[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: FUTR S&P MIni commissions


  • To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: FUTR S&P MIni commissions
  • From: "Cliff Scheller" <cliffsch@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 06:45:06 -0700 (PDT)
  • In-reply-to: <34270362.6916A4B6@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

PureBytes Links

Trading Reference Links


> Shane Wisdom wrote (re ct./month):
> > commish schedule:
> > 0-20 = 34.50
> > 21-50 = 29.50
> > 51-80 = 25.50
> > 80-100= 21.50 
> > over 100= 19.00.
> > This is how I work it....it's very competitive if you shop around. 

WOW. Is this typical, or an outlier?

This is just more evidence that the mini is absolutely THE BEST thing 
that the industry has invented in years to take the little guy's 
money. And it will, nice and slow, but with certainty, in the high 
majority of cases.

This also a great place to apply risk of ruin calculations. Given the 
slippage, commission, and tic size, against statistical range and 
profit per big point of movement, a SUPER-performing system is needed 
to insure against total bankruptcy. And if  you have a system that is 
that good, you would be foolish to trade the mini.

IMHO, the industry was just salivating at all the wannabes who 
didn't have the money to trade the hi-margin spoos, but desparately 
wanted to be a part of the "action". Wannabes LOVE the spoo, 'cause 
it represents the hot action, instant effort-free riches, and 
lifestyle which they believe awaits them  as futures traders. And, of 
course, the industry longs for the ones that did have the money, 
traded the spoo a few times and blew out. The industry got $45 and 
fees, while the customer lost $4K. That is not good. It is better for 
the $4K to go to the industry.

So, the industry has filled a need that the market presented. <g>.

Anyone considering trading the mini-spoo with high commissions and 
without an absolutely STELLAR edge and profit expectation should just 
write a check to their favorite charity instead. 


Cliff