Investors to sue Moscow Exchange over stoppage of WTI oil trading - page 5
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
But the "futures" speculators are not under any obligation to anyone. So I ask, what kind of futures are there that don't bind the parties to anything?
If a "settlement futures" does not imply an obligation and is a "light version" of a deliverable futures, then it is not a futures contract at all. That is, it is not a contract with names, dates, volume and price. It is a kind of electronically-defined "bet" based on the opposing expectations of two participants who bet on where the price will be moved by the other bettors after them.
Well, in part, yes, settlement futures can be interpreted as bets. To surprise you even more: There are weather futures on US exchanges for example. But why "no obligation"? Participants are obliged to cover the financial difference between the transaction price and the settlement price at expiration. This thread in particular is an example. Traders probably have losses in their accounts, but are still obliged to pay the difference. The debt isn't going anywhere. You are probably misinterpreting the concept of "obligation".
Your desperate attempts to find a catch by comparing the exchange to a kitchen are not yet convincing.)
...
Your desperate attempts to find a catch by comparing the exchange to a kitchen are not convincing yet.)
You are naive to think that you are risking only collateral funds... I have been in exchange trading for a very long time and know examples when people got very expensive. This is not a real market, everything is mature. However, you can theorise as you like, of course.
The possibility of falling into negative equity markets certainly exists, but not in settlement futures, which is what we are talking about now. And as you know, stocks and futures are traded on different exchanges and should not be mixed together. That is, one exchange may remain an exchange, while another (with a different specialisation) may become a "kitchen". Shares are known to be a real asset, while settlement futures are analogous to betting.
If we call things by their proper names and openly demonstrate how pricing mechanisms work on settlement futures markets, no one will have any complaints - well, betting and betting...
Once I find proof that trading in futures markets is built on classic principles - the trading floor is neutral, the assets traded are real, orders are matched by normal clearing and traders have no common counterparty, ALL my doubts will go away.
The possibility of falling into deficit certainly exists in the stock market, but not in settlement futures, which is what we are talking about now.
It's exactly the opposite, I don't think there's any point in us continuing this discussion.
As soon as I find the proof ... ALL my doubts will go away.
But you don't need it, don't you? ) If the doubts disappear and the knowledge appears, it will become so boring and boring. You won't be able to think of fantasies, theorize and philosophize about some lofty matters and conspiracy - and what do we need such a Peter Konow for? )
It's exactly the opposite. I don't think there's any point in us continuing this discussion.
But you don't need it, do you? ) If doubts go away and knowledge appears, it will become so boring and dull. You won't be able to think of fantasies, theorize and philosophize about high matter and conspiracy - and what do we need such a Peter Konow for? )
Knowledge...)) When it comes to money, you have to rely on your own logic and intuition in the first place). And there are plenty of smart and well-read fools everywhere.
I advocate a critical attitude to established dogmas and try to present the picture of futures trading in a primitive, but objective way. The way things really are.
Getting back to the topic topic.
Said:On April 20, the Moscow Exchange limited its trading range to $8.84 a barrel.
BUT, positions were open and there was no opportunity to close those positions throughout the fall.
This is why they are suing the bourse, because it amounts to theft. You limit the trading range and recalculate the balance according to the changing price and do not allow you to close the positions? - Then you are just stealing money. How else should we interpret it?
And what are the rules of the regulations governing such behaviour? Does it mean that after such an episode, the questions and doubts are purely cospirological in nature and underneath there is only a lack of knowledge?
There are grounds for proceedings and there is no getting away from it.
The question that occupies me, for a reason, is"who is the counterparty to traders' transactions in the futures markets?". I think it is the key to determining whether a futures exchange is a "kitchen" or a "non-customer".
Here is a concrete example:
If the counterparties in the transactions of the "longists" suing Mosbirch were "shortists" from among the ordinary traders, the money of the longists ended up in the pockets of the shortists. However, we know that the shortists could not place orders below zero, which means that their profits were closed above 0, or OVER 0.
Questions:
1. Into what pockets went the money of the longists, who could not close positions up to $37? Certainly not in the pockets of the shorts, because their positions had already been closed.
2. If the shortists' positions were closed at/higher than 0, then HOW did the longists' positions not close??? They are CONTRAGENTS in the trade!!!
Conclusions:
1) The shorts and longists areNOT counterparties in transactions on the futures exchange, otherwise such a situation would be impossible in principle!
