LMAO this must be the most ridiculous no slippage simulation i have ever seen ...anywhere. there is an arb between minis n micros..duh
First learn to read and write and come back after that (will probably be never). The simulation starts with a net profit after slippage. If I speak about profit it is after slippage. Where did I speak about buy or sell signals? You are a real professional that's clear. I mean a professional poster... over 400 postings in 1 month. LOL. I understand your frustration about the 10 cent increase. it eats up all your profits. LOL. Or are you still papertrading? This has nothing to do with the arb between ES and MES. You clearly have no clue what I talk about.
NIFTY offers both. Unlike most other exchanges, their single name futures are pretty liquid too. The only catch is that you can't access these products unless you have a local entity. I used to trade these at my previous job and it's a pain in the ass to set it up.
Even more critical to his fantasy numbers, he forgot MES has the same tick increment but with only one-tenth the tick value of ES!! Evidenced by his silliness... "The MES will be able faster to add a new contract. By the time the ES can add 1 contract, the MES will already be at 24 contracts. So 20% bigger trading size for the MES. The growth of your account is the result of frequency* amount of profit*size of the contract. Just make a simulation yourself in excel. Compare $5000 in ES with margin $5000 and $5000 in MES with margin $500. So you trade the same amount but with 10 times more contracts (and 10 times more expenses) in the MES. In the 3 points simulation you will see that the account of MES will be bigger (after the 10th trade) than the account in ES till around the 300th trade. The advantage of the MES trades will be around 14K more net profits. Only after the 300th trade ES will be more profitable." Being the wingnut that he is, he thinks blocking me prevents seeing or quoting. True genius.
After a quick assessment of what you wrote it became crystal clear to me that you and many others on this site are full of it. You made nothing but assumptions and have no idea what actual slippage will be in the futire
Well, this thread has now evolved into several issues....and made them a f*cked-up "mash-up" of sorts: 1) Micro vs. full contract commissions and fees as a percentage of points 2) Margin requirements of Micro vs. full contract 3) Slippage differences between Micro vs. full contract
After more than 20 years daytrading futures I have a fairly good idea about slippage and profitability of my trading. As I don't want to show my trading results I have to make assumptions. I also don't need to start a journal like you to make others stroke your ego. Journals are a typical thing for newbies who want to get attention, as they need lots of attention. I read how you even dare to take more than 1 micro contract. Your trading is like your ego, not mini but micro. tradeKING is as clear proof about your huge ego. You are arrogant.
I have absolutely no dog in this fight, but from my perspective there appears to be natural connection in people's minds between contract notional and tic size as a direct correlation to what would be fair exchange fees. For example - if a micro contract (MX) is 1/10th the notional and tic size of contract X, then the exchange fees should be 1/10th the size as well. I'm sure that CME management and the Board of Directors have a volume turnover figure as a fractional valuation of the CME's operating expenses. In other words, what it costs CME to host and clear the exchange of one futures contract. That expense ratio is likely the same regardless if it's a Eurodollar or a MES. Just as a side note, ICE does about half the futures volume as the CME but their annual revenue is very comparable. This is because ICE does a shit ton of financially cleared swaps (mostly energy). And the exchange fees on those used to be something like $14. Part of me believes that CME should maybe lose money on micro contracts in order to cultivate new traders and volume. The problem with that is the Micros could be taking volume away from ES - much like ES did to the floor traded full size S&P futures contract. So there's this knock-off effect. 25 years ago, CME was a member owned and operated concern that could (and did) do more rational things like subsidize all sorts of new developmental contracts. The CBOT subsidized the Mid-Am as a minor league developmental trading exchange project for decades. But these days, being listed on NASDAQ as the world's largest derivatives exchange - CME ain't gonna lose money hosting a product.
Not sure that is true.....as was mentioned in this thread, India now surpasses the CME: "The National Stock Exchange of India grew 58% to 6 billion contracts traded in 2019, surpassing CME Group to become the world’s largest exchange. CME's 2019 volume in 2019 was 4.83 billion contracts, roughly the same as the prior year." I guess your statement is still true since the CME does NOT handle individual stocks. IOW, the Indian exchange is not a pure derivatives exchange.
@syswizard December 2020 issue of Marketvoice. Pages 8-10 has rankings from September 2020. https://www.fia.org/sites/default/files/2020-12/248068_MV_DEC2020_DIGI_F1.pdf