4 ms·
> There is no guarantee when it starts trading again that it won't open 20% down. That's why I used the words "reduce the likelihood" instead of "eliminate".
by jackgavigan 11y ago
> There is no guarantee when it starts trading again that it won't open 20% down.
That's why I used the words "reduce the likelihood" instead of "eliminate".
As to the efficacy and benefits of volatility interruptions, research has been carried out on this - 'Price Discovery in European Volatility Interruptions': http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2365772 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2365772
- gd1 11y agoMonday saw the first ever limit down halts on major equity index futures (YM/ES/NQ) on CME Globex. It was an unmitigated disaster. It happened at a critical time (heading into the cash open), and caused chaos in the ETFs that have these futures as the underlying. Market makers price and hedge ETFs like SPY (the Spyder S&P 500 tracker) off the future. So being unable to do so since the underlying was frozen, they did the only thing they could naturally do and blew out their spreads and backed away. Even then, some unfortunate and panicky people crossed those spreads and some SPY changed hands at -14%. There is no legislating against stupidity. Then when ES and the other futures did unfreeze, they promptly plunged to a second limit down in extremely thin trade. Why so thin? Because when you stop trading, everyone empties out of the orderbook, and they don't necessarily dive straight back in once it unfreezes. Liquidity gradually comes back as participants assess that the price is stable and they can start quoting again. Monday was not a good day for your argument.