Yeah I can see that viewpoint, my view is related to exchange fees and commissions vs. min tick size.
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.
Russell 2000
- Thread starter algofy
- Start date
I think the min price tick reduction is good for starting traders because they can now buy 2 lots with no fear because it would be the same as the previous tick price and in turn they will learn how to scale out, how important that is and potentially have the ability to learn how to manage trades. It's hard to be consistent trading 1 lot.
I wasn't making the point that $5 is better or worse. I said trading fees could double during the move to the CME.
If you want to discuss if the move to $5 is better or not, i have to say overall it is worse. I think the daily notional volume that is trading after the switch from $10 to $5 is lower than perviously. ie halving the value of the contract hasn't doubled the volume. This means the change has weakened this particular futures market.
Also i noticed market depth did not double after the change, so again the market seems weaker to me.
This will lead to more slippage for everyone under fast market conditions.
Last edited:
Agree, I hope it goes back to 10.I wasn't making the point that $5 is better or worse. I said trading fees could double during the move to the CME.
If you want to discuss if the move to $5 is better or not, i have to say overall is it worse. I think the daily notional volume that is trading after the switch from $10 to $5 is lower than perviously. ie halving the value of the contract hasn't doubled the volume. This means the change as weakened this particular futures market.
Also i noticed market depth did not double after the change, so again the market seems weaker to me. This could lead to more slippage under fast market conditions.
I emailed cmegroup to ask if they know yet, but as the other 3 Russell 1000 contracts CME introduced last month all had $5 tick values, im not hopeful.
The the current fees for e-mini SIFs under CME are $1.18 after a slight increase at the start of the year. Brokers charge extra on top of this.
The the current fees for e-mini SIFs under CME are $1.18 after a slight increase at the start of the year. Brokers charge extra on top of this.
Did cme half exchange fees for 6E when they cut the tick value in half last year?I emailed cmegroup to ask if they know yet, but as the other 3 Russell 1000 contracts introduced last month all had $5 tick values, im not hopeful.
The the current fees for e-mini SIFs under CME are $1.18 after a slight increase at the start of the year. Brokers charge extra on top of this.
Did cme half exchange fees for 6E when they cut the tick value in half last year?
I havent traded 6E in about 8 years. But a quick look on IBs website (which could be out of date) it says CME currently charge $1.6 for FX futures, which seems like no change.
Yep, what a racket, half the contract but same fees.I havent traded 6E in about 8 years. But a quick look on IBs website (which could be out of date) it says CME currently charge $1.6 for FX futures, which seems like no change.
I dont think they changed the Multiplier on the 6E.
Just the tick size/ spread size.
So you continue to trade the same number of 6E contracts.
So your costs dont change on that one.
Having said all this CME could maintain the same contract spec for Russell 2K that ICE use and also carry over the same reduced charges that ICE currently charge.
It could just be me being overly pessimistic.
If cme get back to me, i will ask if they are going to match the current ICE fees.
Just the tick size/ spread size.
So you continue to trade the same number of 6E contracts.
So your costs dont change on that one.
Having said all this CME could maintain the same contract spec for Russell 2K that ICE use and also carry over the same reduced charges that ICE currently charge.
It could just be me being overly pessimistic.
If cme get back to me, i will ask if they are going to match the current ICE fees.
Last edited:
Well I based my short term trades based off of tick size so if I want the same $ per tick I have to trade 2X the contracts with twice the cost.I dont think they changed the Multiplier on the 6E.
Just the tick size/ spread size.
So you continue to trade the same number of 6E contracts.
So your costs dont change on that one.
Having said all this CME could maintain the same contract spec for Russell that ICE use and also carry over the same reduced charges that ICE currently charge.
It could just be me being over pessimistic.
It was actually a relativly smooth move to ice for the er2. I was trading fairly actively and didn't notice much change. The emd is is really thin in the book. But if you go mid market, you can usually get a fill. Displayed size and volume hasn't increased with reduce in contract size. Seems the ice was trying to kill the contract because they were pissed they lost it.