No, the CME license states specifically that as long
as continue to list
new open interest, they keep the
rights to list future expiration dates.
THEY choose when to walk away. If they are delisting,
it is because
they choose to. I know this first hand,
from the contract and the
negotiations.
But I think they are not satisfied with the
russell
anyway. But ICE is not going to be the answer. They
are very far
behind in terms of clearing and execution
technology. They have no ability
to handle any volume.
Tim
--- RB <rhodes@xxxxxxxxxxxcom>
wrote:
> Yep.
> ICE has owned the licensing rights to the
russell
> indexes since June and the CME contract runs untill
>
Sept. 2008. So the CME can't list any of them after
> sept. 2008. They
don't own the liscens any more.
> Russell wanted to move and probably
would have
> moved to ICE, no matter what CME did or offered.
> I
believe ICE can be the future. But they better
> get to work.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Andrew Nopper
> To: realtraders@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 7:12 PM
> Subject: RE: [RT]
E-mini Russell 2000
>
>
>
> According to
Russell/ICE, when the current
> licences expire they won't be renewed.
As for the
> CME, they'll be delisting the Russell 2000 at the
>
expiry of the Sept '08 contact. From my point of
> view, it's a mistake
because I don't think that the
> ICE platform is as stable as Globex and
volume may
> never reach current levels. As for the CME, they
>
probably made the right choice - $50 Million is a
> lot for something
that, according to Tim Morge, is
> worth a lot less.
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
>
From: realtraders@yahoogroups.com
>
[mailto:realtraders@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of RB
> Sent: November 20, 2007 6:14 PM
> To: realtraders@yahoogroups.com
>
Subject: Re: [RT] E-mini Russell 2000
>
>
>
>
Sorry.
>
> I was talking about another email. Something
>
about a mistake for dropping it,
>
> and about they can do what
they want.
>
> It was my understanding that they had to drop
it
> by a certain date, because ICE owns it. So it
> probably had
little to do with what they wanted or
> didn't want.
>
>
But, I guess they didn't want it, because they
> didn't buy it. That may
or may not have been a
> mistake.
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Andrew
Nopper
>
> To: realtraders@yahoogroups.com
>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:09 AM
>
>
Subject: RE: [RT] E-mini Russell 2000
>
>
>
> No,
no mistake, I trade it on the CME each and
> every day. Yes, ICE has had
its version for a few
> months now, but volume is around 700 contracts
per
> day compared to the CME version which averages over
>
200,000 per day.
>
> Andrew
>
> From: realtraders@yahoogroups.com
>
[mailto:realtraders@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of RB
> Sent: November 19, 2007 10:29 PM
> To: realtraders@yahoogroups.com
>
Subject: Re: [RT] E-mini Russell 2000
>
> You may be
mistaken.
>
> I believe ICE got it months ago.
>
>
----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Mark Simms
>
> To: realtraders@yahoogroups.com
>
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 8:49 PM
>
>
Subject: RE: [RT] E-mini Russell 2000
>
> Huge mistake IMHO for
the CME dropping this
> volatile derivative.
>
> I don't
quite "get it"...and told them so.
>
> But alas, they are now a
monopoly and can do
> what they want....and have CFTC approval.
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: realtraders@yahoogroups.com
>
[mailto:realtraders@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of
> Andrew Nopper
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007
1:37 PM
> To: e-mini_traders_anon@xxxxxxxxxxx.com;
>
RealTraders
> Subject: [RT] E-mini Russell 2000
>
> The CME
will be delisting the ER2 contract
> at the expiry of the Sept
'08
> contract and ICE already has its version up
> and running.
Volume, of course,
> is pathetic with barely 1000 contracts
>
traded in a day, but that should
> change.
>
> My only
knowledge of ICE is from the
> frequent alerts from Interactive
>
Brokers that the ICE platform is down. I've
> seen no mention on these
lists
> of any concerns by traders of the move to
> ICE, whether
the volume will be
> the same as it is now, whether the CME will
>
introduce a similar index and
> what impact that will have, etc.,
etc.
>
> Any thoughts anyone?
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>