In futures there ARE NO Nasdaq style market makers or NYSE-type specialists. The person making the market in futures is in the SAME position you are with regard to the market's order entry system. What you are arguing for is illiquid markets. It makes no sense.
>>This has got to be the most ridiculous post I have seen to date. You are trying to convince other ES traders that it is in their interest to have higher costs, more friction in their trading. Then only COST you are paying is COMMISSION. I have no friction. I am smoothly profitable even with one tick. >>You are either a lunatic or you are a CME member of some sort who benefits from having an artificially wide tick increment in the S&P emini market. I am neither. And 0.1 is not artificial? Then why not go to 0.000000000000001 or lower. Destroy another good product and then move on. If I, the trader, say that .25 is what I want, I dont need SEC to tell me that this is not what I want. >>The argument I made back in October is that the tick on the S&P emini should be the same as the tick size on the pit traded contract - they both should be .10. There is no reason to discriminate against the smaller emini trader. I dont trade big contracts. I care about e-minis. And I like them the way they are. Dont fix what is not broke. >>The original justification for having a wider tick for the Emini when it was launched was that arbitrage between the emini and the pit would provide liquidity to the electronic market. OK. So now that we traders built up liquidity in e-minis, we dont need anybody to come in and screw with it. >>Let the market work as it should. Free markets for free people. So dont meddle with free market then. Let it be.
Tea, what planet are you from? The CTFC is not the SEC. It does not set the parameters of the futures products. The exchanges do.
The above is another ridiculous comment made by someone who probably benefits from having a wide tick. You guys must really be getting desperate - which I will take as a good sign. Your comments above are on par with saying - Hey if you can't handle $40 commission per contract then you should not be trading. Nonsense! The sign of a good trader is when he or she looks to reduce costs. Trading is a business. Reducing costs is what all businesses do. Trading is no exception.
Wrong. The sign of a good trader is when he is looking to make a bigger profit. Reducing costs is what kids that trade through Datek care about. If you want to reduce costs dont trade at all. Save a bundle.
Lets see, 10 trades per day X 240 trading days X $7.5 = $18,000 per contract in extra cost per year. That's a nice amount to shave off per contract for a .10 spread. How many people could use an extra $18,000 profit annually per contract??? No, not me, I believe extra expenses are actually a good thing!
The CFTC is supposed to look out for the public good in the futures market as does the SEC in the equities market etc. I am from planet earth - you must be from planet CME.
What you dont realize, is that with thinner spread you will not be able to make 10 profitable trades a day, but a lot less as it will take more ticks to break even (at least). So yes you will save money by trading less. It is like saying you want to take local train to work instead of express, because it gives you an opportunity to choose what stop you can get off and get on. But all the stops in between dont matter, because the only one that will get you to your destination is the same one whether you have ten stops in between or none. Except you will get there faster.
The spread does not represent a cost in futures trading the way it is in a stock brokerage which is trading against your order flow or with a market maker who gets to fondle the book for 30 seconds before executing your order. With electronic products there is nothing preventing you from joining the bid right along with the other vile market makers. The correct selection of the tick size assures liquidity.