|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
<BLOCKQUOTE
>
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
>From:
David Hunt
To: <A title=realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 9:38
AM
Subject: [RT] Single Stock Futures
<TABLE id=INCREDIMAINTABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="100%"
border=0>
<TD id=INCREDITEXTREGION
width="100%">
In australia we have had single stock futures for the last few
years.The reality is that the market makers charge a fair
spread (10 cents)
to trade futures in these stock futures. When the Underlying stock
spread is 1 cent
on the big stocks like BHP and the banks.Hence the SSF
market is illiquid because its cheaper to get Margin Stock or trade
CFDs
(even with their rubbish spread).This illiquidity is only
really a phantom because if you bought enough of a Single Stock
Future
to upset the Market makers' position limits all he would do is
buy the physical stock
and therefore cover himself at the 1 cents spread not the 10 cent
Bid Offer spread SSFs have.If per chance the SSF Bid Offer
spread moves away from where the Underlying stock is trading
their are enoough Investment Bankers and funds out there who would
simply sell the
SSF and buy the stock so that it would come into line.
thats how you can get a normal market in a SSF that only has 85
contracts traded in one day.Regards
David Hunt
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 04:47:21 -0400
From: Dan Goncharoff <<A
href="">TheGonch@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: qqq vs nqlx
John makes several good points, but I would like to add one of my
own.
When markets are trading smoothly, it is fine to evaluate liquidity
by
the volume of contracts. Markets are not always smooth, however,
and a
trader needs to consider how he expects a product to trade in
rough
markets. Will market makers still make a reasonable market when
the
bottom falls out? If not, will there be practical alternatives that
will
allow the trader to eliminate or offset risk?
Frankly, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and we haven't
had a
good bite of bad-market pudding since the introduction of
security
futures. Traders should give some thought to how to exit risk
through
alternative markets (eg, buying puts or shorting stock to offset a
long
position), and watch those markets the same way a driver watches
the
traffic behind him in the rear-view mirror.
Regards
DanG
John J. Lothian wrote:
>Earl:
>
>Security futures challenge our understandings of what liquidity
is.
>Most contracts are judged by number of contracts traded.
However,
>with security futures products like the QQQ ETF, and others,
the
>contracts market makers are continually making 2 sided markets.
I
>regularly see bids and offers 100 up on security futures at
both
>excchanges.
>
>Bill Rainer, former CFTC Chairman and CEO of OneChicago,
recently
>said that there has yet to be an order that is too large
for
>OneChicago market makers to handle. They have had 2000 and 3000
lot
>orders all trade at the same price. I agree, and the same is
true
>for NQLX too.
>
>Security futures markets have the most liquid cash markets
available
>of any futures markets. These cash markets are accessible to
all,
>but the market makers have multiple avenues to lay off their
trades
>in broad based indices, cash stocks, options or other
security
>futures products.
>
>Thus, while we might brand low volume for a contract poor
because of
>low number of trades, that label does not really reflect the
true
>liquidity of those markets.
>
>Regards,
>
>John J. Lothian
>
>Disclosure: Futures trading involves significant risk.
Security
>futures are not for everyone.
>
<TD id=INCREDIANIM vAlign=bottom
align=middle>To
unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxYour
use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <A
href="">Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
|