The "up-to-the-minute Market Data" thread

reply to post by cpdaman

Yeah, Interest Rate Swaps, 84% of the Hundreds of Trillions of OTC Derivatives. I think that's where it's gonna end. As he points out in the article, there are massive distortions happening which no one can put their finger on. It's the black hole of opaque OTC Derivatives sucking up more and more capital as the REAL world continues down the road to depression.

The Tens of Trillions thrown into banks and equities was a hail mary/double or nothing that didn't work.

reply to post by HimWhoHathAnEar


But here is where things get "exaggerated" by the media..

When they are saying xxxx Trillions that is actually incorrect because they are using the total contract size + leverage when in reality it is only the initial margin that is actually put down

For example

I need approx..

$2400 to control 100,000 units of EUR USD

So lets break this down..

I am basically using 2.4% risk to carry 100,000

This can be expressed as 2,400/100,000

So while the media would be saying.. "GBM HAS 100,000 IN UNCONTROLLABLE DEBT etc.."

The reality of it is that is not true at all.. I only have $2400 or 2.4% of that on the line

Hope that helps

reply to post by GreenBicMan


Well, 'the media' isn't where I get my information. I get it from specific sources which have been warning about these things for years. Matter of fact, if you go back you will see that I was talking about these things on ATS BEFORE the last little problem we had in '08.

The fact that they are highly leveraged and therefore the amount of capital is smaller, doesn't mean much when you are dealing with such MASSIVE leverage. Losses on a hundred trillion are still enough to wipe out reserves which were already fractional to the order of 40 times.

So yes, I see that you are trying to minimize these things. But we need to remember that they are built on top of what was already a house of cards. Hope that helps.

reply to post by HimWhoHathAnEar


Yes, overlevered is one thing

But Trillions and trillions overlevered is not possible

That is why it is an exaggeration

I have no idea the margin % that is going on, I just used an example

I wanted to add this..

Lets say they are in for 100:1 leverage

That means 1% of total needs to be in account

So it it is 100 TRILLION they need 1 Trillion

If it is 200:1 leverage (borderline insane)

That means .5% of total needs to be in account so 50 Billion

___________

We need to find out what the margin requirement is then you can figure out everything else. But it would be foolish to debate this without all the facts

reply to post by HimWhoHathAnEar


I remember like it was yesterday, when many annalist where telling that Americas economy was nothing but an illusion of prosperity prop by manipulation of interest rates and bubbles.

I Remember when President Bush was telling everybody that America was prosperous and that everything was just fine . . .

What a joke.

reply to post by marg6043


Actually, the was yesterday Marg. And the day before that.. and....

You will never find that 100% on one side, and if you do, then it is time to go the other way.

Most analysts are only good for "after the fact" and usually in most cases it would be best to fade the majority.

By the way SP500 Futures just opened..

Down about 3.5 points from the close on Friday

www.sierrachart.com...

Originally posted by GreenBicMan
I wanted to add this..

Lets say they are in for 100:1 leverage

That means 1% of total needs to be in account

So it it is 100 TRILLION they need 1 Trillion

If it is 200:1 leverage (borderline insane)

That means .5% of total needs to be in account so 50 Billion

___________

We need to find out what the margin requirement is then you can figure out everything else. But it would be foolish to debate this without all the facts

So in that case it would only take 50 Billion (.5%, I think you were trying to say 500 billion?) to wipe you out. As far as having all the facts, ain't gonna happen till after it blows up. That's why they're called 'dark' pools. I'm thinking you didn't read the article that cpdaman posted, but it shows some serious distortions taking place that are unexplained by normal market activity.

reply to post by HimWhoHathAnEar


Sorry my math could have been off, I usually only deal with billions personally lol..

Dark Pools?

Dark Pools are nothing special other than being trades between anonymous people in big blocks.

Ever seen the commercials for Pipeline Powerplay or anything, you know with the shark in the fish bowl?

You could be in one too if you had the capital.. really nothing great about them but I agree they should be done on the floor if anything.

But with Dark Pools the VOLUME IS REPORTED ON THE TICKER. So you will see it flash on the bottom line. So really nothing THAT much nefarious about a dark pool really...

Regarding what is the worst "legal" thing going on right now that I would personally put a stop to?

Well it would probably be cancellation of volume or "flash quotes" that cancel sub millisecond. But that is a game all by itself.

If I had to make a ruling it would be no cancellations of volume on an ECN or GLOBEX etc. within 1 second.

But that might also kill liquidity as well in some forms, so it may do more harm than good. So it's really hard to say.

I might also put an end to co-located servers that are not straight up liquidity providers. And they could not cancel sub 1 second either.

Markets should be FULLY transparent. The reason that worthless derivatives can never go on an exchange is that they would be found to be worthless. That would have never happened if business had been conducted in the light of day.

Just like the Fed has to do business in the dark with OUR money and claims that it's necessary. The Constitution had a protection against this, which was done away with, once again in the dark of night, on a Christmas Eve by a few senators and a president that later lamented that he had sold out his country.

It's good to see them reaping what they've sown with litigation beginning and European markets banning them, etc. Too bad the american people were so stupid as to let them take us down with them.

reply to post by HimWhoHathAnEar


They are mostly fully transparent for the most part.

