Skip to main content
Track Commission analysis
32 / 32
Search the archiveLibrary
Library

2020issue C1059

Brokerage selection as an implementation-cost problem

Self-directed traders face a wider set of brokerage options when they look for execution-speed, pricing-efficiency, and usable account reporting. A usable firm must first handle the intended instrument, then be screened for data, access, fill speed, commission, and support.

  • A usable brokerage must first handle the intended instrument, then offer full-service-brokerage, discount-brokerage, or both.
  • A practical implementation-cost screen covers tools, live data, market access, account minimums, execution-speed, commission, and support.
  • Retail research adds less in heavily covered names, while commercial-market-information can still matter in less-studied futures markets.
  • Click-ordered most-viewed lists are not execution-quality ratings, and capital-safety review still includes clearing-operations and investor-protection-coverage.
Entries in this reading1 entry
Current trackCommission analysis37 readings

A wider set of brokerage options

Self-directed traders face a wider set of brokerage options when they look for execution-speed, pricing-efficiency, and usable account reporting.

A usable firm must first handle the intended instrument. The next split is full-service-brokerage, where a representative is available to discuss and place trades, versus discount-brokerage, which is self-directed online access without a professional sitting with the trader. Many houses offer both paths.

A practical screen

A practical screen asks what tools and live data are supplied, which markets can be reached, whether account minimums apply, how fast fills arrive, what commission is charged, and what support exists.

TradersWeek editorial reading: those questions put posted commission inside a wider implementation-cost stack that also includes execution-speed, market access, and data over the order life cycle.

Research value and thinner markets

Widely available company information has reduced the extra value of retail brokerage research in heavily covered names.

In less intensively studied commercial markets such as futures, a firm’s market statistics and hedging-activity reports can still be material to the trading process as commercial-market-information.

Safety review and click lists

Capital-safety review should include how the firm handles clearing-operations and, for equities, whether investor-protection-coverage is in place.

A most-viewed brokerage list ordered by clicks is not an editorial rating or ranking of execution quality. Directory entries are treated as vendor-supplied snapshots that can change, with no endorsement of the listed firms and with accuracy claimed only at the time of posting.

Educational research material, not investment advice. Historical source context does not establish present-day performance.
32 of 32 in the Commission analysis track
2002Track finished · Next track: Futures contract selectionSingle-stock futures and the sleeve that belongs on the ticket102 readings
All readings on this track · 32 readings
  1. 1985Matching ticket size to negotiable commission schedules
  2. 1985Minimum tickets can price a small book out of its own exit
  3. 1992Stop-order slippage as an execution cost filter
  4. 1993Cost-aware walk-forward evaluation of pattern-detector signals
  5. 2001Audit high-turnover operating conditions as one procedure
  6. 2002Front-load futures commission and slippage
  7. 2005Inactive account fees as hidden implementation cost
  8. 2010A pre-trade liquidity screen for futures contracts
  9. 2011Currency option venues, spreads, clearing, and premium cost
  10. 2012Filter futures contracts by liquidity and implementation cost
  11. 2012Futures commission versus one tick of cost
  12. 2012Ranking futures liquidity for executable orders
  13. 2013Filter option day trades by spread, volume, and fees
  14. 2013Filter futures by liquidity, open interest, and effective margin
  15. 2014Book futures data fees as implementation cost
  16. 2015Use a futures liquidity rank as a pre-trade checklist
  17. 2015Filter unexecutable futures by liquidity, open interest, and margin
  18. 2015Futures liquidity ranking as an execution filter
  19. 2015Filtering option trades by bid-ask width
  20. 2016Exchange quote fees as execution costs and liquidity filters
  21. 2016Filter futures by liquidity, open interest, and margin cost
  22. 2016Comparing dollar-index futures execution costs and liquidity
  23. 2016A futures liquidity ranking as a screen for executable orders
  24. 2017Filter a futures board by liquidity, open interest, and implementation cost
  25. 2017Filter futures contracts by liquidity and margin cost
  26. 2017How residency rules raise futures implementation costs
  27. 2018Screen listed futures by liquidity, open interest, and margin
  28. 2018Contract selection is the first filter on competing bitcoin futures
  29. 2018Filter futures execution by liquidity and margin
  30. 2018Commission analysis for brokerage execution costs
  31. 2019Ranking futures liquidity before you size the order
  32. 2020Brokerage selection as an implementation-cost problem
By fieldLiquidity and costs119 readingsBy year202085 readings
All 37 readings tagged Commission analysis
Also on Commission analysis5 readings
1982Park good-till-cancelled targets after commissions at the chart bands1985Matching ticket size to negotiable commission schedules1985Minimum tickets can price a small book out of its own exit1991Evaluating a trailing stop against a coin-flip entry1992Stop-order slippage as an execution cost filter