2001issue C031
Audit high-turnover operating conditions as one procedure
The archive criticized high-turnover work that stopped at watched entries and exits. Commissions, spread-capture, fill location, idle cash, overhead, and tax belong on the same checklist as entry, exit, and abstention.
- Design operating-conditions first. A rule set is not complete until commissions, spread-capture, fill location, idle-cash-drag, overhead-scaling, and tax-asymmetry can be scored with entry, exit, and abstention.
- The cost-stack reduces a high-turnover procedure before any discretionary call is judged. Non-member, non-professional stock trades were described as commonly costing about $8 to $15, with a researched target near $1 per 100 shares, and with support costs recovered through the customer’s spread.
- Bar-extreme-liquidity leaves little size at a bar’s high and low, so fill-location-bias puts executable trades nearer the middle of the day’s range. Assuming fills at those extremes, or at drawn prices that never traded, is a rule-test-suspect.
- The archive criticized concentration on watched entries and exits. Assemble alternatives, choose operating-conditions, and revisit those conditions after a routine is set.
A rule set still needs a setting
The archive criticized traders for concentrating on watched entries and exits instead of assembling alternatives, choosing operating-conditions, and revisiting those conditions after a routine is set. Operating-conditions are the combined brokerage, fill, cash, overhead, and tax setting in which a rule set must actually run.
The same record treated imperfect discretionary decisions as reducing results relative to simply holding the market. Watched prices were not enough to finish the procedure.
What belongs in the cost-stack
The cost-stack is the layered frictions that reduce a high-turnover procedure before any discretionary call is judged. Non-member, non-professional stock trades were described as commonly costing about $8 to $15, with a researched target near $1 per 100 shares.
Sold order flow and brokerage support costs were described as being recovered through the customer’s spread. That recovery is spread-capture. It produces slippage that draws fewer complaints than an explicit fee, so the cost still has to be listed even when no separate ticket line shows it.
Cash sitting unused in a trading account was treated as a rising opportunity cost because it was not earning interest. That idle-cash-drag is part of the same stack. Active traders were described as tending to raise office and software overhead rather than keep it at essentials. That habit is overhead-scaling.
Profits were described as taxable, losses as not shared by the tax authority, and combined rates as high as 50% in some states and cities. Tax-asymmetry is the name for that split: profits are reduced by tax, and losses are not shared.
Where a bar can actually be filled
Liquidity at a price bar’s high and low was described as typically thin. That is bar-extreme-liquidity, and it makes those prints poor assumed fill points. Executable fills were described as more likely near the middle of the day’s range. That tendency is fill-location-bias.
Fast-moving bars were described as often drawn through levels where no trade occurred. A test that assumes fills at bar highs, lows, or visually interpolated mid-bar prices that may never have traded is a rule-test-suspect. Fill location belongs on the checklist with the entry and exit, not after them.
Choose the conditions, then revisit them
The archive did not treat a finished watch-list of entries and exits as a finished method. Traders were told to assemble alternatives, choose the operating-conditions, and come back to those conditions after a routine is set.
A pre-trade checklist that can score abstention is the same list that can score whether the cost-stack, the fill, the idle cash, the overhead, and the tax treatment still match the routine. If those items cannot be scored, the rule set is not complete.
All readings on this track · 32 readings
- 1985Matching ticket size to negotiable commission schedules
- 1985Minimum tickets can price a small book out of its own exit
- 1992Stop-order slippage as an execution cost filter
- 1993Cost-aware walk-forward evaluation of pattern-detector signals
- 2001Audit high-turnover operating conditions as one procedure
- 2002Front-load futures commission and slippage
- 2005Inactive account fees as hidden implementation cost
- 2010A pre-trade liquidity screen for futures contracts
- 2011Currency option venues, spreads, clearing, and premium cost
- 2012Filter futures contracts by liquidity and implementation cost
- 2012Futures commission versus one tick of cost
- 2012Ranking futures liquidity for executable orders
- 2013Filter option day trades by spread, volume, and fees
- 2013Filter futures by liquidity, open interest, and effective margin
- 2014Book futures data fees as implementation cost
- 2015Use a futures liquidity rank as a pre-trade checklist
- 2015Filter unexecutable futures by liquidity, open interest, and margin
- 2015Futures liquidity ranking as an execution filter
- 2015Filtering option trades by bid-ask width
- 2016Exchange quote fees as execution costs and liquidity filters
- 2016Filter futures by liquidity, open interest, and margin cost
- 2016Comparing dollar-index futures execution costs and liquidity
- 2016A futures liquidity ranking as a screen for executable orders
- 2017Filter a futures board by liquidity, open interest, and implementation cost
- 2017Filter futures contracts by liquidity and margin cost
- 2017How residency rules raise futures implementation costs
- 2018Screen listed futures by liquidity, open interest, and margin
- 2018Contract selection is the first filter on competing bitcoin futures
- 2018Filter futures execution by liquidity and margin
- 2018Commission analysis for brokerage execution costs
- 2019Ranking futures liquidity before you size the order
- 2020Brokerage selection as an implementation-cost problem