|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Yes and No. The numbers are reversed for equity and index.
It should read
e calls 723408
e puts 392847
Total equity 1116251
i calls 195370
i puts 305968
Total Index 501,338
Grand Total Calls 918828
Puts 698865
Grand Total 1,617,693
The total .. as always doesn't include the interest rate options .. which
really don't trade a huge # usually.
Apparently someone in Investor Services developed a mild case of dyslexia. You
can always check the web site by dialing the 1 800 OPTIONS number which also has
a volume choice.
You can get me, if you have any questions during regular business hours by
dialing the 800 wait for the operator and ask for X 7843.
Good Luck,
Ramesh wrote:
> To un-subscribe from this list, send a blank reply to this message. To
> un-subscribe from all CBOE e-mail lists, reply to this message and type
> "all" in the subject line, then click send. For all other e-mail
> correspondence, visit the following web address:
> http://www.cboe.com/exchange/e-mail.htm.
>
> For a historical listing of CBOE Market Statistics Summaries, visit the
> following web address: http://www.cboe.com/tools/statistics/summeriz.asp.
>
> CBOE Market Stats for October 14, 1999
>
> Put/Call Ratio: .76
>
> VIX OPENING VALUE: 28.56
> VIX HIGH VALUE : 30.43
> VIX LOW VALUE : 26.53
> VIX CLOSING VALUE: 27.34
>
> EQUITY OPTION
>
> TOTAL EQUITY CALL VOLUME : 195,370
> TOTAL EQUITY PUT VOLUME : 305,968
> TOTAL VOLUME : 501,338
>
> INDEX OPTION
>
> TOTAL INDEX CALL VOLUME : 723,408
> TOTAL INDEX PUT VOLUME : 392,846
> TOTAL VOLUME : 1,116,254
>
> Sum of All Products
>
> TOTAL CALL VOLUME: 918828 TOTAL CALL OPEN
> INTEREST:28055863
> TOTAL PUT VOLUME: 698865 TOTAL PUT OPEN
> INTEREST:19197950
> TOTAL VOLUME: 1617693 TOTAL OPEN
> INTEREST:47253813
>
> Equity LEAPS Summary
>
> TOTAL CALL VOLUME: 23454 TOTAL CALL OPEN INTEREST:
> 4190459
> TOTAL PUT VOLUME: 11603 TOTAL PUT OPEN INTEREST:
> 2815073
> TOTAL VOLUME: 35057 TOTAL OPEN INTEREST:
> 7005532
>
> S&P 100 Index-(OEW,OEY,OEZ)
>
> OEX CALL VOLUME: 97473 OEX CALL OPEN INTEREST:
> 236239
> OEX PUT VOLUME: 169567 OEX PUT OPEN INTEREST:
> 267538
> OEX TOTAL VOLUME: 267040 OEX TOTAL OPEN INTEREST:
> 503777
> OEX LEVELS HIGH: 675.41 LOW: 662.98 CLOSE: 672.04 +.84
>
> S&P 100 Index LEAPS-(OBX,OCX,OAX)
>
> OEX LEAPS CALL VOLUME: 14 OEX LEAPS CALL OPEN INTEREST:
> 4042
> OEX LEAPS PUT VOLUME: 147 OEX LEAPS PUT OPEN INTEREST:
> 72581
> OEX LEAPS TOTAL VOLUME: 161 OEX LEAPS TOTAL OPEN INTEREST:
> 76623
> OEX LEAPS LEVELS HIGH: 135.08 LOW: 132.60 CLOSE: 134.41 +.17
>
> S&P 500 Index-(SPZ,SPX,SXB,SPQ,SPT,SZP,SXY,SXZ,SXM,SPB)
>
> SPX CALL VOLUME: 80695 SPX CALL OPEN INTEREST:
> 946231
> SPX PUT VOLUME: 104997 SPX PUT OPEN INTEREST:
> 1253522
> SPX TOTAL VOLUME: 185692 SPX TOTAL OPEN INTEREST:
> 2199753
> SPX LEVELS HIGH: 1289.63 LOW: 1267.62 CLOSE: 1283.42 -2.13
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: THE DOCTOR <droex@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: ericrogers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <ericrogers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: BruceB <bruceb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Earl Adamy <eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thursday, October 14, 1999 8:32 PM
> Subject: Re: FOMC meeting?
>
> >Banks lent at 10% and still do it via their offshore subs. It is still
> common today to
> >have the ability to borrow, avoiding Reg - T, via a banks offshore subs.
> Margin is set
> >currently by the fed ... not by the NYSE. Prior to the fed banks could
> lend
> >domestically against stock .. now subject to Reg - T. Ever wonder, why in
> 1929, banks
> >failed and you had all the stories about homes being lost to the
> banks........simply the
> >regs were different and mortgage loans were callable. When the market
> failed ... the
> >banks failed and loans were called.
