Don't deny losing money at Bright, when I started. They've since incorporated a 12-week 'Boot-Camp' that would have saved my ass and my early account. P.S. - I've been with these folks for 2 1/2 years, I'll stay as long as it's profitable and prudent for ME.
Can't say IB and Tradestation does the same thing, where basically - larger size orders get the discount on some of the shares. I found it a problem getting filled on the entire amount on larger orders, so the rate ends up being somewhere in between - depends on your style too I imagine. Not to rain on the Bright love fest, if they are bringing rates lower than they were that's nothing to criticize or compain about.
I believe, you'd need to verify with Don, but the .004 rate applies if the ORDER (vs. the FILLS) is for over 1000 shares as entered. Good-Luck. And, why keep all the secrets, who else offers comparable rates, inquiring minds would like to know. . . . (if it's even true at all).
Understandably, they asked me to keep it quiet. I suppose they don't need everybody calling up and demanding the rate that some guy on elitetrader was posting that he was getting. Doesn't matter what this person or that person pays anyway - YOUR rate is going to be the best you can negotiate with your firm. Maybe even at a loss for the firm, if for instance you are at a small LLC and you do so much volume that you put the firm over a threshold that gives the firm as a whole lower rates, for instance.
Hmmmm. At Bright, it seems everyone gets the same rate based on volume and historical minimums. Don't all the 'professional' firms treat their traders equally fair? Seems a bit 'unfair' that your 'individual' rate at other firms depends on your 'negotiating' skills, contacts, timing, etc. Kind of screws the 'silent' non-complaining, non-whining types. . . .
Don't mean to spoil the party but this is just a push for more volume. If you are a trader who usually trades 500-1000 shares at a time, you will now be tempted to trade in bigger size. This will only lead to trouble. Bigger exposure means higher risk. The few traders who try to do bigger size cuz of this will lose way more money due to the exposure. Hey Don if you want to attract a few more traders and keep a few from abandoning bright why not just have a flat rate of .004 per share? Your traders will remain loyal in the long run. And i do understand that if a trader does 100,000 shares per month that they should not get .004 per share. So why not say the .004 per share is in effect as long as the trader does a minimum of 500,000 shares per month? Or as long as the trader does at least 800,000 shares per month? It might seem hard to do and might appear that you might not make as much money, but in the long run you will make way more cuz your traders will stick around for the long haul. If you did a deal like this i am sure the volume bright traders do would sore but most important your traders would feel like you are doing them an awesome deal and would be loving you! In the long run bright would make way more money as well as your traders. Just some friendly advice!
Don, Something tells me that even if you were to offer FREE trading or maybe even pay us to trade there would still be a line-up of people who have complaints about one thing or another!
I didn't start this, but I think I better make a comment or two (once again, "whoda thought?). Many of our traders pay much less than 1 cent per share from share one, and will continue to get that rate based on monthly volume. For example: .8 or so. That will apply to the first 1000 shares, and anything above 1000 is .4 cents. We were able to negotiate the "cap" (formerly 2500 share minimum) to a place where many more of our traders can take advantage of the lower pricing (1,000 shares). I want to say that YES, we ARE hoping that serious traders will trade over 1000 shares, because they need to to make money in this marketplace. The same people who were trading 2000 shares on $80 stocks, and trading 1000 shares on $20 stocks... and it doesn't make sense. I know that there will always be some trying to find "motives" ... and now you have them. We continue to do well because we want our traders to do well and stay with us. And, to be honest, we got sick and tired of training traders, who would end up being "poached" for a few pennies. I'm glad to say that many are returning. The firms cannot "race to zero" without causing themselves some problems, and so far we have remained financially sound. With the help of GS/SLK, we hope to continue our growth of quality traders. Things change, and I hope that no one is afraid to come by and chat and see what's new. More later....gotta head to Denver in an hour. Don
No Eric, won't pay retail when others are not. But, will ONLY shop with a dealer that tells me his 'best price' (in writing) BEFORE I show up to look at the car and meet with the sales folks. I've bought 14 cars via the I.Net since 1996, I won't deal any other way unless I have my 'best/fair' price before talking. Same is true for any large purchase or financial transaction in our lives. Bright was the only company that would give me their pricing, in writing, before I met with them and got the 'pitch'! Bright's been the same way all along - 'Best' pricing exists for 'best' customers - high volume, high balance accounts (I'm neither). But, us 'little guys' can benefit from their leverage and aggressive pricing that 'trickles down' to us little dogs. Now we even get some better pricing on relatively small orders (over 1000 shares) vs. 'fills'. Also, if you're a relatively low volume trader like me you can still get ALL your monthly rent/access charge (Non-SEC) 'rebated' just by moving 200,000 shares or more (regardless of indvidual order size) - this saves at least another $0.001/share every month!