I am being charged $15 fee from the CME every month? | Reviews of Brokers and Data Feeds

futures.io - futures trading strategies, market news, trading charts and platforms

Reviews of Brokers and Data Feeds

Review and discuss futures brokers, their requirements and features, or ask questions about brokers and data feeds


I am being charged $15 fee from the CME every month?

  #40 (permalink)

Auckland, New Zealand
Trading Experience: Beginner
Platform: Sierra Chart
Broker/Data: AMP/CQG
Favorite Futures: Whatever moves in my timezone
Posts: 1,827 since Sep 2009
Thanks: 3,199 given, 1,441 received

mattz View Post
@steve2222 Its the data feed vendor that implements top of book and the platform provider, not the broker.
Call your platform provider and ask them to implement it via your broker/FCM.
I would GLADLY implement top of book if possible and the data feed vendors offers it.

For example: CQG always had top of book, but only on their native platforms.
Others platforms, if they use CQG, need to accommodate that.

Optimus Futures

There is a risk of loss in futures trading. Past performance is not indicative of future results.

Hi @mattz

Looks like I have a bit more work to do on this, as here is TT's response to my question I just posted about this on the TT technical forum:

"In this case your broker would be the vendor of record with CME and be responsible for collecting market data fees. From a technical perspective there is no checkbox to disable market depth and only send top-of-book. The FIX application can include 264=1 in a market data request in order to specify top-of-book, but Amp would have to make the decision on whether or not that is sufficient to only charge you for top-of-book market data."

So I might need to talk to both AMP and Sierra Charts as I am not sure which of them sets up the 264=1 in the market data request.

I need to check my historical cimmunications with SC, but I am sure I have had them confirm before that given I have market depth disabled in SC, no market depth data is therefore being requested from the data vendor ie disabling it is not just simply making it unavailable on the DOM, it is not even being transmitted to me. If this is the case then I assume the SC platform must be sending the 264=1 to the TT fix application.

Once I have that confirmed by SC, it would be back to AMP to find out therefore why they cannot just charge the top of book fee.

Does the TT technical repsonse align with your understanding?

Reply With Quote