|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
-----Original Message-----
From: Earl Adamy <eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Profit95@xxxxxxx <Profit95@xxxxxxx>; leomgr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<leomgr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Saturday, August 29, 1998 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: A message re: LFG/LEO/TOPS/CUBS... (what's the problem here?)
I'm not at all confused. Condemning LFG for electing to use CUBS in their LeoWeb
order entry system is no more unfair than condemning GM for selecting faulty
brakes for their cars. In one case the customer's financial well-being is put at
risk, while in the other, the customer's physical well-being is put at risk.
LFG's management and system designers were in a far better position than its
customers to assess the CUBS/TOPS technology. LFG decided to go with it and it
was a mistake, now they need to fix the problem or tell their customers that
LeoWeb is being shut down until it is fixed. Apparently others (e.g. TimberHill,
PMB, etc.) took a look at CUBS/TOPS and decided to go to the expense of
implementing broker-owned terminals and software - the reasons seem to be
apparent. Allegedly, some of these other systems are both faster and more
reliable, however given all the false broker hype about electronic order entry
systems, I'm not inclined to believe it until a number of members of this list
tell us that it works well and works reliably.
I'm not unfamiliar with LeoWeb/TOPS/CUBS methods of operation as I posted and
forwarded to the lists whatever information I've found available. The fact of
the matter is that for whatever reason, the US futures exchanges and brokers are
lagging years behind their brethren at the US stock exchanges and overseas
futures exchanges. The US industry had better get its house in order soon or
we'll be trading these products electronically via overseas exchanges. I
sincerely hope that the new CME software promised for implementation in
September does the trick!
Earl
-----Original Message-----
From: Profit95@xxxxxxx <Profit95@xxxxxxx>
To: eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx <eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx>; leomgr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<leomgr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Saturday, August 29, 1998 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: A message re: LFG/LEO/TOPS/CUBS... (what's the problem here?)
>Earl: You are confusing LEO and CUBS. CUBS is the property of the CME and is
>in no way the responsibility of LFG to "fix." LEO is owned by LFG and is the
>conduit to TOPS which can access CUBS in the S&P pit. To condemn LFG for the
>problems with CUBS is unfair--just as it would be wrong to blame Lind for CUBS
>problems (Lind also accesses CUBS.)
>Regards, Jack.
|