correctly highlighted an error in that comparison. The aforesaid comparison was, then, thankfully deleted. So anybody who didn't see the deleted comparision, before it was deleted, might have trouble understanding what JayS was trying to say in response. I'm just glad to see some people, like JayS, are paying attention.
Was it really "totally misleading" or do you have a tendency toward hyperbole?Quote from jimrockford:
Your comparison between IB and MBT was totally misleading, because you omitted MBT's SEC fees.
So after admitting that you know nothing about MBT's execution quality you go ahead and make a vague prediction that IB is better anyway? Amazing.Your next post then suggests that I chose the trade size of 200 shares in order to make IB look better. The truth is that IB is substantially cheaper at the trade size of 50-100 shares you chose as well. IB would charge only $1, while MBT would charge $1 plus SEC fees. I correctly pointed out that IB's relative advantage grows even larger at a trade size of 200 shares. I think you should apologize for your second misleading comparison in a row.
I also think we both neglected to mention that a simple-minded comparison of commission costs is unwise, because any commission savings can be wiped out and greatly exceeded by poor quality of order execution. I know nothing of MBT's order execution quality, but I would be surprised if it comes even close to matching IB's.
How can you state that their order execution quality is better than MBT's after admitting you know nothing about MBT?IB does have a weakness in the area of customer service. I know nothing of MBT's customer service, so I cannot compare. I will say that for a serious trader, in my opinion, IB's superiority in the areas of commissions and order execution quality and other areas is more important than its customer service issues, and justifies tolerating, to the extent necessary, IB's customer service weakness.
I felt that your claim that I was "promoting" MBT was also incorrect and wanted to see how you liked being falsely accused. I'm glad you didn't appreciate it either.I would also like to deny your suggestion that I am promoting IB.
You are entitled to think whatever you want. The fact that MBT passes on the SEC fee rather than eating it like IB doesn't change the fact that you are falling all over yourself gushing about IB's superiority while at the same time admitting you haven't tried MBT and therefore your comparisons have no basis. You will note that I did not say that MBT has better execution than IB. Fairness indeed.I also think that my postings have adhered to a much higher standard of accuracy and fairness than have yours in this thread.
Of course your omission of the monthly fees information the OP (who is apparently a small trader) is insigificant while my omission of SEC fees is "substantial". Fantastic.I should also mention that IB's monthly minimum fee of $10 is very small, and is waived if you generate a mere $30 in commissions for the month. I omitted any mention of this info, because it is not significant to the active serious trader.
Winter,
your posts, in this thread, contained false information. I've already demonstrated this as to your previous postings, so I will now show the errors in your latest posting.
You claim that I stated that IB's order execution quality is better than MBT's. Your statement was false. I never made such a claim. I clearly stated that I did not know about MBT's execution quality, and that I would be surprised if it approached IB's.
You claim that I accused you of promoting MBT. Again your statement was false. I never made such an accusation about you. I gave only a general warning that readers should beware the general problem of misinformation from promoters on EliteTrader, but I never specifically accused you of being a promoter.
You claim that my comparisons have no basis. Again your claim is false. I checked the MBT website and discovered that you omitted MBT's SEC fees from your comparison of MBT commissions to IB commissions. This proves that I did have a basis for my comparison.
You claim that the person who started this thread is a small trader who would be affected by IB's 10$ per month minimum fee, and that it was "fantastic" for me to omit the $10/month fee from my comparison. Once again, your statement is false. Here is the post which started this thread:
So this proves that since he does "a lot of daytrading", he will generate at least $30 per month in commissions, so that IB will not charge him the $10 per month minimum. This disproves your claim that the $10 minimum would apply to this person.
I think I have done a very solid job of proving that your information is totally false. I think I have also convinced objective persons that your opinions on this matter have even less value than your incorrect facts.
your posts, in this thread, contained false information. I've already demonstrated this as to your previous postings, so I will now show the errors in your latest posting.
You claim that I stated that IB's order execution quality is better than MBT's. Your statement was false. I never made such a claim. I clearly stated that I did not know about MBT's execution quality, and that I would be surprised if it approached IB's.
You claim that I accused you of promoting MBT. Again your statement was false. I never made such an accusation about you. I gave only a general warning that readers should beware the general problem of misinformation from promoters on EliteTrader, but I never specifically accused you of being a promoter.
You claim that my comparisons have no basis. Again your claim is false. I checked the MBT website and discovered that you omitted MBT's SEC fees from your comparison of MBT commissions to IB commissions. This proves that I did have a basis for my comparison.
You claim that the person who started this thread is a small trader who would be affected by IB's 10$ per month minimum fee, and that it was "fantastic" for me to omit the $10/month fee from my comparison. Once again, your statement is false. Here is the post which started this thread:
I'm wondering who is a good low commission online broker? I currently use Scottrade but I do a lot of daytrading and that 7 dollars a trade adds up. I have heard of ones that are especially for daytraders. I would also prefer one that is user friendly. I know I can search the web myself through the thousands of ones available, but I was hoping some of you might have suggestions. Thanks.
So this proves that since he does "a lot of daytrading", he will generate at least $30 per month in commissions, so that IB will not charge him the $10 per month minimum. This disproves your claim that the $10 minimum would apply to this person.
I think I have done a very solid job of proving that your information is totally false. I think I have also convinced objective persons that your opinions on this matter have even less value than your incorrect facts.
Quote from winter:
Was it really "totally misleading" or do you have a tendency toward hyperbole?
So after admitting that you know nothing about MBT's execution quality you go ahead and make a vague prediction that IB is better anyway? Amazing.
How can you state that their order execution quality is better than MBT's after admitting you know nothing about MBT?
I felt that your claim that I was "promoting" MBT was also incorrect and wanted to see how you liked being falsely accused. I'm glad you didn't appreciate it either.
You are entitled to think whatever you want. The fact that MBT passes on the SEC fee rather than eating it like IB doesn't change the fact that you are falling all over yourself gushing about IB's superiority while at the same time admitting you haven't tried MBT and therefore your comparisons have no basis. You will note that I did not say that MBT has better execution than IB. Fairness indeed.
Of course your omission of the monthly fees information the OP (who is apparently a small trader) is insigificant while my omission of SEC fees is "substantial". Fantastic.
Winter,
I saw no mention of the apparent fact that IB pays no interest on idle cash if it's less than $10,000. I don't have my December MB statement but in November we were getting 3% or so, could be up near 3.5% now. That extra $350 interest per year offsets SEC fees on about $11,500,000 in trades. Just pointing this out since if people want to point out the "negatives" of MB charging SEC fees (and 1/2 cent more on first 500 shares) then one needs to look at the "negatives" of IB's interest payment plan.
And customer service at MB is great. I can't comment on IB's but given the number of complaints I've read on ET, as well as how that aspect is ranked in the broker rankings leads me to believe I'm quite happy to be with MB. And I'd selfishly hope MB remains a smaller operation so that we can continue to enjoy the same quality we've become accustomed to.
Bottom line is commissions are dirt cheap compared to the mid 90's when I started full time. It was $25/ticket plus ECN fees (and SEC fees). INCA was .015/share ($15/1000 shares). Island was $1/fill. Other ECN's were a penny or more as I recall. So you were paying $26 to $40 for 1000 shares.