I was talking about Zenfire as quote provider, don't know about order routing. Of course you can route orders with Zenfire+Dorman (and all other systems) to Eurex, problem is the path(and latency) of the data, that is what concerns OP (and me).
We are in Europe and using an european server makes a big difference for us; if you are in New Zealand or in US it's probably better to use a US server than an european one.
Velocity should have TT data servers in Frankfurt (but for quotes only, you can't route orders); they shouldn't have any CQG server. I don't think any broker has CQG servers,it's different form TT where brokers host TT FIX Adapter.
Of course nearly any broker using CQG can make you use CQG London server, but this is another matter.
Last edited by pfranz; October 12th, 2012 at 07:51 PM.
It's a more extensive subject as i thought. I assume that there isn't a perfect solution which fits all needs. Until recently "Advantage Futures" had a good solution (X-Trader Pro, TT Infrastructure, Feed- and Order Routing from Frankfurt, Colocation services), but it seems that their dropped this service currently and searching for a new solution. The only disadvantage was the high monthly fees for the X-Trader Pro lease.
A major issue is that we want to minimize the latency and NO packet should be transmitted over the ocean. I think all US-Brokers will have their backoffice stuff (risk- and account management) still in the US, so i'm afraid that there still is a latency. I will ask the brokers regarding this issue. But overall it would an improvment if the data feed would come directly from frankfurt.
Last edited by Koepisch; October 13th, 2012 at 07:52 AM.
It is only interesting if you are doing some size a month, then you could ask HSBC Trinkaus (contact is Schulte-Lingemann). They could offer Direct access to Eurex terminals.
I know the german broker Sino.de use them as clearer (like most small former german floor brokers). They have their server at the Deutsche Börse, but their (Sino) fees are not competitive compared to the brokers mentioned here before.
Last edited by SPMC; October 13th, 2012 at 08:14 AM.
This is not true, they can move risk management to the place where execution is. Certainly it is done by Interactive brokers, as they told me, and I've measured the time to get a submission / cancellation order from Italy: in IDEM market I got best=49ms, average=59ms for getting a submission confirmation, and best=39ms, average=49ms for a cancellation confirmation. I'm using normal API with IB Gateway(which slows things down), if I got a FIX connection and got rid of the Gateway I think I could improve these results.
Note that my ping time to IB swiss server is around 20ms, so you would have to change light speed limit (and all modern physics) to have a result like this while sending data to US.
I'm quite sure that CQG does the same when you use their London server,but I cannot swear;anyway I believe that any US broker which knows its job would either move risk management to Europe and keep an execution server there,or keep just an US execution server.
The point is that moving execution to Europe while keeping risk management in US is a total waste of money, as latency is still there.
Thanks for your insights. Your last point is very important and have to be confirmed from every broker. Velocity Brokers told me that CQG (only chat contact) has her feed servers direct in Frankfurt, but 2 postings mentioned only the Londons server. I believe that you can't trust every answer.
It was noticeable that IB is the only (large international) broker which is directly located in europe and this could be the reason why other us brokers utilize some IB systems. I will ask IB for that.
Your ping and execution times scared me a little bit. With colocation and direct feed/execution i want to get down to 10ms and lower. I don't doing HFT stuff, but i do limit orders and i don't want to be last the in the queue. Many BM members claim IB as thier broker and i ever wondered WHY - complete useless feeds, execution sub us-standard, annoying opening procedure and so on. But perhaps bundling IB for execution and CQG for data feed could be worthwhile.
pfranz mentioned trading API's. This is the next issue, but that isn't the right thread. In the last days i looked at TT API, X-Trader API, TT FIX API und CQG API and i'm still confused. For the US part i will use the R|API. It were nice to use the TT API regarding the posibilities, but 1400$ a month only for the API (and X Trader PRO) is too much. I have a problem to spend money for no real service in return.
Hereinafter i will be investigate the possible IB connections and hope for some general API connectivity. Europe isn't a retail trader paradise. Every broker who would read the thread could make a furtune, if they would offering a complete solution (Feed, Execution, Colocation) for EUREX traders !!!
CQG will probably have some servers in Frankfurt, but the point is which is the server which gives me the data, and which is the path from the exchange to me.
I'm quite sure CQG execution server is in London; quote server might be different and could be in Frankfurt, but I don't think so. Ask them.
Do you think my execution times are too high? For a retail trader using normal internet connection I believe they are low. IB has other (costly) connection types, and execution at IB (not accounting for the actual connection speed in itself) could be faster.
And don't underestimate the weight of their Gateway; it's a heavy java application and it adds to latency: I saw that running Gateway on older computers increased latency too much,since it should be a mere TCP relay, and so very fast. The times I quoted you are obtained running my application together with Gateway on an Acer Aspire One 110 with Windows 2000, Atom N270 processor and 512MB of RAM. I would really like to test IB connecttion with FIX, but I don't want to spend the money required for it (especially to raise the minimum commissions I'd need to do every month).
Note that IDEM is in Italy and IB server in switzerland, so it's not the same as co-locating at IDEM. You can't figure out your latency simply subtracting simple "parts" like ping time: you have to build your system and then test a lot of options and see the numbers that come out. In my opinion a <10ms latency with co-location is reasonable.
I don't know whether a broker would make a lot of money offering low-latency european solutions, I believe that latency is a too disregarded problem, even by scalpers; I'm happy to hear that someone understands that latency affects ALL orders (including limit orders, exactly for the reason you mentioned).
Maybe we (interested in latency) all should make together explicit requests for low latency to brokers, so that they would know there is enough interest for that.
As to TT costs, a workaround used by some brokers (Deepdiscount,Velocity...) is to host a TT FIX adapter and charge a small fee per trade; the overhead is 1ms (they say), but of course FIX adapter must be in Europe (not easy to find).
Last edited by pfranz; October 13th, 2012 at 09:17 AM.
Advantage has dropped his TT infrastructure at the eurex due to high costs. There is currently no replacement. Howard from DDT has announced that he's looking for a server placement near to the eurex. But i'm afraid that if advantage doesn't make it so DDT can't make it too.
I've found a solid hosting space from a german company. The prior mentioned broker SINO sounds good at the first sight but the commissions are to high (also at high volume). At a 8000 FDAX contracts/month SINO wants ten times more money then advantage futures. Therefor i can have A LOT of missing trades or bad slippage from my hosted system in chicago.
Advantage has send me a lot of info's today, so i have to process these mails first. But the risk management server will be only at chicago.
The following user says Thank You to Koepisch for this post:
As you stated in a previous post,many people are interested in an European server. Howard is being very aggressive,providing cheap commissions and good service (everyone noticed how fast he replies to e-mails); if you look at elitetrader broker rating (both DDT and Crossland),you'll see that judgements are positive.
These are the premises for getting enough clients and volume to justify the costs for an European server. Crossland (Howard's FCM) is smaller than Advantage, but he could possibly find a better deal than Advantage, or some kind of solution Advantage doesn't have.
So, I'd give a 60-70% chance that Howard will make it; let's wait and see.
Thank you for the update, any news you can post is appreciated.