151k IN ES @ 37.50

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.


Quote from nevadan:

Position Limits Work in conjunction with existing S&P 500 position limits

from es page. My question still remains. That seems like a net of 20k no matter how you slice it. What am I missing?
More...
 
Quote from nevadan:

...They did thank me for calling and are always interested when anyone has information or questions about activity that might be suspect.
More...

Don't worry, we've got everything under control.

I repeat, we've got EVERYTHING under control.
 
Quote from ChkitOut:

Maybe somebody had a 4 hour trading career and retired @ 4:00. They just scaled out.

Not a bad thought.
More...
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
 
quote from startraitor:
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.
More...
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.
 
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)?
 
Quote from AMT4SWA:

There we have the official CME answer to this point.......LOL! :D
More...

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...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top