Investors to sue Moscow Exchange over stoppage of WTI oil trading - page 2

New comment
 
ascerdfg:
Imho will win the trial. As there is no possibility of placing negative bids and there was no possibility of closing the loss-making positions themselves.

This was known in advance, hence the usual market risk. As was the fact that there were no buyers

 
A100:

This was known in advance, hence the usual market risk. As was the fact that there were no buyers

I don't... I don't know. That's a lot of law to read. I'd still bet on compensation for the negative, but it's the stock market that's getting screwed... Anyway, let's get our popcorn on...
 
Vladimir Simakov:
I don't... I don't know. You have to read a lot of law. I would still bet on compensation of the negative part, but the exchange is already charged... Anyway, let's get some popcorn...

In a futures contract (by definition) the risk is not limited by anything and zero is a limit.

Roughly speaking: you bought the futures - you are limited to zero at the bottom, but if you sold it, you are not limited to anything at the top - you get an inequality of parties, which contradicts the basic principles

In such a situation the laws only protect illiterate grannies, qualified investors do not. In addition, buying a futures contract initially means that it is to be exercised within a certain period of time. Early "redemption" is an option

 
A100:

In a futures contract (by definition) the risk is not limited by anything and zero is a limit.

Roughly speaking: you bought the futures - you are limited to zero at the bottom, but if you sold it, you are not limited to anything at the top - you get an inequality of parties, which contradicts the basic principles

In such a situation the laws only protect illiterate grannies, qualified investors do not. In addition, buying a futures contract initially means that it is to be exercised within a certain period of time. Early "redemption" is an option

So the essence of the claim, if I understand correctly, is the lack of technical ability to bid at a negative price, which is physically possible, which is what the lawyers will be pushing for.
 
Expect a fall in Mosbirch shares
 
prostotrader:

Investors to sue Moscow Exchange over WTI trading halt

Investors had no opportunity to reduce or limit their risk when WTI crude oil prices plunged to negative levels

The title of the thread is already wrong, the correct title would be "Exchange players who have been catching falling knives are going to sue MOEX"

 
ascerdfg:
Imho will win the trial. There was no possibility to place orders with negative prices and in general there was no possibility to close losing positions.
And how did the price go down?!!!
The players' deals move the price (fact) -- so the bidding was normal, even when the price went to zero. Logic, her majesty.)))

My opinion - "Mr. MM" screwed up and is now going to try to cover it up.

And in general, nothing extraordinary happened, because the price is below zero - is also a price, and therefore the orders should be placed.

This is because their exchange trading robot, probably, does not know how to work in a negative price range, and therefore the trading was closed. This is just a technical defect.
 

I don't understand a lot of things, but why didn't traders set them?

or they just did not work?

If there were no stops, what complaints?

 
Yury Stukalov:

I don't understand a lot of things, but why didn't traders set them?

Or they just didn't work?

If there were no stops, then what are the claims?

Most likely, speculators fully bought close to zero, but could not put a stopper because of broker restrictions - you can't set a stopper in the negative range. So they got caught.
To make a stop triggered at minus prices, there must be requests at minus levels but they could not be due to technical reasons. This is my opinion.

There is a contradiction here. If traders could not close in the minus range - it means that they in principle could not trade at negative prices, and then what caused the price fall?
 

Since 1 May.

Friends, please explain this whole situation to me from the point of view of STACKAN. And so thought and so, I do not understand. I could understand if the price would move simply "by the indicative", but it seems it is FORTS also by the book, i.e. by counter orders. How did it end up below 0? What kind of negative bids were knocked into by negative offers. It's even a little chilly from lack of understanding)

123456789...11
New comment
Reason: