sorry to burst your bubble but why should other traders subsidize someone who just is waiting for the nut who puts in a market order that will create a spike? It takes up bandwidth and other resources, both at IB and at the exchange. edit: or did you not read the post about a trader putting in (from memory something like) 16 thousand "adjustments" for one trade on average (quite some years back) These particpants are what I call "leeches", wanting something for nothing. Yuk
Maria, I hear your point but the flip side is that Daal is providing much needed liquidity in a lower volume back month. I believe members are exempt from cancellation charges. It's really the CME's way of saying no market making without a seat. That policy was clearly appropriate when the exchange was a member owned partnership but as a publicly traded company I find the notion of seat owners being given preferential pricing/regulations to be less than kosher.
yes, the liquidity is much needed however the hardware and internet bandwidht taken up by these people are an expense too and somehow it needs to be paid for. You cannot expect that of the xx million traders everyone is allowed to place 16 K changes for 1 trade - the hardware cannot cope with that. Somewhere needs a boundary to be set and the exchange has set this at 10 trades. So live within this or otherwise get a seat and then do as you please. Maria
What about systems that "bump" your bid or ask at any given increment? You could leave that on autopilot for the day and if you're lucky you'll have tens of thousands in fines. Or is this considered the same order?
interesting duscussion..just curious...when is enough enough? i don't trade equities or options anymore so my comments might upset some of you...you pay a broker commission to trade, you pay the broker fees to transfer & ship, you pay the broker to send statements, if you don't trade enough he charges account maintenance fees, you pay SEC fees (taxes), you pay exchange fees, and you pay several layers of taxes (fed, state, county, city) i've read here that the powers that be want to charge more fees (taxes) to help the poor poor insolvent incompetent brokerage firms, and now i understand that the exchanges want to fine you if you adjust your prices (TS or SL or Entry) too much Are they intentionally trying to "kill the Goose that laid the golden egg"? Wonder what would happen if ALL retail traders decided to stop trading for a period, think some of the policies might get a rethink?
are you serious? do you have any idea how little bandwidth an order takes compared to all the streaming video / audio people do nowadays? any idea how little computer processing power internet-speed order flow uses? with all the fees paid to the broker & exchange, if they can't keep pace with pornotube, there is a big fucking problem. obviously, it's the exchanges' way of forcing people to buy seats.
do you never notice that when there is a sudden flury of activity your order execution takes longer? Are you that unobservant? do you know why that is happening? Well my dear chap, that is because the databases cannot keep up. These databases log the trades, check the margin requirements etc etc. You are pushing the physical limits of all hardware in the exchange and at the brokers. It is physically impossible to have these databases copes with that high a number of changes. I am exclusively using one ISP for trading one symbol. I do have one symbol's data coming in from another dataprovider and then the data coming in from the broker. This adds up with the 20 - 50 Mb updates from Micro$hit every month to about 1400 Mb. You may think that is not a lot in comparison to what the picture downloaders do and what the dvd downloaders do but if we start channeling all those 16K updates to price into the exchnage then I can garantee you that it will overload. Perhaps I am fortunate to have some more indepth and inside knowledge in these matters on what happens at the exchange. So it may pay not to "assume" and try to ride piggy back for free on all those who pay and have only an average < 10 updates per trade. Or have you forgtotten we live in a "user pay" society? Have a nice day Maria
Maria is right about each message taking up computer resources but I think to even discuss 16K message per actual order is at best a distraction. Assuming the 10 to 1 is actually true in the limit (seems very low) the real motivation does appear to be protecting the value of the seat. Is there a cost to run the network and bandwidth per message? You bet there is but what is it? Based on my experience of setting up and administering an e-commerce site with Microsoft MSSQL database hosted on location I would say its very low. Even factoring huge amounts of redundancy and security they still enjoy the scale at which they operate at. (It doesn't cost hardly anything more to do the actual setup and monitoring of five T3s compared to the same with T1s) I think you can take your pick as to any major exchange and the cost of order changes and adjustments will be measured in excess of a thousand per dollar in cost (remembering that they still have to have the build out for the orders that are going to take place) CBOE charges a dollar per change and the BOX charges 10 cents. In both cases they are making big money. Looking at another example of Inet, ARCA and all the other ECNs you will not find a limitation on order changes. I make order changes non stop all day long. The reason ARCA can allow me to make order changes many times the amount of actual orders is the simple fact that it really costs so little to process them. Bottom line, Computer power is cheap and they are protecting their own.