|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
<x-html><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content='"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=GENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>RTs:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Does anyone trade the 10-year Japanese Government Bond on
SIMEX or the Tokyo Stock Exchange.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>If so what kind of slippage have you experienced over the past
year on either exchange?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Thanks,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Jeff Stewart</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Atlanta, Georgia</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>From ???@??? Sun Feb 21 16:55:56 1999
Received: from list.listserver.com (198.68.191.15)
by mail05.rapidsite.net (RS ver 1.0.2) with SMTP id 19337
for <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 19:36:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by accessone.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/PIH) with SMTP id QAA20817;
Sun, 21 Feb 1999 16:32:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nova.zianet.com (zianet.net [204.134.124.26])
by accessone.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/PIH) with SMTP id QAA20627
for <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 16:30:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from r078.zianet.com (r078.zianet.com [207.66.42.87]) by nova.zianet.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id na261261 for <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 17:26:34 -0700
Message-Id: <008201be5dfa$848330f0$572a42cf@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 17:27:41 -0700
Reply-To: eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: "Earl Adamy" <eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Fut: T-Bonds Data accuracy
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-To: "RealTraders Discussion Group" <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN
X-Loop-Detect: 1
X-UIDL: e495ae5a8db58f13396227b67d50b95b.10
When I switched from NYSE stocks and Spyders to futures early last year, I
felt that the e-mini 25 point tick size and relatively high commissions per
round turn were a strong disadvantage. In fact, I remember considering the
e-mini to be something of a rip-off. I started with the s&p contracts and
traded them until the volatility hit this summer/fall. The volatility
brought a lot more slippage, tick size in 50 point increments, and
announcements that orders outside of 50/100 increments would not be held.
Further, I had been accustomed to instant electronic execution on the NYSE
and did not appreciate the "advantages" of talking to some harried/busy/rude
broker to obtain pit execution. The volatility challenge led me to
re-evaluate the e-mini and I begin using it - initially on a temporary basis
until the s&p settled down. The more I traded the e-mini, the more I liked
it and I've never had the desire to give up fully electronic trading in
favor of a return to pit trading. Except for thinly traded night sessions,
there is more than adequate depth to turn 20-30 contracts without slippage,
if one does not trade breakouts and I don't.
In summary, I no longer view the e-mini as a rip-off. From a practical view,
there is no way the CME members would permit an electronic duplication of
the s&p pit. The e-mini is a compromise, however it is a most useful
compromise and clearly demonstrates and showcases the advantages of
electronic futures trading. The huge growth in trading volume in something
over a year, clearly demonstrates that both the e-mini and electronic
trading serves a need and has a future.
Earl
-----Original Message-----
From: Ira <ist@xxxxxx>
To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sunday, February 21, 1999 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: Fut: T-Bonds Data accuracy
>I did not mean cast aspersions upon those trading the e-mini, just those
that
>created it. It was created to attract traders that could not afford to
trade
>the larger contract, therefore create a vehicle for those financially
>disadvantaged and therefore probably less experienced. I have traded the e
mini,
>on occasion, when the volatility in the larger contract went berserk. With
my
>commission structure I would need a 3/4 point move to break even. It
forces me
>to trade a longer time frame then I am accustomed to with the S&P. I find
that
>the fills are better with a direct call to globex for the e-mini trades and
the
>prices I receive seem to better then I could expect most of the time from
the
>big contract. A trader has the right to trade anything that he deems
himself fit
>to trade. He can bet on which bird will leave a fence rail first, if that
suits
>him. My objection is to the people who create instruments specifically
designed
>to generate income from those who, in most cases, shouldn't be traeding
those
>instruments. Some major funds could fall into that catagory when you
include
>derivatives. Have a good week. Ira.
>
>Earl Adamy wrote:
>
>> Other day you made a comment which basically boiled down to e-mini is for
>> small traders who can't afford to trade the spoo. I don't suppose you
>> considered the fact that the e-mini provides 3-5 times as many quotes per
>> minute and that limit fills are virtually always available at the bid/ask
>> (sell/buy) I see on the (free) CME real-time internet feed. (Am not
>> referring to the 3rd party vendor feeds which always lag a few seconds).
For
>> nominal additional cost in commission and slightly larger tick size, one
can
>> eliminate the slippage in the pit and the hassle of dealing with human
>> beings. That's why some of us trade the e-mini, not because we can't
afford
>> to do the spoo.
>>
>> Earl
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ira <ist@xxxxxx>
>> To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Saturday, February 20, 1999 11:34 PM
>> Subject: Re: Fut: T-Bonds Data accuracy
>>
>> >That is why when you call the pit to put in an order, ask the price.
The
>> bid
>> >and offer are away from what you see on the screen. In the S&P pit it
can
>> get
>> >real weird. I still like the phone over the net. Ira.
>
|