> >
> >Norman E. Phair wrote:
> >
> >> Doctor:
> >>
> >> You are correct about banks lending 90% but they did
> >> not do it in 1928 or 1929.
> >> I think most everyone will agree that the kiss of death
> >> for a bull market is tight money. From all the
> >> indications of what was written about the late 20"s
> >> money rates were increasing.
> >>
> >> Broker call rates were in the mid teens in 1928 and
> >> around 20% in 1929. So we now know that Joe Schmuck on
> >> the street could not borrow money at 10% in 1928 or
> >> 1929. This factor alone blows the theory out of the
> >> water that 10% margin buying caused the 1929 crash.
> >>
> >> The A/D line peaked in 4/14/28 and when the market made
> >> its high on 9/3/29 it was down close to 25%. This fact
> >> shows that a great number of stocks had already began
> >> to decline, similar to where we are now. I can only
> >> make the assumption that most people who might have
> >> been on 10% margin prior to 1928, probably would have
> >> received a margin call during 28 or 29 because of the
> >> narrowing of market leadership as evidenced by the A/D
> >> line. Of course if they sold and re-entered after 1927
> >> they would have paid higher rates.
> >>
> >> I do not have a good chart of 1929. But it looks like
> >> the market had an initial break of about 10% and then a
> >> pull back rally of approximately 50% lasting
> >> approximately 2 weeks before the waterfall decline.
> >> This initial decline not doubt reduced the margin
> >> holders whether you were on 45% NYSE margin or less
> >> from any other source. Margin selling fuels a decline
> >> it does not start it.
> >>
> >> External sources created the reasons. I do not recall
> >> a breadth divergence in the history of recorded
> >> statistics for the NYSE that has NOT led to a bear
> >> market.
> >>
> >> After many calls to the NYSE they referred me to an
> >> expert in the industry on margin requirements. I also
> >> talked to a Federal Reserve Bank.
> >>
> >> The Federal Reserve System was created in 1913. They
> >> left margin rates up to the banks and the stock
> >> exchange until Reg-T went into effect on 10/15/34.
> >>
> >> In 1902 the stock exchange members put into effect a
> >> general practice of maintenance margin requirements
> >> ranging form 10% to 25% depending on the price of the
> >> stock. On 2/9/13 the NYSE established a house capital
> >> requirement for member firms of 25% minimum
> >> maintenance. This was levied against the brokerage
> >> houses.
> >>
> >> 1922 lowered to 20%
> >> June 1929 raised to 25%
> >> June 1931 reduced to 20%
> >>
> >> 9/15/33: The first NYSE published minimum maintenance
> >> requirement.
> >>
> >> 10/15/34: Effective date of Reg-T by the Federal
> >> Reserve. Margin requirement was set at 45%
> >>
> >> In the early part of the century the brokerage hoses
> >> did not have the capital to lend for margin purchase as
> >> they do today. They would go the the banks and borrow
> >> money at the broker call rate. This amount (20% as
> >> stated above) would be added to the stock exchange
> >> margin requirement of 25% in 1929 making the effective
> >> rate 45%.
> >>
> >> An individual could go directly to the banks if they
> >> wanted but they would pay the broker call rate plus a
> >> margin requirement of 10%, for a total of 30%. Maybe
> >> this is where the 10% figure comes from.
> >>
> >> Another hand-me-down story that will probably never go
> >> away is the remark attributed to Willie Sutton
> >> When asked why he robbed banks, It is said that he
> >> said, "That is where the money is." The truth is he
> >> stated after he was in jail that he never made that
> >> statement.
> >>
> >> Norman E.
> >>
> >> THE DOCTOR wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Norman,
> >> >
> >> > You are correct about the SEC rule .. however there was no fed Reg - T
> back so
> >> > banks could lend 90% and in fact banks could take direct ownership of
> equities.
> >> > That is where the leverage came from and the massive bank failures.
> The US Fed
> >> > still restricts direct ownership (Reg 20issues)although to a larger
> degree than in
> >> > the past. This came under the relaxation of Glass- Stegal.
> >> >
> >> > Norman E. Phair wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Bruce wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > And I agree with him. Back then, investors (speculators) only had
> to put
> >> > > > down 10% of the face value of the stock in order to buy it, and
> even that
> >> > > > rule was rarely enforced (the SEC hadn't been created yet...).
> This led to
> >> > > > massive leveraging in the market, and eventually the crash. Today
> margin is
> >> > > > limited to 50%, and US investors as a whole haven't even come close
> to using
> >> > > > that amount (no margin allowed in IRAs and 401Ks).
