Investors to sue Moscow Exchange over stoppage of WTI oil trading - page 6
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Think about the meaning of the transcript.
Non-banking credit organisation central counterparty "National Clearing Centre" (Joint Stock Company)
NKO has shareholders !
I would not be surprised that due to past events, the dividend for shareholders may go up.
The Exchange has earned so far at the expense of debts incurred, and the debt is already an item of income, and part of the income can be distributed in dividends.
I have another way of saying that it is a legalised OCG.
Think about the meaning of the transcript.
Non-bank credit organization - central counterparty National Clearing Centre (Joint Stock Company)
NCO has shareholders !
I would not be surprised that due to past events, the dividend for shareholders may go up.
The Exchange has earned so far at the expense of debts incurred, and the debt is already an item of income, and part of the income can be distributed in dividends.
I have another way of saying that it is a legalised OCG.
Are you suggesting that the shareholders of the people are investing in an organisation which, as a central counterparty to the stock exchange, is trading against them in the market, using their own liquidity?
And everyone is looking for the grail...)))
Are you suggesting that the shareholders of the people are investing in an organisation which, as a central counterparty to the stock exchange, is trading against them in the market, using their own liquidity?
And everyone is looking for the grail...)))
I hint at the fact that there are shareholders who hold the majority stake, and they do not belong to the people.
This assumption applies only to the debt situation, and the trading halt with no opportunity to allow traders to close their positions.
The people have been bluntly credited, and driven into negative debt.
The exchange has earned so far on account of the debts incurred, and the debt is already an income item, and part of the income can be distributed as dividends.
And how did the exchange make money on this? Every contract bought has a seller. He has made money.
And how did the exchange make money on this? Every contract bought has a seller. That's how he made his money.
Who then was the seller in this case?
If NCC is a central counterparty and a non-banking credit institution.
And at the time of expiry the position was counted at -$37
In my opinion, everything is obvious. They took advantage of the situation to make money.
Who was the seller in this case?
Vasya and Petya were trading on the stock exchange. Vasya sold a futures contract to Peter for 10₽. Petya did not have time to sell to anyone else (no buyers, trading was closed, etc.). The settlement price was fixed at -37₽. Vasya made a profit of 47₽, and Petya made a loss of the same amount.
The seller was Vasya.
Vasya and Petya were trading on the stock exchange. Vasya sold a futures contract to Peter for 10₽. Petya did not have time to sell to anyone else (no buyers, trading was closed, etc.). The settlement price was fixed at -37₽. Vasya made a profit of 47₽, and Petya made a loss of the same amount.
Vasya was the seller
Vasya's role was precisely that of a counterparty who poured liquidity into buyers when the price was above zero.
Who would sell at such prices? When everyone is buying.
;))
The role of Vasya is precisely that of a counterparty who poured liquidity on buyers when the price was above zero.
Who will sell at such prices? When everyone is buying.
;))
Imagine that Vasya sold not at 10₽ the day before, but at 50-60₽ back in January when that price level was
Imagine that Vasya sold not at 10₽ but at 50₽ back in January when prices were at this level
That's understandable as it is, in the classic sense.
I am saying that in addition to Vasya and Petya, there is a counterparty.
Which one was Vasya selling at 5, at 3, at 1?
Who created the liquidity to buy at the lowest prices?
;))
That's understandable as it is, in the classic sense.
I say that in addition to Vasya and Petya there is a counterparty.
And which one did Vasya sell at 5, at 3, at 1?
Who created the liquidity to buy at the lowest prices?
;))
The liquidity to buy at the lowest prices may have been created by stop bids from those who bought earlier at higher prices (they go with the market), also due to a lack of margin and GO
There is no conspiracy - there is an efficient market which has eliminated the imbalance, albeit in such an exotic way