2014issue C1141
Commission shopping is the wrong first filter for a futures order
The archive treats extra commission as potentially smaller than implementation-cost from a placement error. The order still has to reach the right listing, the right side, and an exit that exists after a limit-lock.
- A commission-filter ranks posted ticket cost first, but implementation-cost from a thin listing, a mis-keyed side, or an unexit-able lock can be the larger line.
- Order-routing still has to select the contract, expiration, side, and instruction type the venue will accept.
- A liquidity-filter belongs before the send; one observation day showed nearly 37,000 March world sugar contracts against five in the same-month domestic listing.
- In a limit-lock, a sell may still be accepted while a buy cannot, so a short opened into the lock can stay open into the next session.
The ticket is not the trade
A commission-filter uses posted ticket cost as the first screen when choosing who places an order and how closely it is watched. Full-service and broker-assisted desks are described as combining order placement, market guidance, and margin-call handling, at a higher commission than unassisted routing. The column treats that extra commission as potentially smaller than the implementation-cost of placement errors a supervised desk is meant to catch.
Implementation-cost is the extra paid or lost from a thin listing, a mis-keyed side, or an unexit-able lock, beyond the posted commission. The posted fee is only the visible line on the ticket.
Unassisted routing still has homework
Self-directed online placement is framed as a commission-saving path that still requires knowledge of symbols, listed months, and risk calculation, plus the ability to avoid impulsive extra trades. Discount online service is reserved for traders who can operate with little help from the firm.
Recurring placement errors listed include the wrong year or month, the opposite side, ignored session hours, and mixing up stop-order and limit-order instructions. Order-routing is selecting the contract, expiration, side, and instruction type that the venue will actually accept. A stop-order becomes executable only after a trigger price is reached. A limit-order will not trade worse than a stated price and may not trade at all.
Volume is part of the ticket
Routing a single contract into the thinner domestic sugar listing rather than the more active world listing is described as a liquidity mistake that can cost several hundred dollars. On the observation day, March world sugar volume was nearly 37,000 contracts versus five contracts in same-month domestic sugar.
A liquidity-filter checks traded volume and book depth before sending size into a listing. The archive presents the two sugar listings as the same month with very different activity, and the thinner one as the costly routing choice.
A lock can accept the short and refuse the buy
When a market is locked limit-up, a sell may still be accepted while a buy cannot. A short initiated into that limit-lock can remain open into the next session if prices continue higher.
The archive is not forecasting the next session. It is showing that a limit-lock can leave a newly opened short without a buy that the venue will accept.
All readings on this track · 30 readings
- 1988Why instant basket routing overwhelms specialist liquidity
- 2004Retail forex tickets as implementation-cost contracts
- 2005A two-gate liquidity filter for futures order routing
- 2006Manual after-hours routing and open-outcry fill risk
- 2010A futures brokerage quote is an execution specification
- 2011Smart order routing, maker-taker, and midpoint execution costs
- 2012Compare equivalent listings before routing
- 2012Rebate-aware routing and execution cost
- 2012Platform routing, fees, and server-side stops
- 2013Compare equivalent listings, then route the order
- 2013Confirm routing, margin, and fill cost before a live forex order
- 2013Brokerage choice as an execution-cost and routing filter
- 2014Order routing, pass-through rebates, and liquidity choice
- 2014Comparing exchange venues before routing the order
- 2014Selecting a futures broker as an execution-architecture problem
- 2014Commission shopping is the wrong first filter for a futures order
- 2015Routing orders when equivalent products trade on multiple venues
- 2015Forex venue checks for speed, margin, and implementation cost
- 2015Backup venues and symbol splits in futures routing
- 2016Route orders across competing exchange venues
- 2016Filter exchange venues before routing orders
- 2017Venue choice as an order-routing filter
- 2017Venue routing for equivalent listed contracts
- 2017Forex broker checks for fill speed, quote honor, and margin
- 2017Brokerage choice as an execution-speed and commission filter
- 2018Routing equivalent contracts across competing venues
- 2018Forex venue selection by fill speed, margin terms, and price honor
- 2019Forex execution filters for routing, cost, and liquidity
- 2020Routing equivalent listings across competing exchanges
- 2020Brokerage filters for routing, commissions, and liquidity