IMC wins Financial Football Tournament ’11

9 comments / May 29, 2011

IMC has won the title of the Financial Football tournament, after beating KBC Bank on penalties in the final. IMC is the first team ever to win the tournament for the second time in history. Back in 2005 they won the tournament for the first time, which was then still an indoor game.

Sponsored by Scrocca, Eurex and KBC the tournament has been a great event to meet the familiar faces again and was as always smoothly organized again by Bennington. Third place was for Eurex and Scrocca ended surprisingly high on the fourth spot.

Found the funny film clip from last Worldcup. North Korean coach giving instructions to his player, Eboué from Ivory Coast joins the meeting and pretends to understand. As far as I know, both of them missed the Financial Tournament.

Investigators zooming in on Kroon and Den Drijver (VDM)

196 comments / May 18, 2011

DetectiveTerrific, 250 pages of confidential insider material. Managers about eachother and looking as fierce post-war resistance fighters against Richard Den Drijver (page 122). The group of derivative traders are described as “ignorant and spoiled” by their former management Egbert Pronk and Frank van der Linden.

The latter must have been a true visionary – as he declared Van der Moolen a dead dinosaur.  Back in 2003.  He’s surprising positive on his own role as deputy for the main managers Kroon and Den Drijver. Anyway, here’s another version of the official report : as searchable pdf.

To be continued.

 

Goldman messing up clearing

91 comments / May 11, 2011

"cutting-edge technology"

Goldman Sachs doesn’t clear any option market maker firm in Amsterdam. This is the territorial pissing ground of ABN AMRO and KBC, although the latter is slowly losing ground. Their clients Van der Moolen and All Options have scaled back operations in some degree.

In the area of global delta one trading GS clearing is a major player. One would expect these folks at GS clearing to have superior systems and act accordingly – customer isn’t king. To my surprise I learned only the second qualification applies. According to several clients GS combines arrogance with an astonishing lack of professionalism. The CFTC isn’t very fond of Goldman either.

One of Goldman’s unhappy customers has written a sharp e-mail highlighting some of the most painful issues. Goldman Sachs Clearing has a lot to be modest about – some basic trading functions aren’t possible at all. Participating in the opening rotation of the stocks on the LSE shouldn’t be treated as rocket science. Read below for the text of the original e-mail.

————————————————————

Dear Sir,

Our company, signed up with you in the summer of 2009 and now, 1.5 years later, I must say that this was a big mistake. I will explain to you why.

Executive summary:

A. The culture at your company has a theme:  “The customer is always to blame”

B. Your systems are sub-standard

Detail:

A. “The customer is always… to blame”

1. The 20k EUR

From an email of your employee on November 4th:

no formal communication was sent [by Goldman] to [your company] about the REDI outage”

and

“There was no communication on the 2 phone calls we had with [your company] after fills were sent back. If raised then we could have resolved this together”

and

“Given the above course of events GS are not obliged to share the loss experienced when closing this position out.”

So your employee writes: even though REDI was out and even though this was not communicated to us, even though we called twice to talk about this position, Goldman feels it is our problem that there was a position due to outage of Goldman’s system REDI.

This trade cost us 20k EUR. After numerous requests this issue has not yet been settled.

2. The Opening Auction in LSE IOB (Goldman Style)

It is not possible for Goldman systems to enter automatic orders in London International Order Book (IOB) before the opening. If you do, your orders get collected and manually entered after the market opened. So if a price was right before the opening and the order was sent then, it gets entered after the opening manually. The stock moved right after the opening and our order got manually entered by your employee 1.5 minutes after the opening at a price that was totally off. And if that’s not enough, yet another order got entered at an off-price.

This cost us 15k EUR and we had to wait 2.5 months to get restitution. It was offered as a sign of good will because:

“The department said [your company] could have known that Goldman treated Londen International Order Book (IOB) orders like this before the opening”

In hindsight, it turned out there was another setting that would just reject London IOB orders before the opening. The advantage of this setting is that you don’t have to be subjected to a manual order long after you entered the details. The disadvantage is that you cannot enter orders before the opening. But hey, they wouldn’t have been able to be executed at market at open anyhow.

3. The On/off button

One of our computers lost power because the On/off button was pressed. Therefore we asked Goldman to have our orders cancelled. We got this email message from your employee:

Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 11:14 AM

Cc: gset-mc

Subject: RE:  open orders

All [your company]’s orders are now cancelled  ( from the FIX line GSIDMA3)”

It turned out that the application at Goldman that was supposed to cancel the orders had crashed and that in real life the orders were still in the market. And some were executed. Goldman kept us out of the market for 1.5 days only to return after we fulfilled their request to state in an email that our(!) problem was solved and that we understood that Goldmans erroneous cancellation procedure was on best effort basis. Of course we did this:

“On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 19:45, We <> wrote:

Hello John,

The machine that lost power due to human interference yesterday has been up soon after and I don’t expect this to happen again. As discussed, our cancellation requests with Goldman Sachs are always on Goldman’s best effort basis. Please reconnect us.”

4. If you’re wrong, say you’re not and negotiate

A position had to be closed at the closing auction. Goldman’s system REDI had rejected that order after first accepting it. After a modification on our side it disappeared and therefore did not get executed. The next day’s stockprice gave an 18k loss.

“[Your company] was supposed to know that the REDI system didn’t allow modifications of auction orders”

So the exchange was (of course) fine with modifying but Goldman’s REDI wasn’t. We proposed to split 18k loss to 9k each because the original order was cancelled altogether. Goldman even tried to negotiate the 9k. First into 50/50 and then an attempt for 75/25. This last attempt would have saved Goldman 2250 EUR.

5. Short Selling Debacle

We were supposed to check whether we could borrow stock but it didn’t.

Goldman allowed this for a month until the exchange authorities noticed. Instead of working out on Goldman’s side how this could have happened (We didn’t get instructed properly), we got penalized by not being able to trade for two weeks. The responsible Goldman employee called it in an internal mail: “[Your company]’s short selling debacle”. The context showed that he blamed us and that we needed to get punished.

B. Sub-standard systems

1. The LSE Auction

Above is shown how London IOB is impossible to trade in the opening. Well, for London Stock Exchange Goldman only allow orders if you’re willing to enter them close enough to the best bid or best offer but that’s a problem in an auction. Example: A stock worth 50 has a crossed best bid and offer of 85-25 as is comon in auctions. The Goldman customer can only enter bids close to 85 and offers close to 25, although the exchange allows any price. A year ago a Goldman employee said, when asked when they were going to change this, that it’s “Not likely to be soon”.

2. Minimum Order size

Goldman does not allow orders of sizes smaller than a certain number. So if you have a position and you hedge out of it but you have a small size left, you have to call or email Goldman to allow this final trade. Why? Nobody knows. But it’s not good for automated trading.

3. Stock Universum

Many stocks are not configured. Of course new listings need to be able to trade on the first day. Not at Goldman. One of your empleyees writes:

“we would like you to group all new product set-ups and suspend requests into a single request that you send to us twice a week?  i.e. on a Monday and a Wednesday you send all requests in 1 go.”

4. Ticksizes

Some are manually configured. But wrong.

Kind regards,

——-

 

Financial Football 2011 (updated)

44 comments / May 3, 2011

Toch nog, Ajax pakt de dubbel!Some traditions are worth keeping, and the financial football tournament is one of them. Saturday the 28th of May the Financial Football tournament will be held for the eight time. Just like last couple of years in Abcoude, playing outdoor with seven-a-side on a half-lenght pitch and a great BBQ afterwards. And indoor soccer rules, so leave your Nigel de Jong-tackles at home.

Tournament was formerly known as the All Options Football Tournament – but due heavy times for Allard and his traders they have withdrawn from sponsoring. Hope they will send a team anyway – or maybe we’ll see former AO traders with their new firm MMX Trading on the pitch.The steady trading firm from the west side, Scrocca, has signed for sponsoring the tournament this year. Other sponsors remain unchanged (Eurex and KBC) and everything will be organized smoothly as usual by Ferry Boekholt (Bennington).

Tournament is open to all members of the Euronext and Eurex, the exchanges itself as well as regulators and all other groups trading derivatives or equities. Last year 18 teams participated and the title was won by 323 Trading, beating Caerus on penalties in the final. You can sign up over here and download read the brochure here (pdf).

Not placing any bets this time – but no firm has ever won the title twice yet. Here’s the list of past winners:

  • 2010 – 323 Trading
  • 2009 – KBC Bank
  • 2008 – Eurex
  • 2007 – Euronext
  • 2006 – Market Wizards
  • 2005 – Fortis
  • 2004 – IMC
  • 2003 – Optiver

Strange enough All Options isn’t sending a team this year – with the 100 employees left at least one team doesn’t sound too difficult. Other notable absent firms this year are last year’s winner 323, Flow Traders, Binck and ABN AMRO Clearing.

Unrelated short news : the departure of Randal Meijer as CEO of Optiver has been confirmed by Quote (nl). New guy in the boardroom is the unknown Eduardus Duijn – who has been capable of leaving no trace or whatsoever on the internet. Just pray he doesn’t burn his own garbage in the garden.

Fresh play-offs for liquidity providers

53 comments / April 27, 2011

Play offs, maar wel wat te drinken erbij graagThe liquidity provider roles have been auctioned again (pdf). Traders can sign on for competitive market maker (cmm, quoting some options most of the time) or more ambitious for primary market maker (pmm, quoting all options all of the time).

It’s hard to judge whether or not quoting options gives a comparative advantage to other traders, but it sheds some light on the strategy of different trading firms (or the lack of it). Besides, it’s good for the competitive spirit to have several play-offs for the most popular primary market maker roles (pmm). Current pmm’s having met their quoting obligations for a year with a decent size and spread will be relieved from this competition. This season we have a record number of four play offs. Options on ING, KPN, Unilever and Tom Tom  will see fierce competition for quoting the tightest spreads for the biggest size.

  • ING : Tibra versus Nino
  • KPN : Caerus versus Optiver versus All Options (for two spots)
  • Unilever : Caerus versus Optiver
  • Tom Tom : Caerus versus Fluhalp versus 323 Trading versus Leopark (for two spots)

Difficult to predict the outcome. Caerus has build a solid reputation and Optiver has earlier bitten the dust in Ahold and Akzo recently. 323 Trading is slowly collection a lot of primary market maker roles and is always a serious outsider. We will have to be patient for three months for the results. The dark horse Fluhalp isn’t unknown at all, it’s a legal entity of Scrocca.

In Tom Tom there’s only one firm not forced to participate in the play off and qualified directly as pmm – All Options is safe while four others fight for two spots. Probably there’s a perfect valid explanation for this, but in last auction the pmm places in Tom Tom were taken by Optiver, Leopark and 323. This means All Options has at best applied for the pmm role somewhere in the running year (perhaps picking up the role Optiver dropped) – and as I have always understood the exchange rules you can’t be safe from a play-off procedure when you don’t perform quoting obligations all year long.

  • Update : there is a valid explanation. All Options hasn’t been pmm in TomTom from day one in the last year, but long enough (8 months) to have a serious quality score.

AEX Index

Euronext has created an extra seventh spot for primary market makers in de options on the AEX index. We have two new firms quoting all series including the long terms. A trader at Market Wizards signed, and the well known firm Liquid Capital will join AEX as pmm too. It’s the only spot Liquid is trading on Euronext Amsterdam. The liquidity providers in the AEX as of May 2nd are : Caerus, IMC, Leopark, Liquid, Market Wizards, Optiver and Tibra.

For some reason All Options left the pmm spot in the AEX. They’ll be busy with Mediq, Ten Cate and Brunel of course. Seriously, don’t recognize any trace of a coherent strategy at All Options. Then again, maybe there’s a perfect explanation for this.

  • Other news : CFTC versus Optiver case on hammering the oil : postponed until May 25th.
Newer
Older