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
>
>
>
>