Investors to sue Moscow Exchange over stoppage of WTI oil trading - page 8

New comment
 
Alexey Navoykov:

Ooooh... how messed up even your maths is.

Buyers opened positions between $37 and $0. While the price was falling, their position balance was also falling (let's assume they didn't close while the price was falling). When the price went under zero, the buyers' position balance should have started to level off and rise, and by -37$ they would have closed at zero or plus. In theory, this should be the case.

Reason what you think. Where is the mistake?
 
Реter Konow:
Buyers opened positions between $37 and $0. As the price was falling, their position balances were also falling (assuming they did not close during the fall in price). When the price went under zero, the buyers' position balance should have started to level off and rise, and by -37$ they would have closed at zero or plus. In theory, this should be the case.
Well, according to "Peter Konow's theory" anything is possible of course. Only -37 - 0 = -37. Where do you see growth there - I don't know.
 
Alexey Navoykov:
Everything is possible according to Peter Konov's theory. Only -37 - 0 = -37. I don't know where you saw an increase there.
Let's not get into personalities. I can do that too.
I don't see the error so far. If you are familiar with trading, you should have understood my simple explanation.
Once again:
Buyers opened positions when the price of the asset was between $37 - (dash, not minus) $0. Further, the price was falling steadily. Buyers' position balance was negative and was also falling, BUT! when the price went under zero, the buyers' position balance began to trend in the direction of positive numbers (rising) and by the price level of -$37 (last session price), it should have become positive.
The lower the negative price, - the more profitable for the buyers, because sellers give away the goods for free and pay extra for them on top. That is, the sellers want to get rid of the goods so much that they pay buyers for them.
 
There is an error in my theory.

First things first:

1. The buyer who opens a position in the plus zone earns if the price goes up. That is, by selling the purchased asset at a higher price, he gets the difference.

2. The buyer opens a position in the minus zone with a negative price, and gets the profit from the seller, who pays him back. After buying, the buyer must get rid of the goods and sell them. He has to do it at a higher (less negative) price than the price at which he was paid. If the price keeps falling, he will have to pay more when he sells the goods and will lose the profit he has already made. So he will wait for the price to rise towards zero, above his purchase price.

My mistake - I thought that in the minus zone, the balance of buyer positions grows as the price goes down. But in reality, it doesn't:

3. The buyers who opened in the positive zone and waited while the price fell, were doubly worse off in the negative zone. Their balance was already negative, BUT! to close the trade they had to sell the asset, and in order to do that, they had to pay extra on top. The lower the price went down, the more they would have to pay the other buyers to close their position.

So there is an error in my theory. Buyers from the plus zone, in the minus zone lost out in full and there is no doubt about it.
 

700 it seems the speculators are being sued

How many in total?

700 were short traders who were not allowed to close profitable trades?

 
how to talk to someone who has sued to find out the truth first-hand.
 
Yury Stukalov:

700 it seems the speculators are being sued

How many in total?

700 were short traders who were not allowed to close profitable trades?


I don't know about the shortists' profits, but most likely, after 8.84 all their positions were closed, and the longs lost a lot, because their positions were left open up to -37$ and they could not do anything. Now they are suing for their losses, which were caused by the fact that the exchange stopped satisfying the traders' requests below 8.84 and they could not close their positions.
 
Реter Konow:
I don't know whether the shorts gave or didn't give back their profits, but most likely, after the 8.84 mark all their positions were closed
If that had happened, there would have been a scandal of unimaginable proportions. In general, instead of fantasizing, it is better to study the subject personally.
 
Alexey Navoykov:

About what "the same"? With which their last bid has been reduced? And on what grounds? By force? It is unlikely he will agree to close his short position. Or maybe he does not have a position at all, i.e. he closed it with that deal. So, it is nonsense. And it is also unclear how he was able to get someone.

The existence of the central counterparty suggests that the traders' (buyers and sellers') orders are not passed between them, but between them and the third party. That is, the buyer buys not from the seller, but from the main counterparty, and the seller sells not to the buyer, but also to the main counterparty. The presence of this character in trading on the exchange, allows opening/closing positions of buyers and sellers independently of each other. Therefore, it is possible that sellers are all closed or gone and buyers are sitting in positions.
My guess is that on the Mosbirch, the sellers' positions were closed before the 8.84 mark and the buyers' positions were deliberately left open. Not certain, of course... But, the existence of a central counterparty allows such market manipulations. Therefore, the situation with the ST is abnormal, because it has its own balance in the market, which it will defend using exchange mechanisms.
 
Alexey Navoykov:
If that were to happen, there would be a scandal of unimaginable proportions. What right does the stock exchange have to close someone else's positions. In general, instead of fantasising, it is better to study the subject in person.
Study it. Then tell me if you found a lot of material on the subject.)
And there is already a scandal.
1234567891011
New comment