> >> > >
> >> > > About 5 years ago I received something in the mail
> >> > > about this long standing statement
> >> > > that margin in 1929 was 10% I knew it was another one
> >> > > of those things that gets repeated
> >> > > so much that everybody believes it. I called the NYSE
> >> > > and wrote down all the information
> >> > > about what the margin rules of the NYSE was back in
> >> > > that period. I do not know where it
> >> > > is so I can not quote it verbatim. New York Stock
> >> > > Exchange margin in the late 20's was
> >> > > between 45% and 60%, I believe the figure was 50%
> >> > > during the crash. There was no
> >> > > 10% rule that you mention, people could buy stock on
> >> > > 10% margin from a bucket shop.
> >> > > There are probably statistics that will show that the
> >> > > amount of stock bought at 10% was
> >> > > very small. As a result I thing you will find that "
> >> > > massive leverage caused the crash"
> >> > > is a misnomer that has been passed down through the
> >> > > years because it has make good copy.
> >> > > Again one can find out the real story if they would
> >> > > take the time to do the research and
> >> > > make one phone call, which is what I did. This is sort
> >> > > of like the Post Office tax on e-mail that gets printed
> >> > > here every so often. If I answered all of the
> >> > > misstatements that have appeared here
> >> > > in the last year I would have arthritis. The SEC has
> >> > > nothing to do with margin requirements. I bought
> >> > > stock on 10% margin in the early 60's. from a money
> >> > > lender. Many people do almost the same thing today.
> >> > > They are called options and futures and it is legal.
> >> > >
> >> > > Norman E.
> >> > >
> >> > > BruceB wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > AG is responsible for guiding the monetary and interest rate
> policies of
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > US and this includes managing and preventing excessive
> speculation and
> >> > > > > consumption whether it be in banking, real estate, credit, or
> stock
> >> > > > markets.
> >> > > > > Allowing bubbles to build and then explode wrecks the economy for
> >> > > > everyone,
> >> > > > > not just the irresponsible speculators - clearly an area where
> government
> >> > > > > has a responsibility to act.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Earl, what is you're definition of "speculation" and "bubble?" I
> think most
> >> > > > people (myself included) define these terms as meaning asset prices
> that
> >> > > > have been artificially inflated through the use of margined or
> borrowed
> >> > > > money. If you agree to that definition, then there is simply no
> evidence
> >> > > > for your claim. Over the past 5 years (since the stock market
> first began
> >> > > > to take off), the amount of stock purchased on margin as a
> percentage of all
> >> > > > stock outstanding has actually FALLEN. In absolute terms, the
> figure has
> >> > > > grown significantly, but as a percentage of the whole market, it's
> down.
> >> > > > Where's the bubble?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Early in his career, AG wrote some papers on
> >> > > > > the crash of 29 which criticized the central bankers for allowing
> >> > > > excessive
> >> > > > > speculation and credit to grow unabated.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > And I agree with him. Back then, investors (speculators) only had
> to put
> >> > > > down 10% of the face value of the stock in order to buy it, and
> even that
> >> > > > rule was rarely enforced (the SEC hadn't been created yet...).
> This led to
> >> > > > massive leveraging in the market, and eventually the crash. Today
> margin is
> >> > > > limited to 50%, and US investors as a whole haven't even come close
> to using
> >> > > > that amount (no margin allowed in IRAs and 401Ks).
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Just because people are placing a higher value on US stocks doesn't
> mean
> >> > > > they're speculating (by my definition...). As I said in a post on
> the Omega
> >> > > > List over two years ago, the money flowing into the stock market is
> "real"
> >> > > > money. It is not borrowed or leveraged. Once again, where's the
> bubble, or
> >> > > > the 1929 scenario here?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Just a few years ago, AG had it
> >> > > > > right when he spoke of "irrational exuberance", however he was
> unwilling
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > pay the (probably very substantial) political price of raising
> interest
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > margin rates to head off the bubble.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I personally wouldn't be opposed to higher margin rates (as long as
> they
> >> > > > don't apply to S&P futures, of course...), but raising interest
> rates is a
> >> > > > bad approach to subduing the stock market. You mentioned earlier
> how
> >> > > > innocent people get hurt when bubbles burst. Well, nothing hurts
> innocent
> >> > > > people more than higher rates (higher car and mortgage payments) in
> the name
> >> > > > of punishing speculators. Isn't that kind of like destroying the
> village in
> >> > > > order to save it?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Nor have our central bankers and
> >> > > > > politicians been willing to bring an end to the import of endless
> cheap
> >> > > > > goods which have held inflation in check and spurred consumption
> while
> >> > > > > exporting a major portion of the US manufacturing base and
> building an
> >> > > > > incredible trade deficit.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Big economics question here, maybe too off topic so I'll skip it!
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Consequently, by most historical measures, US
> >> > > > > equity and credit markets have bubbled to the point where a prick
> of the
> >> > > > > bubble poses a serious threat to not only the US economy, but the
> world
> >> > > > > economy as well.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Once again, your definition of bubble comes into play, but if 1929
> is one of
> >> > > > your "historical measures," we're simply nowhere close to that...
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Bruce
> >
> >
> >
> >
|