Say No To Thin E-mini Spread

You are probably right on whether there is market makers and specialist in future market. I really have not too much ideas about futures. And my point is to let the market decide. Market makers and specialists will come and go if the market let them. I cannot vote for this poll about if I favor a thinner spread on E-mini or not.

By the way, did I argue liquidity in this thread?

:p


Quote from PuffyGums:

In futures there ARE NO Nasdaq style market makers or NYSE-type specialists. The person making the market in futures is in the SAME position you are with regard to the market's order entry system.

What you are arguing for is illiquid markets. It makes no sense.
More...
 
JESUS Why do they always have to be f*cking with everything all the time??

I say let it as it is.

IF IT AIN'T BROKE DON"T FIX IT!!

:mad:
 
Quote from Minime:



Lets see, 10 trades per day X 240 trading days X $7.5 = $18,000 per contract in extra cost per year. That's a nice amount to shave off per contract for a .10 spread. How many people could use an extra $18,000 profit annually per contract??? No, not me, I believe extra expenses are actually a good thing! :confused:
More...
You've only looked at one side of the equation: the cases where the cost of buying a contract would be lower, representing more profit to you.

What about the other side of the coin, where you are selling your contract, getting a lower price and reducing your profit?

The spread in electronic futures is not a pure cost, like a brokerage commission. On one hand, it can represent a higher hurdle, but on the other hand it also represents the minumum profit. It works boths ways.
 
Yeah, let it be may not a bad idea. However, there is always someone cannot be less greedy but just goes after outsider investors and traders whenever they have a chance.

Saying JESUS doesn't help. To me it is same as saying Allah or some other Lords.

:p
Do not go off-topic.


Quote from LongShot:

JESUS Why do they always have to be f*cking with everything all the time??

I say let it as it is.

IF IT AIN'T BROKE DON"T FIX IT!!

:mad:
More...
 
If .10 works for the pit traded contract, why not the electronic? I think the answer is obvious to that one. Those guys with greasy hair need as many profit centers as possible. People have to accept technology and get rid of the horse and buggy mentality and go with the Model-T or accept being run over. You can pass laws limiting the speed of automobiles, and charge extra for gas, but eventually intelligence will arise from the perceived moronic masses and buggy's will become road kill.
 
If you dont like ES e-mini spread, you could always trade NQ e-mini. It has .10 spread, of course it has less volume because of that too. Build up a product, and then we will come in and mess with it. Also if you like an even thinner spread (0.000001) you could trade SPY,QQQ, DIA. There are so many to chose from.
 
Myself, I do not want the e-mini charts to look ugly like QQQ and
SPY charts do. That is what would happen wouldn't it? There
would be trades all over the place and the charts would look like
crap... All we need is a bunch of tails all over the place...

I VOTE NO!
 
Quote from estrader:

If you dont like ES e-mini spread, you could always trade NQ e-mini. It has .10 spread, of course it has less volume because of that too. Build up a product, and then we will come in and mess with it.
More...

I believe it has less volume because the index it follows only has 100 stocks vs. 500 stocks for the S&P--and likewise the dow only has 30 so it will probably always lag the other two in volume significantly.
 
Quote from Minime:



I believe it has less volume because the index it follows only has 100 stocks vs. 500 stocks for the S&P--and likewise the dow only has 30 so it will probably always lag the other two in volume significantly.
More...


I believe you are mistaken . QQQ has a lot more volume than SPY. So number of stocks in an index has nothing to do with volume.
 
Quote from Minime:

If .10 works for the pit traded contract, why not the electronic?
More...
The answer is...

The tick in the big contract is worth $25. With the emini it is now $12.50.

You are proposing that the tick be changed to $5. With CME non-member clearing house fees something like $2.80 plus broker commissions, only member traders could trade that spread profitably. You are proposing a 'CME floor trader full employment act.' You are really for the big guy all the while pretending to be for the little trader.

Secondly you are also arguing for less liquid markets with your lower tick size. How would that be better?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top