NexusFi: Find Your Edge


Home Menu

 





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


Discussion in Brokers

Updated
      Top Posters
    1. looks_one mattz with 11 posts (19 thanks)
    2. looks_two shots fired with 5 posts (0 thanks)
    3. looks_3 steve2222 with 3 posts (1 thanks)
    4. looks_4 ctmvas with 3 posts (1 thanks)
      Best Posters
    1. looks_one Fat Tails with 2 thanks per post
    2. looks_two mattz with 1.7 thanks per post
    3. looks_3 cory with 1.5 thanks per post
    4. looks_4 Big Mike with 0.7 thanks per post
    1. trending_up 14,076 views
    2. thumb_up 39 thanks given
    3. group 16 followers
    1. forum 42 posts
    2. attach_file 1 attachments




 
Search this Thread

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

  #31 (permalink)
 
mattz's Avatar
 mattz   is a Vendor
 
Posts: 2,493 since Sep 2010
Thanks Given: 2,440
Thanks Received: 3,789


Big Mike View Post
@mattz
Naturally, the amount the broker makes isn't the same as CME, but could still implement what you described

Sent from my phone

This is the main point, broker makes 99% of the time in discount business less than the exchange.
The CME will keep raising the cost, and I will keep lowering to accommodate that?
Not to be sarcastic, but in that regard maybe I should cover platforms, indicators, DTN, etc...
The number of people who would qualify for such discount is far and few in between.
Those who do high volumes are at low levels of commissions to help them accommodate other costs.


Matt
Optimus Futures

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

Trading futures and options involves substantial risk of loss and is not suitable for all investors. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results. You may lose more than your initial investment. All posts are opinions and do not claim to be facts. Please conduct your own due diligence. Use only Risk capital when trading Futures.
1 800 771 6748 local 561 367 8686 email [email protected]
Reply With Quote
Thanked by:

Can you help answer these questions
from other members on NexusFi?
ZombieSqueeze
Platforms and Indicators
My NT8 Volume Profile Split by Asian/Euro/Open
NinjaTrader
Deepmoney LLM
Elite Quantitative GenAI/LLM
New Micros: Ultra 10-Year & Ultra T-Bond -- Live Now
Treasury Notes and Bonds
Better Renko Gaps
The Elite Circle
 
  #32 (permalink)
 
SatchFan's Avatar
 SatchFan 
Jefferson City, Missouri
 
Experience: Intermediate
Platform: NinjaTrader
Broker: NinjaTrader Brokerage
Trading: CL ES
Posts: 223 since Mar 2010
Thanks Given: 329
Thanks Received: 205


mattz View Post

By the way, Brokers do care about the rising costs and the impact it has on traders .
Your truly, got on an airplane, set with the market data billing department of the CME, and addressed this discrimination. It was in the hope that someone at the top will get it. At least I can say I did something besides complaining on a forum.

And for that, I give you a big heart felt Thank You!

Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
  #33 (permalink)
 
mattz's Avatar
 mattz   is a Vendor
 
Posts: 2,493 since Sep 2010
Thanks Given: 2,440
Thanks Received: 3,789



traderwerks View Post
When will this be announced ? They still have the old rates up for 2016 on their site. [AUTOLINK]CME[/AUTOLINK] Group Schedule 5: Fee Schedule (2016)

I am not sure how the announcement will take place. This is what I have been told so far.
Let me get some more facts next week....and post them.
If I am wrong, I will acknowledge it too.

Correction: Fees for retail will stay as is.

Matt
Optimus Futures

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

Trading futures and options involves substantial risk of loss and is not suitable for all investors. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results. You may lose more than your initial investment. All posts are opinions and do not claim to be facts. Please conduct your own due diligence. Use only Risk capital when trading Futures.
1 800 771 6748 local 561 367 8686 email [email protected]
Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
  #34 (permalink)
 
paps's Avatar
 paps 
SF Bay Area + CA/US
 
Experience: None
Platform: TS, TOS, Ninja(Analytics)
Trading: NQ CL, ES when volatile mrkts
Posts: 1,739 since Oct 2011
Thanks Given: 2,176
Thanks Received: 1,726

@mattz I kind of agree with you

I don't think there is any perfect way .. nor can be one solution fits all. Nor can anyone with a brokerage account be called a free loader..as there is no definition to that. Who decides 10rts ..there are folks here with 1000+ rts..does it mean brokets rollover rts. Neither is the system going to help folks with multi brokerages avoid paying double triple or whatever unless someone chooses to go with IQ and feed all platforms / brokerages thru the same.

Let's call it cost of being in the markets. If wanting to avoid this maybe best case is as you said raise a voice or flow with the system or leave it. Unless of course enough think it's a worthy cause to lobby against. But seems it's too trivial and not worth RR . But again just my 2cs on a lazy sat afternoon.

Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
  #35 (permalink)
 
mattz's Avatar
 mattz   is a Vendor
 
Posts: 2,493 since Sep 2010
Thanks Given: 2,440
Thanks Received: 3,789


Big Mike View Post
@mattz the CME could also create a new membership level that catered to those that trade, but infrequently. For example, under 50 RTs a month.

I think the reason they don't is simply because it isn't worth their time. They would rather focus on those that are active already.

