It's not exactly "easy" for me, and your argument is ridiculous. If their training and technology was so great, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE LOST THOSE TRADERS! Those guys would have made money. Look, to be a good trader you have to know how to make money in the market. Not just a big bull mkt with huge trends, but any type of market. Those guys who made big bucks in 1999 then lost it all last year were never any good to begin with, just lucky. Maxgain - you are wrong about low rates not being an edge, but right that strategies certainly will at some point stop working.
I think something has been lost here in everyone's zeal to have their opinion heard on commission costs being a make or break issue! If you are involved in the trading business and you treat commissions simply as a cost of doing your business than its importance is clearly evident. Commission costs are to the trader as bolts might be to a manufacturer,. If you are involved in manufacturing something that requires lots of bolts (commissions) their is important. If what you manufacture requires very few bolts (commissions) the cost of those bolts is going to be relatively less on the whole. Hence, if you are a highly active micro-scalper trading for fractions of a penny the cost of each commission is very important and cumulatively can mean the difference between make and brake. If you are a swing trader trading for quarters, halfs, and dollars, and taking relatively few trades then obviously the costs of each commission will be less significant to your overall profitability. The point is, it is all a matter of perspective and while it is true that low commission rates aren't going to make you a 'better trader' , they are important in the overall profitability equation, more so for some than others. X
Commission is important but when you are entering a trade, if you are concerned about whether the commission plus ecn is going to be 7.50 /1000 or 12.50/1000 you probably shouldn't be trading your own $$...Go to a prop firm and scalp out a living...just my opinion
Well said, and I think there is a second point in the argument - something along the lines of 'you get what you pay for'. Obviously, execution speed, reliability of the system, and the overall confidence you have in your platform and your broker-dealer matter, but the frustration is how difficult it is to compare one firm or platform to another on these (more important) measures. Until Consumer Reports publishes the "annual day trader guide" people have to compare apples to apples where they can. Unfortunately, that almost always leaves only commissions as the comparable measure.
That's why there should be a free exchange of opinions on facilities, rates, software and other intangibles by traders who are pure traders and do not have interests in firms and LLC's. This market should be more transparent, because currently: sometimes you get more than what you pay for and most of the times you get less than what you pay for.
Both small and Samba have good points in my opinion. Just a simple downtime report in minutes and seconds would be a good measure of reliability. From what I understand IB has one the one of the lowest commissions for futures but has had reliability issues at times. I was in the elite chat room and witnessed one of the famous scalpers in there not being able to put on a scalp......because his IB platform was down....well I would consider that a loss too, as he has a very high win rate. So being stuck in a trade or no live desk support can be critical to a scalpers profitability. Refco live would be an example of a antiquated platform not suited at all to report back or make 1 second executions. Ok it may be reliable....but this is another issue that is critical to ANY traders success. The thought of a tick or 2 not being an issue because the entry and exit is not so time sensitive is simply illustrating the need for a trader to be in control of his or her decisions. Frankly, when I make a decision to enter or exit, I want to be able to trust my tools to execute my decisions for me when I expect. This would apply to trend catchers and scalpers alike....Position traders, Ironman traders swing traders......all need control. Again, THE FOCUS IS NOT MERELY COMMISSION EXPENSES. In these times do traders just throw quality out the door? Sure when I add up my commissions for the year, I feel like my broker should at least take me out to lunch...but i wonder if my bottom line was improved by the good quality that I paid for? THIS IS THE QUESTION! As far as prop firms and pooling of traders together...well why would these issues be any different? Michael B.
Commissions is the "house edge". No one teaching Blackjack would say "If you are concerned about the house edge being 1% as opposed to 5%, you shouldn't be playing". In fact any hope of success relies on reducing the house edge. This seems to be rarely addressed when educating new traders, maybe because they are being taught by the casinos!
It's hard to believe how much B.S. is getting posted on these threads about how commissions are not that important. If you are a full-time day trader (not a swing or position trader), then getting a very competitive commission rate is CRITICAL to success. If you're not getting a competitive rate, then you are trading at a disadvantage relative to your competition. The implication here appears to be that the "right firm" is going to somehow make you successful, so you should pay more in commissions ... well, to anybody who believes that - I wish you good luck, because you'll definitely need it! ALL firms have problems, and if a trader hasn't experienced them, then he/she is either extremely lucky, or has not been trading very long. I realize that times are tough, and a lot of marginal LLCs and firms may be on the verge of biting the dust, but some of the stuff being posted is humorous at best, and harmful to the less informed. Regards, Slave2Market