Skip to main content
Track Limit order
15 / 20
Search the archiveLibrary
Library

2013issue C0141

Futures platform order entry and per-trade fees

As of early 2013, futures brokerages commonly paired a no-fee in-house platform with extra-cost third-party platforms, so choosing the screen was part of choosing an execution path. Subscriptions, monthly minima, datafeed charges, and per-trade fees made implementation cost visible before an order was sent.

  • Choosing the screen was part of choosing an execution path, because a no-fee in-house platform was commonly paired with extra-cost third-party platforms.
  • Third-party premium platforms were funded by subscriptions and related fees rather than brokerage commissions, and were the route described for complex order types and server-hosted contingent orders.
  • No-fee brokerage platforms were not automatically weaker than paid ones, because firms earn when clients trade and therefore have an incentive to make order submission easy.
  • Commission-analysis separates platform subscription, monthly minima, datafeed charges, and per-trade fees so implementation cost is visible before an order is sent.
Entries in this reading3 entries
Current trackLimit order51 readingsOrder routing65 readingsCommission analysis83 readings

The screen as an execution path

As of early 2013, futures brokerages commonly paired a no-fee in-house platform with extra-cost third-party platforms, so choosing the screen was part of choosing an execution path.

Order-routing is the path an executable instruction takes from a chosen ticket, whether a chart, a depth-of-market panel, an option chain, or a rule-based strategy, through a desktop, browser, or mobile session.

No-fee platforms and premium platforms

No-fee brokerage platforms were not automatically weaker than paid ones, because firms earn when clients trade and therefore have an incentive to make order submission easy.

Third-party premium platforms were funded by subscriptions and related fees rather than brokerage commissions, and were the route described for complex order types and server-hosted contingent orders. A contingent-order is a follow-on instruction that a premium platform may host on a server instead of only on the local workstation.

Tickets, chains, and login paths

One paid futures-and-options environment allowed chart-based trading and option-chain order entry. A futures-focused platform offered quick order entry and rule-based enter-and-exit placement, required a separate datafeed, and was free for end-of-day charting.

A spread-oriented options-and-futures platform used a single depth-of-market ticket and accepted desktop, browser, and smartphone logins. A depth-of-market-ticket is a ladder-style order-entry panel that some platforms use as the sole or primary way to accept futures and spread orders.

A limit-order is a working instruction placed at a specified price through a chart or depth-of-market ticket rather than an immediate market hit.

Subscriptions, minima, and per-trade fees

Commission-analysis separates platform subscription, monthly minima, datafeed charges, and per-trade fees so implementation cost is visible before an order is sent. Implementation-cost is the combined subscription, per-trade, and data outlay required to make an order executable, independent of later fill quality.

The paid futures-and-options environment had a base package then starting at 50 monthly plus 0.50 per trade, and a premium package at 300 monthly. The futures-focused platform was leased from about 60 monthly for live use. The spread-oriented platform billed 0.50 per trade with a 25 monthly minimum. A simplicity-focused platform executed options and futures at 0.50 per trade, with integrated charting available after a 20 monthly upgrade. A multi-asset platform was distinguished by continuous historical charts beyond the front contract and a base package near 60 monthly, or an outright purchase.

Educational research material, not investment advice. Historical source context does not establish present-day performance.
15 of 20 in the Limit order track
201331-31 pp.Next on Limit orderIceberg hidden size and option-spread packagesAn iceberg order rests only a disclosed quantity as a working limit and submits hidden quantity after that slice fills, so the full size stays off the public book.
All readings on this track · 20 readings
  1. 1994Cash-first stops beyond crowded landmarks
  2. 1996Index spread pairs with seasonal filters and limit orders
  3. 2003Precommit the stop and limit after a rule-based entry
  4. 2005Limit orders, routing paths, and commission tradeoffs
  5. 2005Bracket orders that precommit stop and target exits
  6. 2005Precommit a stop-loss at entry with pivot triggers
  7. 2006Mechanical systems need fill-aware failure modes
  8. 2006Ranking near-term support for ETF limit entries
  9. 2007Precommit futures stops and limits with contingent orders
  10. 2007Overnight option limit fills, stops and trailing exits
  11. 2010Seasonal commodity windows and stop-limit fill risk
  12. 2011Routing fees, do-not-ship flags, and maker-taker limit orders
  13. 2011A three-bar inside-bar commodity setup still needs portfolio context
  14. 2012Limit orders when a tick saved costs the fill
  15. 2013Futures platform order entry and per-trade fees
  16. 2013Iceberg hidden size and option-spread packages
  17. 2014Marketable limits, directed venues, and spread filters
  18. 2015Filtering commodity option liquidity by spread, not open interest
  19. 2015Paired range-bar averages and next-bar limit exits
  20. 2019Uneven-wing modidor as one limit package
By fieldOrder types and routing87 readingsBy year2013169 readings
All 51 readings tagged Limit order
Also on Limit order5 readings
2005Limit orders, routing paths, and commission tradeoffs2011Routing fees, do-not-ship flags, and maker-taker limit orders1995Canceled prints versus executable fills1999How order routing changes market and limit fills2001Retail routing and market versus limit fills