1985issue C031-5
Matching ticket size to negotiable commission schedules
After fixed brokerage commissions ended, discount commission-schedule formulas were not uniform. Ticket cost then depended on share count, transaction value, price per share, and instrument, and the same broker could be cheap in one band and expensive in another.
- A negotiable-commission is a firm-set ticket, so the same order can price differently once exchange-fixed tariffs end.
- Commission-schedule formulas were not uniform, and the same broker could be cheap in one size or price band and expensive in another.
- Split-venue-execution could cut ticket cost, but street-name inventory split across accounts created a risk of selling shares from the wrong account.
- Discount bond tickets often carried a minimum near 35 dollars, while at least one full-service bond schedule charged 10 dollars per bond with no minimum.
When tickets became negotiable
On May 1, 1975, fixed brokerage commissions ended and ticket rates became fully negotiable. A negotiable-commission is a brokerage ticket fee set by the firm after exchange-fixed tariffs ended, so the same order can price differently across venues.
A commission-schedule is the formula that turns share count, price, and instrument into a cash ticket charge. Implementation-cost is the cash drag of getting an order done, including commissions and related ticket fees across the order life cycle.
Lower advertised ticket rates were supported by salaried staff, the absence of advice and research overhead, and scale from specialized clearing agents.
Discount formulas were not one card
Discount commission-schedule formulas were not uniform. One type used a dollar-range fixed charge plus a percentage of trade value. Another took a percentage of former exchange fixed rates by share count. A third charged a flat 25 dollars plus 8.5 cents per share regardless of price or size. That third design is ticket-plus-per-share: a flat charge per order plus a constant amount for each share, independent of the share price.
Computed commission outlays at discounters ran 30 percent to 70 percent lower than prior full-service schedules, depending on share count, transaction value, and price per share.
The same broker was not cheapest in every band
The same broker could be cheap in one price or size band and expensive in another. Some cards added round-trip-pricing, a schedule concession that prices the exit together with the entry rather than as a second full ticket. Some cards also applied a 10 percent cut once monthly commissions exceeded 350 dollars.
Accounts around the ticket
Self-directed retirement accounts, cash, margin, and option accounts were widely available, and some discounters also paid interest on credit balances and offered limited market information previously associated with full-service firms.
Split venues and street-name inventory
Routing different orders to more than one broker could cut ticket cost. That practice is split-venue-execution: sending different size bands or instruments to different brokers because no single schedule is cheapest everywhere.
Securities held in street-name sit in the broker's name for the customer, so inventory at one firm is not automatically available at another. Street-name inventory split across accounts created a risk of selling shares from the wrong account.
Bond tickets followed a different minimum
Discount bond tickets often carried a minimum near 35 dollars, while at least one full-service bond schedule charged 10 dollars per bond with no minimum.
Editorial: instrument type belongs in the same implementation-cost reading as share count and notional, because a card that is cheap in one equity band need not be cheap in bonds.
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