new ES competitor

trade4succes · Feb 26, 2004

http://www.cbot.com/cbot/pub/cont_detail/0,3206,1027+17083,00.html

http://www.cbot.com/cbot/pub/cont_detail/1,3206,1556+17039,00.html

I love competition. This might bring those horrendous cme globex fees down. And is a nice contract anyway.

nononsense · Feb 26, 2004

Quote from trade4succes:

http://www.cbot.com/cbot/pub/cont_detail/0,3206,1027+17083,00.html

http://www.cbot.com/cbot/pub/cont_detail/1,3206,1556+17039,00.html

I love competition. This might bring those horrendous cme globex fees down. And is a nice contract anyway.

Hi All,

Another bunch of bantam weight "electronic" contracts. Very juicy for exchanges and other commission beneficiaries.

Ditch · Feb 26, 2004

A smaller tick size on ES/NQ would be much more beneficiary than lower commissions

cosmic · Feb 26, 2004

just tried to look it up in ESignal Symbol Guide...do you know it?

Base symbol should be TMI imo...

Thanks & best,

cosmic

nononsense · Feb 26, 2004

Quote from Ditch:

A smaller tick size on ES/NQ would be much more beneficiary than lower commissions

I would like fatter contracts.

trade4succes · Feb 26, 2004

I agree, fatter contracts, smaller tick size >

the big SP electronic!!

ArchAngel · Feb 26, 2004

Quote from Ditch:
A smaller tick size on ES/NQ would be much more beneficiary than lower commissions

Smaller tick size won't turn a losing (or even a breakeven) trader into a winner.

Tea · Feb 26, 2004

Quote from ArchAngel:

Smaller tick size won't turn a losing (or even a breakeven) trader into a winner.

Neither will a larger tick size - so your point is........?

nononsense · Feb 26, 2004

Quote from ArchAngel:

Smaller tick size won't turn a losing (or even a breakeven) trader into a winner.

Hi Archangel,

I agree. Tick size is OK as it is for me. I like fatter contracts though.

Be good,

nononsense

Kicking · Feb 26, 2004

well there is a problem, there is no historical data for the TMI, they could have done it on the Wilshire 5000