Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

danielk

Emini (ES) - Why the Need for Huge Capital?

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

Edit: Right, so i think ive answered my own question through research. The reason for the capital requirement is the "initial margin" requirements set by the exchange CME+broker. As far as i understand it they require around $4500 as a form of liquidity(insurance) per contract, pretty much to do risk management for you..? Still seems high to me given the actual movements a contract typically can do.

--

 

I'm a noob. And i keep reading about how E-minis require relatively huge capital to trade safely, but dont understand it. I've also noticed all the warnings of it being extremely risky for those who do not understand it, hence this post.

 

So the advice i keep seeing is to have a bankroll of $5000-$10.000 PER contract you trade.

 

A general observation of the ES is that it tends to move 15-30 points an average day. It is also very rare to see it move more than 10 points in 1 hour, usually averaging 2-4 points of movement an hour.

 

In contrast to forex, this seems a lot "safer" - making the likelyhood of huge sudden moves a lot lower.

 

Now, not that any strategy would allow this to happen, but lets take a worst case scenario. You've got $5000 on your account, and buy 1 ES contract when it opens. You for some reason ride the downtrend and the ES closes 30 points down. Netting you a loss of 30x$50 = $1500. You still have $3500 left.

 

Now, if you have a long term strategy that must allow for huge stop losses, then i can get behind the $5000 recommendation. However, if i were to guess, i would imagine most strategies(at least mine would) use a SL of.... 2-5 points? $100-250 potential loss.

 

Then my question is, why would you advise having a $5000-10.000 bankroll, when your worst case SL stops you out at a $100-250 loss?

 

Is this the "max 2% capital risk" rule in action?

 

Dont want to come off seeming reckless here, but somehow this just seems a bit overly cautious to me?

 

Appreciate any thoughts!

Edited by danielk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2% probably seems conservative if you're in this as a get rich quick scheme or have gambling mentality. You mention a 30 point loss, which would be 1500.

 

Can you imagine a casino, which has an edge in all their games, risking 30% of their entire capital on one bet? That casino would soon go out of business. What about a hedge fund or a bank?

 

So you have to decide if you want to run your trading as a business, and slowly accumulate wealth, or if you want to gamble and have some ups and downs before you lose the lot.

 

$5000 is not HUGE capital. If you don't have the capital, you shouldn't trade. Work and build up your stake and learn on demo so that when you do have a stake you can earn with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

 

Edit: Right, so i think ive answered my own question through research. The reason for the capital requirement is the "initial margin" requirements set by the exchange CME+broker. As far as i understand it they require around $4500 as a form of liquidity(insurance) per contract, pretty much to do risk management for you..? Still seems high to me given the actual movements a contract typically can do.

--

 

I'm a noob. And i keep reading about how E-minis require relatively huge capital to trade safely, but dont understand it. I've also noticed all the warnings of it being extremely risky for those who do not understand it, hence this post.

 

So the advice i keep seeing is to have a bankroll of $5000-$10.000 PER contract you trade.

 

A general observation of the ES is that it tends to move 15-30 points an average day. It is also very rare to see it move more than 10 points in 1 hour, usually averaging 2-4 points of movement an hour.

 

In contrast to forex, this seems a lot "safer" - making the likelyhood of huge sudden moves a lot lower.

 

Now, not that any strategy would allow this to happen, but lets take a worst case scenario. You've got $5000 on your account, and buy 1 ES contract when it opens. You for some reason ride the downtrend and the ES closes 30 points down. Netting you a loss of 30x$50 = $1500. You still have $3500 left.

 

Now, if you have a long term strategy that must allow for huge stop losses, then i can get behind the $5000 recommendation. However, if i were to guess, i would imagine most strategies(at least mine would) use a SL of.... 2-5 points? $100-250 potential loss.

 

Then my question is, why would you advise having a $5000-10.000 bankroll, when your worst case SL stops you out at a $100-250 loss?

 

Is this the "max 2% capital risk" rule in action?

 

Dont want to come off seeming reckless here, but somehow this just seems a bit overly cautious to me?

 

Appreciate any thoughts!

 

Hi Daniel,

 

I think there are two elements to your thinking here, and you need to be careful not to confuse them.

 

1) The notion that a margin of $4500 is actually a rational requirement is probably nonsense, as you suggest. In as much as it is to provide liquidity insurance, the ES is incredibly liquid and it is hard to imagine (even in a flash-crash type scenario) that a broker would decide to liquidate a position you had and then find that the market had to move 90 points before they could do so. The ES probably goes lock limit before then (you can find the exact details on the CME website), however, and in that situation your broker becomes just as stuck as you, so . . .

 

2) None of this really has anything to do with the size of your account or how much you should or shouldn't risk on each trade. Margin - you've said it yourself - is liquidity insurance for a leveraged product, and that is not the same as the money management approach you take when trading.

 

I imagine another reason that the broker has the margin requirement is that they prefer to have that money in their account rather than yours.

 

Kind regards,

 

BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi BlueHorseshoe!

 

Thanks for the feedback!

 

From my research it seems that the requirement for the initial margin, is actually a mandatory requirement from the CME Exchange itself and fluctuates based on market conditions(volatility). Some good reads on the topic;

 

Understanding Margin Changes | OpenMarkets

 

http://www.cmegroup.com/clearing/files/cme-clearing-margins-quick-facts-2011.pdf

 

And CME's overview of current margins aka "Performance Bonds"

 

http://www.cmegroup.com/clearing/margins/#e=CME&a=EQUITY+INDEX&p=all

 

So currently CME demands $4510 initial margin for every contract traded. This is CME's approach to helping out with risk management and ensuring the right type of volatility. Not to be confused with a traders own risk/money management policies, naturally :)

 

If i understand it correctly, 1x ES contract is worth 50x the S&P 500 index, that puts a current contract value at 50x 1,752 dollars. So in effect one single contract is worth $87,600.

 

Knowing all that really puts things into perspective and makes the $4510 initial margin perfectly understandable!

 

And to Seeker, sorry for the impolite response. However, you either didnt really read what i posted, or otherwise misunderstood my question...

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.