Non-display fees
- Thread starter Joan
- Start date
Robert Morse
Sponsor
I have already answered that for you. It is per subscriber. The subscriber is the account owner not each user.
Apparently the NYSE is under scrutiny from SEC concerning their market data fees and they are welcoming public comments before the end of 2016. I don't know if non-display fees are targeted though.
http://www.tradersmagazine.com/news...-quality-fairness-and-cost-115785-1.html?pg=1
http://www.tradersmagazine.com/news...-quality-fairness-and-cost-115785-1.html?pg=1
Yes. For non-HFT, with an IB account, only a fool would pay for a data feed. Remember, your goal as a daytrader is to predict volatility. This means fast moving market assessments. Retail tick data providers choke up during these cycles. IB data holds up well, even through their API.
Robert Morse
Sponsor
I just don't think the SEC should have approved the non-display fees without an exemption for the public customer. OPRA has provided an exemption for some customers (After they raised their fee to $2000/month!). I'd like to see the NYSE offer the same. https://www.opradata.com/pdf/fee_schedule.pdf
The Category 1 Non-Display Fee shall not apply in the case of an OPRA data recipient
during any complete calendar month during which the data recipient (i) has a single
UserID (a single natural person) that uses OPRA data for Non-Display Use for the benefit
of that UserID and (ii) is not a broker-dealer and does not place more than 390 orders in
listed options per day on average during the calendar month (counting orders for this
purpose in accordance with the rules of the OPRA Participant exchanges to which it
submits orders during the month) for its own beneficial account(s).
Eric Scott Hunsader from Nanex has talked about the non-display fees issue.
Bloomberg has sent a comment to stop these insane fees:
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-ctacq-2017-02/ctacq201702-1710668-150186.pdf
SINFA
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-ctacq-2017-02/ctacq201702-1710463-150167.pdf
DTN
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-ctacq-2017-02/ctacq201702-150163.htm
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-ctacq-2017-02/ctacq201702.htm
Robert, have you had a look at these documents?
Bloomberg has sent a comment to stop these insane fees:
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-ctacq-2017-02/ctacq201702-1710668-150186.pdf
SINFA
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-ctacq-2017-02/ctacq201702-1710463-150167.pdf
DTN
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-ctacq-2017-02/ctacq201702-150163.htm
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-ctacq-2017-02/ctacq201702.htm
Robert, have you had a look at these documents?
WOW! Great post, Joan. Thank you. I have to read through this stuff.
At first glance, I don't think that it's going to change much. The whole point is to paywall algorithmic trading, to keep those profits in the Inner Sanctum.
Last edited: