151k IN ES @ 37.50

Discussion in 'Trading' started by jax88, Jan 13, 2010.

  1. wow!

    well we all know that even if some illegal shit was going down... they will get away with it esp if its good old goldman
     
    #31     Jan 13, 2010
  2. I may be wrong but since es and sp are fungible, I believe es position limit would be 100,000 and sp 20,000. Or any combination that does not exceed 20,000 sp, 10,000 sp + 50,000 es.


     
    #32     Jan 13, 2010
  3. Don't worry, we've got everything under control.

    I repeat, we've got EVERYTHING under control.
     
    #33     Jan 13, 2010
  4. Maybe somebody had a 4 hour trading career and retired @ 4:00. They just scaled out.

    Not a bad thought.
     
    #34     Jan 13, 2010
  5. Yes....I just heard that "stocktrad3r" who is now trading prop just fat fingered his first ever BUY order as he decidied to get back in the market now LONG!!! :eek:

    He is looking at a G5 purchase now online....:D
     
    #35     Jan 13, 2010
  6. nevadan

    nevadan

    Of course that is true, but any trade of that size would have to be apportioned between the big contract and the mini or it would create an arb opportunity it seems like. So a huge trade in the es would be a part of a larger trade I would think. 100K in the es would be 0 big contract or it would be over the limit if done with SP also.
     
    #36     Jan 13, 2010
  7. pismo10

    pismo10

    Limits of 20k in the large and 100k in the emini which are equivalent. Maybe they can be exceeded if hedging.
     
    #37     Jan 13, 2010
  8. I think some of the folks here are missing the point.

    It's not so much about position limits. It's about one or two (or more) parties trading an abnormal volume of contracts at a FIXED price (37.25&37.50).

    a) There were multiple parties involved, and there was an agreement to trade at that price... how likely is that?

    b) There was no agreement and an entity (or a few parties) took advantage of that huge volume displayed in the book. The fact that so much volume was done so quickly given the environement (no panic selling or covering prior to that) makes me think it that this scenario is quite unlikely.

    c) The same party traded with itself.:mad:

    d)?
     
    #38     Jan 13, 2010
  9. There we have the official CME answer to this point.......LOL! :D
     
    #39     Jan 13, 2010
  10. Yeah, I know they're doing such a hard work investigating this. It's good to know we live and work in a transparent market.

    Transparent...
     
    #40     Jan 13, 2010