Say No To Thin E-mini Spread

Discussion in 'Index Futures' started by estrader, Dec 12, 2002.

  1. Minime

    Minime

    I was speaking of the emini's. The ES has double the volume the NQ has (if I recollect correctly).
     
    #31     Dec 12, 2002

  2. Let me ask you. If you like .10 spread why not trade NQ emini instead of "costly" ES emini?
     
    #32     Dec 12, 2002
  3. Ditch

    Ditch

    I think lower CME-commssions is a much more urgent issue the the spread, especially on the NQ, where the profit/commission ratio has deteriotated tremendously the last two years.
     
    #33     Dec 12, 2002
  4. nitro

    nitro

    Exactly.

    Leave the e-mini spoo alone. Or if kiddies want to play with dime spreads, invent the e-e-e-mini for them, and call them the weenies.

    I vote for lower comissons though!!

    nitro
     
    #34     Dec 12, 2002
  5. Tea

    Tea

    The S&P Emini is 1/5 the size of the pit contract so comparing dollar value of a tick move the way you are is disingenuous.


    You are really reaching deep trying to come up with convoluted logic and FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) to preserve an archaic system. The non-members fees of the Emini would be the same if the tick increment were .10 or .25

    Saying that somehow I am for the big guys and against the little guy (I am a little guy by the way) because I want to reduce my trading costs and narrow the spread is just more FUD and shows how desperate you guys are.

    Reducing the tick increment in the Emini market will increase it's liquidity as more medium sized hedge funds shift their S&P business to the Emini market due to reduced costs. Also, there would be more Emini scalpers, as their profitability would go up due to lower costs per transaction.

    Lets face it, the big scare for CME floor traders is that if the tick increment were the same for the pit contract as the Emini, it would shift business to the emini which would be a good thing for all Emini traders.
     
    #35     Dec 12, 2002
  6. HAHAHAHAHA


    Trade The WEENIES!!



    :D :D :D
     
    #36     Dec 12, 2002
  7. Tea

    Tea


    If you can save $7.50 per Emini S&P transaction in slippage due to a .10 tick increment vs. .25 - how would that be less urgent/important than saving $2.80 in CME fees?
     
    #37     Dec 12, 2002
  8. Minime

    Minime

    So your assumption is people that live on the spread create the liquidity in these markets? If that's true then I'd agree with your argument, but I find it hard to believe that a significant part of the volume is traders capturing the spread. Do you have data to support this?
     
    #38     Dec 12, 2002
  9. Ditch

    Ditch

    i really can't judge the arguments pro/con, i think there's validity in both of them. I do know that e-mini volume has sky-rocketed, markets have gone down, fees have stayed the same, ergo the CME is making big bucks, the trader's transaction costs have increased relative to his profit potential, can't see this is a fair situation.
     
    #39     Dec 12, 2002
  10. Ditch

    Ditch

    If you can trade e-mini Dows for $2/RT on the CBot, don't tell me the CME can't match that on the ES/Nq.
     
    #40     Dec 12, 2002