Comments on Optiver-Binck deal
The argument then surfaces whether this would seriously damage the market. The, in recent months, shrunken institutional flow combined with the reduction of Dutch retail flow by internalizing, will do more than just damage the market. There is the risk of killing the competition altogether, cascading into a further deterioration of pricing.
I am also not so sure whether the ‘probably legal’ argument will fly. Being a systematic internalizer requires a firm to be counterparty to every trade. Clearly, Binck is not. Optiver is, or perhaps, and even worse, a new platform owned by both.
Perhaps on its direct merits and in the competition spirit of MiFID, the NMA see this development as market forces at play. In my view, a shortsighted approach which bypasses the importance of retail in the Dutch model.
So, it appears that we are stuck with two possible solutions.
Either the AFM would come to the rescue on the basis that this set-up is illegal i.e. not compliant with MiFID. This would require guts and a deep understanding of the dynamics of its own(derivative) market.
Or, a combined effort of the large remaining market makers and flow providers to copy and improve Optiver’s initiative: Find a ready to use platform, add a chapter to its rule book, passport that licence into the Dutch market, copy Optiver’s (with a slight improvement)pricing and off you go!
Not a solution perhaps, but certainly an ‘easy win’ and possible deterrent, Euronext could come to its own rescue and drop the fee for client transactions to the prop level.”
als bedenker van de deal names Alex wil ik nogmaals wijzen op het feit dat op dit moment circa 40% van de commissie van een optietrade naar euronext gaan zonder dat zij er iets voor doen; deze 40% kunnen en zullen naar de klant gaan; wellicht dat optiver ook meer gaat verdienen, maar dat moeten de marketmakers maar zelf zien; Alex zal er voor zorg dragen dat de klant altijd de beste bied/laat krijgt, dat eist mifid; er is voldoende concurrentie van IB om dit af te dwingen
het is voor klanten een uirtstekende deal
Since when is this a Dutch weblog??
hoezo niets voor doen? Zij clearen de trade bijvoorbeeld, en zijn een heel wat betrouwbaarde tegenpartij dan Binck/Optiver.
Daarbij is het pure monopoly positie creatie. Het argument dat andere market makers “dat maar zelf moeten zien” raakt kant nog wal.
I can’t read Dutch. Please translate anyone?
euronext en de clearing staan geheel los van elkaar, dat is een bewuste keuze van euronext geweest; in duitsland is dat niet gebeurd, dus nogmaals euronext doet feitelijk niets voor heel veel geld; immers toezicht is ook niet meer bij euronext
verder moeten wij apart betalen voor de clearing; circa 0,25 cent per optie
my english is not very good, takes too much time for me; when i have time available, i will post in english
Peter Verhaar, who initiated the deal, said 40% of transaction fee for option trades is paid to the exchange, this will be given back to the client according to him.
Reaction is that the exchange is doing something for it, as they cover the counterparty risk and facilitate trading. Optiver is creating a monopoly position.
and that;s NOT true; euronext does not cover counterparty risk, that’s the clearing which is an independent company; euronext sold its shares
it wont be that much profit potential involved. i think its a btter deal for binck, who have a struggling business. optiver dont have a reputation for being good market makers (just making money in the past for structured tax deals and div plays), and so it gels together to poor businesses. i dont know what the fuss is about – so what!
If Optiver are such good dealmakers, I guess this is a good deal for them as well.
the rumour at the clearing houses is that the main trading groups did not make money last year, and it was the small groups that did well:
– optiver (small profit)
– imc (lost)
– saen (dont really trade, so not relevant, but lost from divs)
– all options (lost)
rumour at the main trading groups is that the clearing houses did not make money last year…
Clearing houses always make money as long as firms don’t go bankrupt. And they didn’t in 2008.
So according to the clearing rumour 323 trading, scrocca, curvalue and munnik did well last year?
averagely i would say
less money than previous year and some really bad management moves
this year will be crucial
Binck struggling business??? 64 mio newt profit last year, this year even better
something tells me that these big trading houses are overvalued…
some of you guys don’t know what you are talking about. the notion that optiver didn’t make money last year is laughable, i don’t work for them but it is well-known they made bank last year. as far as i know all the trading firms made money last year except IMC.
saen lost, all options lost, imc lost, optiver lost and are waiting for a hefty fine from america (re: crude). it pays to know people at fortis
I don’t think all options clears with fortis?
All Options clears with KBC.. But I would be surprised if Optiver lost in 2008.
Me too, bottomline is that the Optiver/Binck combination is very bad news for market makers and good news for clients. Optiver can do what they are already good at (copying prices on the screen) and get all Binck trades routed to them and kill competition.
The great institutional fear of Euronext, dating back to Optiebeurs days, is that if they don’t allow this ridiculous Optiver/Binck non-competitive monopoly those or similiar parties will simply found their own exchange.
> peter verhaar said…
> Binck struggling business??? 64 mio newt
> profit last year, this year even better
Het is zorgwekkend te zien dat de gloriedagen van Binck/Alex waarin intimi daags voor officiele bekendmaking (27 april) al pochen met de goede prestaties nog niet voorbij zijn …
@6:30
Your friend at Fortis is wrong, or you are lying. And this is coming from someone in the business so I would know. Honestly, I don’t know what it is about some people that delight in seeing others fail. Pathetic really.
I am not sure that any of the above mentioned firms lost money apart from Saen and IMC – Optiver certainly didn’t
ik heb geen idee wat de cijfers van binck en alex zullen zijn, ik denk meer dan 64 mio, maar ja, ik ben nog slechts een beleggers in de binck, geen directeur meer; er is meer omzet geweest en en ze hebben geen verliezen in slechte leningen, vandaar
ik zou het dus geen ‘strugling business’ wille n noemen
Optiver partners were paid in and around 3.5 million euro bonuses last year which would imply the firm made at least 200m profit in 2008.
> peter verhaar said…
> ik heb geen idee wat de cijfers van binck en alex zullen zijn
In 2008 zaten ze niet in slechte leningen, in 2009 ook niet. Dat is dus geen reden om een verbetering te verwachten. Gecorrigeerd voor een actie met gratis trades is het aantal transacties ongeveer gelijk gebleven. Commissie per trade flink omlaag tov vorig jaar. Eindstand: Q1 09 was beter dan Q1 08. Petje af voor Peter Verhaar wiens voorspelling die van de analisten aftroefde. Extra compliment voor de Binck beleggers (waaronder de heer Verhaar) wiens aandelen ruim 10% gestegen zijn na de voorspellingen van de oud-Alex directeur.
Leest de AFM met ons mee?
zoals gezegd, binck zit niet in een struggling business, het is booming business, lees mijn verhaal in FD van maandag, binck heeft toekomst, helaas zonder mij maar ja, that;s life
en de AFM: mij e-mail is verhaar.peter@gmail.com