Sent from my phone

Agreed. Most retail is a just a "guest" for the exchanges.
But I would love to see another exchange with the same competency in technology and execution give the CME some competition. Every time an exchange tries to compete with them on the same contract, its a non event.

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

Trading futures and options involves substantial risk of loss and is not suitable for all investors. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results. You may lose more than your initial investment. All posts are opinions and do not claim to be facts. Please conduct your own due diligence. Use only Risk capital when trading Futures.
1 800 771 6748 local 561 367 8686 email [email protected]
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)
 
mattz's Avatar
 mattz   is a Vendor
 
Posts: 2,493 since Sep 2010
Thanks Given: 2,440
Thanks Received: 3,789

I have just made a correction on all posts. $5 per CME exchange, and $15 for all 4, and rates are not going up next year for retail. Pro fees are going up to $85 per exchange, so pro are affected (brokers, CTAs, etc).
I have been looking at a number of FCMs as far as our future fees, and assumed the rates will go up for everyone.
Clearly, the CME has left the retail at the same rate, so it a relief to you guys to some degree.
Since we have a number of FCMs, we would require a direct access to all. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.
Thank you to @traderwerks for the PDF. Never the less, I would still argue that the current current cost is not fair to traders and professionals and my argument still holds.

Matt
Optimus Futures

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

Trading futures and options involves substantial risk of loss and is not suitable for all investors. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results. You may lose more than your initial investment. All posts are opinions and do not claim to be facts. Please conduct your own due diligence. Use only Risk capital when trading Futures.
1 800 771 6748 local 561 367 8686 email [email protected]
Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
  #37 (permalink)
 traderwerks   is a Vendor
 
Posts: 692 since Jun 2009
Thanks Given: 436
Thanks Received: 465


mattz View Post
Never the less, I would still argue that the current cost is not fair to traders and professionals and my argument still holds.

Totally agree. I think they could do something. A fee waiver if you did more than 10 RTs a month. Something.

If it wasn't for the data waiver we had for years, I probably would not be trading futures at all.

Math. A gateway drug to reality.
Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
  #38 (permalink)
 
paps's Avatar
 paps 
SF Bay Area + CA/US
 
Experience: None
Platform: TS, TOS, Ninja(Analytics)
Trading: NQ CL, ES when volatile mrkts
Posts: 1,739 since Oct 2011
Thanks Given: 2,176
Thanks Received: 1,726

if it wasn't for the ease of doing taxes...which far surpasses the highly sought after tax pro and software which takes much more than the data fees when doing equities..... maybe its a maybe I would not have attempted to express my love for ES

Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)
 
mattz's Avatar
 mattz   is a Vendor
 
Posts: 2,493 since Sep 2010
Thanks Given: 2,440
Thanks Received: 3,789


traderwerks View Post
Totally agree. I think they could do something. A fee waiver if you did more than 10 RTs a month. Something.

If it wasn't for the data waiver we had for years, I probably would not be trading futures at all.

I think like @paps also said, they need to consider the amount of brokerages you have ( if administratively possible).
So if you have 2 brokers, and you use all exchanges, your rates are 15 X2 because you will pay for 2 users credentials.

I think that first they implement a policy, and maybe did not realize the amount of non-traders that have access to market data. Pros assume that if you have an account you trade. Most volume on the exchanges comes from professionals and institutions, so they make certain assumptions in their thinking. Maybe over time more brokers and pros will explain the same to them as I have recently.

To the credit of the CME, because I do have to be fair, they do offer CME memberships for pros like me for the purpose of cost reduction for market data. It's for the purpose of "netting" for brokers like me.
This would still impose a cost way above most retail traders would pay for data.
The team that I have been working with at the CME was really good in helping me achieve that.

So essentially, the CME is not the "enemy" because there is a rising cost of technology.
Never the less, we should not stop the communication with them to help them realize the impact of their policies.

Again, I am sorry for the data error as far as the retail. You are a pretty forgiving bunch....but luckily I have enough contacts to correct errors fast.

Matt
Optimus Futures

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

Trading futures and options involves substantial risk of loss and is not suitable for all investors. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results. You may lose more than your initial investment. All posts are opinions and do not claim to be facts. Please conduct your own due diligence. Use only Risk capital when trading Futures.
1 800 771 6748 local 561 367 8686 email [email protected]
Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
  #40 (permalink)
 steve2222 
Auckland, New Zealand
 
Experience: Beginner
Platform: Sierra Chart
Broker: AMP/CQG
Trading: Whatever moves in my timezone
Posts: 1,896 since Sep 2009
Thanks Given: 3,379
Thanks Received: 1,540



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.

Matt
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




Last Updated on October 13, 2015


© 2024 NexusFi™, s.a., All Rights Reserved.
Av Ricardo J. Alfaro, Century Tower, Panama City, Panama, Ph: +507 833-9432 (Panama and Intl), +1 888-312-3001 (USA and Canada)
All information is for educational use only and is not investment advice. There is a substantial risk of loss in trading commodity futures, stocks, options and foreign exchange products. Past performance is not indicative of future results.
About Us - Contact Us - Site Rules, Acceptable Use, and Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy - Downloads - Top
no new posts