Russell 2000 e-mini

Discussion in 'Index Futures' started by ganesh6, Jan 1, 2009.

  1. ganesh6



    How is the volume/spread of TF on ICE.
    Anybody here trading it currently?
    Appreciate of your opinion.

  2. smoss


    volume is fine, but spread is much worse than was as ER2. Seems the bots control the inside and keep it wide.
  3. ganesh6


    Thanks for the info.
    Roughly how much is the spread between bid/ask.
    Is it something like .20/.30 or more than that.

  4. Not as bad as gold
  5. If you like buying from a market maker then its fine. It sure is not like trading the ER. You can really tell that at times the liquidity dissappears and MMs are the only players. After Hours is a joke.
  6. auspiv


    yes, it is usually between .2-.4 points
  7. ganesh6


  8. Interesting article on the TF I came across. Seems one opinion is that there is less bot trading on it. I'm not familar with the TF so I would be curious what others think:


    How to Successfully Trade the Russell 2000 E-mini Futures
    By Austin Passamonte |

    The S&P 500 futures are obviously king of e-mini index markets. More traders work that symbol than all other e-mini index futures combined. But, popularity as measured by volume does not always mean superiority of profit potential. Other e-mini markets exist for valid reasons... some darn good ones at that.

    ES futures are most liquid, most popular, and most churned by blackbox computer programs of all. Using the term "efficient market" would definitely rate the ES as most efficient = least profitable to trade because of that. The ES spends more time going sideways in consolidation patterns and/or pulling back inside directional periods (back & fill) than any of the other e-mini index symbols. That fundamental truth is due to professional-level players working big orders with varied agendas which have absolutely nothing to do with accumulation or distribution patterns. Hedging to offset blocks of stock, SPY shares, SPX option positions, intermarket positions such as ES/NQ spreads are all part of the intraday influence on S&P 500 futures.

    In addition to that, numerous blackbox computer programs exist solely for the purpose of scalping sideways profit potential from ES markets versus something else. Either the arbitrage spread between ES and SPY, ES and SPX options, ES e-mini futures versus SP00S pit-traded futures and their mismatched bid/ask spreads, etc. In other words, a lot of big money positions trade inside the ES with absolutely no regard to direction. Matter of fact, these program types work to keep price action sideways by arbitraging price discrepancies between different symbols.

    It is that constant pressure on ES from both sides by myriad market players most of the day, every day which creates persistent sideways price behavior or "chop". Some retail traders develop strategies to take advantage of that predictable sideways behavior the ES has, to a degree, that no other e-mini index market does. There are also periods of time where the ES is directional and trending, too. Overall it is the most congested e-mini symbol with the least amount of straightline price movement on a consistent basis, for the reasons described above amongst many others.

    Russell 2000 Futures

    By far the most dynamic e-mini index future of all is the Russell 2000 (TF) contract. Based on small-cap stocks, it is a general market proxy and leading indicator to where all other index markets usually head... including the S&P 500. In other words, the TF contract is a leading indicator for all. It has been a leading market indicator for years, and will probably continue to be the ultimate broad market "tell" far into the future as well.

    More importantly, the TF futures contract is a highly tradable instrument itself. In the past from inception to September 2008 it traded on CME exchange. Since September onward it is listed on the NYBOT (ICE) exchange and trades apart from other e-mini index futures listed on the CME. That in itself is actually a great benefit to this symbol, which didn't seem likely at the time. Russell 2000 e-mini traders worried that the ER2 leaving its home base at CME in exchange for a different exchange would ruin the contract. It did result in lower volume traded, for a couple of reasons. Part of that was the usual uncertainty that any change in life creates. The other part was an absolute explosion of volatility = implosion of stock markets right when the migration from ER2/CME to TF/ICE occurred. Former ER2 players were dealt with dual variables of a new symbol/exchange inside extreme price movement thru the entire marketplace. That shifted many would-be TF traders into other symbols or sidelined cash until the dust settled.

    Now that the dust has settled, we learned that the TF futures are a bit more extreme on both ends of behavior than former ER2 was. When the TF is going directional, it is a straight arrow with nil pullbacks or counter moves. When TF is going sideways, it will roll thru a wider hi-lo pattern now than it ever did before. This "new" behavior is attributed to TF being listed on a different exchange than ES and NQ. Whereas before the old ER2 was easily cross-margined in spreads that arbed price variances between the symbols, now the margins required are much higher for such spreads between ES or NQ and TF.

    In the past if ER2 was out of balance with ES or NQ, i.e. the tapes diverged, spread traders could short one/long the other which would essentially rein in the ER2. That type of sideways throttling relationship no longer exists between them, because margins are fractional within CME products spread. In order to trade the same arb spreads between ES/TF or NQ/TF now, it requires two full margins for each spread position.

    Furthermore, when spreads within the CME were active and exchange went offline for trading access, it was no big deal. But spreads open across two different exchanges where one of those may go offline exposes the other open leg of that trade to unlimited potential loss. Spread traders abhor risk, which is part of why they trade spreads instead of linear positions in the first place. For those reasons and more, e-mini spread traders pretty much leave the cross-exchange spread arbing alone. Which is one major reason why the TF is considerably smoother and more directional than other e-minis... lack of sideways arb position pressures.

    Liquid Enough?

    ,p>TF futures are trading about half the overall volume that ER2 did before the change. The average daily volume in TF is roughly 150,000 contracts, whereas the ER2 did average somewhere around 250,000 to 300,000 contracts daily. Compared to many futures symbols, the present TF volume is substantial. For most retail traders, it offers enough liquidity to fill five - ten contracts with nil to minimal slippage. Larger orders will regularly clear as well, but partial fills on a single strike limit-order are possible during lulls in the tape intraday. TF traders wanting to push block size orders can easily stagger contracts across several ticks' span to ensure complete fills in most instances.

    The bid/ask spread varies from one tick to two ticks wide, occasionally more around economic reports and other known market-moving events. With a value of $10 per tick = ten ticks per index point, this may seem rangy to some. However, the fact that TF trades commonly run +4 points to +10 points from entry signal to various price objectives makes everything relative. An initial stop of -1.5 points/-$150 per contract with realistic expectations of profit exit for +5 points/+$500 per contract to +10 points/+$1,000 per contract offers an unparalleled risk/reward ratio.

    These numbers are pie-in-sky randomness. Using even a -2pt initial stop while seeking +5pt profit objectives is a ratio offered multiple times daily, session after session.

    Big ES players purposely push thru recent highs or lows right before immediate reversals are planned. Then again, trying to play that pattern every time will result in stopped-out trades when in fact those moves are bonafide directional breaks instead of trap reversals. Russell 2000 e-mini markets are not gamed by the big players trapping retail traders on the wrong side ahead of planned surge moves. In other words, TF trades purer and more directional than ES. Less directional guesswork is involved.


    Russell 2000 e-mini futures are back, and imo better behaved than ever. They do have their limitations and pitfalls, it goes without saying there is no perfect or superior all-around symbol. If there was, everybody would trade the same thing. For those of us who like trendy, directional and dynamic price action, TF Russell 2000 e-mini futures fits that bill to a "T".