You can still see time and sales on all regulated futures exchanges.

But I disagree with you anonymity. You should have the right to be anonomous if you please. There is no reason that you should have to know I was on the other side of your trade.

If I was a big player for instance and known to be on the right side a greater percentage of the time I do not want you (if you also had great capital) following my tail. That ruins my edge.

Another way to skirt this would be breaking orders up over different exchanges and laying off pieces in SPY as well as ES as well as DD ($25 point dow) etc..

by GBM
If I was a big player for instance and known to be on the right side a greater percentage of the time I do not want you (if you also had great capital) following my tail. That ruins my edge.

Personally, I think that's the problem. Everyone trying to get an 'edge' thru investments. If an investment is worthy, then it should stand on its merit, not be gamed by someone who has inside information. Once again, playing in the 'dark'.

If it can't be done in the open, in the light of day, then I say it's probably morally wrong. Now we're seeing the reaping of that kind of harvest and it ain't pretty.

I don't expect you to agree as you've stated many times that you aspire to be just like these people and make money by following their every move.

Euro Plunges, Citi Stopped Out
www.zerohedge.com...

EUR/USD 1.34448
WTI Crude 81.76
Shanghai Composite 3,066.13 10:19PM ET Down 64.172 (2.05%)
Jakarta Composite 2,821.3721 10:33PM ET Down 57.299 (1.99%)
Nikkei 225 10,901.33 10:00PM ET Down 200.85 (1.81%)

[edit on 4/18/2010 by Hx3_1963]

reply to post by HimWhoHathAnEar


We are talking millions and millions of dollars on the line for a trade, not an investment. The only people that deal like that are institutions that buy enormous amounts of equities at rock bottom prices. Tail all you want because you wouldn't have the balls to buy when they buy anyway. And you shouldn't be expected to, because it's just not in your makeup as a person. Not to mention I doubt you were touting getting into equities at DOW 7000 anyway. Not many had the vision at the bottom.

Think about the players in the pits.

When the pit rings at 800am you can walk out in an hour up a fortune, or on the flip side down a fortune. This is real edge (relating to the winners), that I wouldn't give away for anything. This is why it is important to shadow your trades for big time professionals that deal in large sums of money. A lot of these guys in energy futures are using their own hard earned money as well and not institutions.

Why should they give up their countless hours of work so you can know what their up to? The simple answer is they shouldn't. Why in the hell should someone work all their life so you can tail them? If you think this isn't work you would be kidding yourself.

The term "edge" is only had by a small minority of traders in reality, less than 2.5-3%. This is after years of screen time, watching replays, going through ticks to find inconsistencies. In no way shape or form should they have to conform to rules made by a visitor to the game. It just doesn't make sense.

If you think I am trying to "burn" you here, I am certainly not. But this is something that is light years beyond this simple conversation. In the end what I am saying is..

Retail Trader "Gary" with his $5,000 ETRADE account has no business in the dealings of Paul Tudor Jones.

reply to post by Hx3_1963


Have you seen GS advice lately?

Pretty piss poor terrible, hate to have enough money where it didn't matter though because I collecting dividends on the SP500 in my trust fund.

That is the sad reality of these groups.. their clients are so ultra wealthy it "really doesn't matter" in a sense..

Yep GS & C scroomed their clients on that FX call

Nikkei is about to come back from lunch...this should be fun...

Blankfein, Cohn And Viniar Were All Supervising Goldman's Mortgage Unit Operations
www.zerohedge.com...

One of the most ludicrous claims over the past few days has been that the shady aspect of Goldman's mortgage unit operations began and ended with Fabrice Tourre, as per the SEC's complaint.

The NYT's Louise Story has just disclosed the far too obvious: "By early 2007, Goldman’s mortgage unit had become a hive of intense activity. By then, the business had captured the attention of senior management. In addition to Mr. Blankfein, Gary D. Cohn, Goldman’s president, and David A. Viniar, the chief financial officer, visited the mortgage unit frequently, often for hours at a time."

Louise presents a comprehensive analysis of the chronological shift in mood over US real estate among Goldman's ranks, in which it become obvious that the very heads of Goldman were instrumental in making the critical decision to part ways with Wall Street's optimistic groupthink, driven primarily by the input of Goldman salesmen who listened to hedge funds and advised the firm's executives and analysts (coupled with the input of Tourre and Egol) that some of the "smartest" money was turning bearish on real estate as early as 2006.

[edit on 4/18/2010 by Hx3_1963]

Why should they give up their countless hours of work

reply to post by GreenBicMan


That's just it, it isn't WORK. It's not producing anything in the real world. It a parasitic thing, gaming someone to make a buck. Like I said, with your world view of thinking that this kind of thing is genius, I don't expect you to see it. Go read that quants book again and revel at the sheer genius of the parasite.

Now the parasite has killed the host.

What I see is that a very "few" make lots of money off the "many". Most of the "few", I would bet, are in positions that allow them to compile the few dollars of the "many" into larger sums that they in turn can make a fortune off while the majority of the "many" get little or nothing for their service to the "few". The other "few", well, I believe they may be spending their Daddy's or Mommy's money in their endeavors with a very small exception to the contrary.

[edit on 18-4-2010 by nonnez]