2. The counterparty is the one to whom the longists' money has gone, suing the exchange. Who is HE?
The question that occupies me, for a reason, is"who is the counterparty to traders' transactions in the futures markets?". I think it is the key to determining whether a futures exchange is a "kitchen" or a "non-customer".
Here is a concrete example:
If the counterparties in the transactions of the "longists" suing Mosbirch were "shortists" from among the ordinary traders, then the money of the longists ended up in the pockets of the shortists. However, we know that the shortists could not place orders below zero, which means that their profits were closed above 0, or OVER 0.
Questions:
1. Into what pockets went the money of the longists, who could not close positions up to $37? Certainly not in the pockets of the shorts, because their positions had already been closed.
2. If the shortists' positions were closed at/higher than 0, then HOW did the longists' positions not close??? They are CONTRAGENTS in the trade!!!
Conclusions:
1) The shorts and longists are NOT counterparties in transactions on the futures exchange, otherwise such a situation would be impossible in principle!
2. The counterparty is the one to whom the Longists' money has gone, suing the exchange. Who is he?
The counterparty is the stock exchange itself.
The Moscow Exchange Group includes Moscow Exchange PJSC, which operates Russia's only multifunctional exchange platform for trading shares,
bonds, derivatives, currencies, money market instruments and commodities.
The Group also includes acentral depository(NCO National Settlement Depository JSC) anda clearing centre (NCO NCC (JSC)),
acting as a central counterparty on the markets, which enables Moscow Exchange to provide a full cycle of trading and post-trading services to its clients.
In addition to trading services, Moscow Exchange Group offers clients a full range of clearing and settlement and depository services.
Clearing services are provided to biddersby Non-Banking Credit Organisation Central Counterparty National Clearing Centre (Joint Stock Company).(Joint-stock company)(NCC (JSC)),
which acts as a central counterparty on all markets of Moscow Exchange.
NCC (JSC) is the only qualified CC in Russia, this status was granted to it by the Bank of Russia in 2013,
and since 2014 NCC (JSC) is also a systemically important central counterparty.
The counterparty is the exchange itself.
Moscow Exchange Group comprises PJSC Moscow Exchange, which operates Russia's only multifunctional exchange platform for trading shares,
bonds, derivatives, currencies, money market instruments and commodities.
The Group also includes a central depository(NCO National Settlement Depository JSC) and a clearing centre (NCO NCC (JSC)),
acting as a central counterparty on the markets, which enables Moscow Exchange to provide a full cycle of trading and post-trading services to its clients.
In addition to trading services, Moscow Exchange Group offers clients a full range of clearing and settlement and depository services.
Clearing services are provided to bidders by Non-Banking Credit Organisation Central Counterparty National Clearing Centre (Joint Stock Company). (Joint-Stock Company)(NCC (JSC)),
which acts as a central counterparty on all markets of Moscow Exchange.
NCC is the only qualified CC in Russia and was granted this status by the Bank of Russia in 2013,
and since 2014 NCC is also a systemically important central counterparty.
One is tempted to say "I told you so!"))) Anyway, to the point:
If the CC (main counterparty) of transactions is the stock exchange itself or its subsidiary, they together are the main parties interested in the trading process, with all logically connected with this fact consequences...
Hence, several logical assumptions:
1. Quantitatively, the total position of the ST should be equivalent to the number of positions of all the traders in the market.
2. Inside of the common GC position two groups can be distinguished - positions with plus and positions with minus balance.
3. The total balance of plus and minus positions of the GC is the current balance of its account.
4. Being the Main Counterparty, ST is also the main supplier of liquidity.
5. As a direct participant of trade it cannot afford losses and should constantly monitor the balance of its positions and if necessary - adjust it. 6.
6. The CC can only maintain a positive balance by moving the price in the direction that is beneficial to it. As a liquidity provider and at the same time a partner of the exchange, it can afford it. Well, he can't go broke and hand out money to traders, can he?)
7. Since the number of GC positions is not constant and depends on the current actions of the traders (they both open and close positions), and the positions of the GC itself are directed simultaneously in both directions, it must constantly monitor the price direction and regulate it by buying and selling.
8. Most likely, his robot works instead of the GC. The technical load is too high.
Positive factors:
1 The GC is undoubtedly the main stabilizing factor in the market, eliminating the consequences associated with low liquidity and unscrupulous behaviour of various bigwigs.
2. Its influence on the price is a necessity which cannot be abandoned, if its participation in trading is accepted as the norm. Only, it is not the norm.
//--------------------------------------
Most traders do not understand how and against whom they trade. They, in the old fashioned way, believe that their bids are being matched with traders like themselves...