Subscribe to this topicForums > Moving Forward > Topic: Moving Backward slightly
| Aug 16th 2007, 11:40 Rexx4814 Beck |
Moving Backward slightly | |
| First let me say that I think we have seen a lot of positive changes so far and I applaud the transition so far. However there is still a deep concern about what direction this will move. A 2.5% sales commision? Think about this my friends what exactly are you paying for? You are paying for a transaction which in theory since it is on the internet should cost the same per transaction no matter the amount. Why in RL did all the big blue bloods (big brokers) have all that scrambling and changing focus in the 90's and the turn of this century? Because of people like E*trade who brought the one price per transaction to the public and the prices for stock trading took a steep dive until today E*trade is considered one of the more "expensive" of the online brokerages. Remember we get no investment advice nor any other benefits of a "standard" broker. Now you can say "but this isn't a broker this is an exchange". True however that would make the point even more powerful since we basically have no broker or middle man to do the ordering.Now we have been told well the focus isn't price it is quality. Again what exactly is the "quality" here? It is safe and accurate trading. Thats it nothin more or less then that for the average stock trader. If we really intend to grow and see new capital come in more quickly this is NOT the way to do it. I'm sorry but lets be honest it is a nice way for the exchange to make money but it is not at all good for the stock trader.But like I said at the start we have seen a fine transition and some very bright hopes start with this "new" exchange. Hopefully however we continue to make the smart decisions to move this thing in the right direction. | ||
| log in to reply | ||
| Aug 16th 2007, 13:52 Arbitrage Wise |
Re: Moving Backward slightly
Edited by author Aug 16th 2007, 13:59 |
|
| Rexx - what would your suggestion be? A few options we have considered are: Flat fee, but this will hurt the small investors. A scale-based: something like 2.5% up to 100L, whichever is the smaller amount. Maelstrom has also suggested 1.25% both ways. We are open to suggestions, so feel free to post what you think is fair. |
||
| log in to reply | ||
| Aug 16th 2007, 14:14 Dimitri Gasser |
Re: Moving Backward slightly | |
| keep the fee, charge it to the seller. he can recoup on capital gains. honestly the 2.5% fee adds up to like 5L$ on the adverage 100 share, 2L$ per share flip. the sellers arnt going to notice the sting. i strongly oppose a split commission, this would kill the exchange as it automatically puts buyers at a loss, then leaves them hoping the market will make up for it. this is NOT something capex should be considering given its growth goals in attracting new traders. i like the scaling fees. 2.5% up to a limit, would be awesome. you still get your comission, and larger traders dont sting as much. |
||
| log in to reply | ||
| Aug 16th 2007, 14:32 Andy Grant |
Re: Moving Backward slightly | |
| As Arbitrage pointed out a flat fee nomatter size would make smalltraders disappear. The alternative of having commision on both sides, in my opinion i don't see the point, it only gives ppl a larger math headake before placing an order and the result is thesame. Alternative is commissionfree trading with "small" monthly fees based on portfolio size/trading limits, but that solution would be unfavourable to investors that just buy and hold, it would only be benefetical to stockflippers. For now i would keep the fees as they are at 2,5%, it's simple and it's fair. |
||
| log in to reply | ||
| Aug 16th 2007, 14:32 Arbitrage Wise |
Re: Moving Backward slightly | |
| This was brought up in the SL Capital Exchange Chat group and the direction we're taking is to set a cap on commission. This should not punish the smaller investors, but reward bigger investors to help increase volume. I am waiting to get historical data for past trades to see what the cap amount should be. Thank you Rexx for the input! |
||
| log in to reply | ||
| Aug 16th 2007, 14:53 Rexx4814 Beck |
Re: Moving Backward slightly | |
| Honestly a scale-based 2.5% with a cap of 100L whichever is smaller is the best idea I think. I agree with not splitting it just keep it all on the selling side.But anyway I believe that you have to cap the amount if you use a percentage. | ||
| log in to reply | ||
| Aug 16th 2007, 15:29 Tumult Ivanova |
Re: Moving Backward slightly | |
| Hmm. Flat fee wouldn't be good, no. I find the scale based one to be alright, maybe even necessary. I learned while playing with the GPBA stock that it becomes incredibly hard to sell off - at a profit - when individual share prices start to hit the double digits, and it would be monstrous if anything should actually hit the triple digits. You could always cut out the donation to charity and lower the rate to 2.25% too. Let people greedy people keep their share, and the charitable give theirs away if they feel like it. |
||
| log in to reply | ||
1 
Sort by: