5 ms·

> It's where Goldman would net off trades between their own clients This is internalization, which is different from clearing.

by vostok 9y ago

riazrizvi 9y ago
Hmm, in trading, internalization is where a broker would fill a buy order from its own inventory instead of acting as the middle man it normally is. So not sure why that idea has been brought up. To clarify, Goldmans are offering to buy* futures their clients want to sell, if they can line up one of their other clients/counterparties to buy it from Goldmans at the same time. Goldmans is acting only as an intermediary or a broker. The key idea for clients is that if you want to sell, you want to get a quick and good bid from your trading partner. Goldmans are not offering to do that. They won’t make a price straight away for their client, they will only broker trades, so they will need to call up others to find out what their price is, hold them on the line and then offer the price to the client. At the end of the trading day, all Goldmans will do is net off trades between their own counterparties. Goldman clients expect the company usually to act as market maker for futures trades. As a former sell-side trader, what that means is I can make my own prices for the client, buy their futures off them, hold them, and later in the day I can sell them myself, possibly to the exchange. I hold my own position, I assume my own risk, on a short term/daily basis. This is better for the client because they can get an immediate market, they don’t have to wait for me to call someone else. In a way Goldmans are saying they won’t trade against their own clients. Given their history with the CDOs (think The Big Short), and given how opaque the underlying Bitcoin market is, this seems to me to be a covert reassurance that they won’t be working against their clients. * or sell obviously.
- vostok 9y ago
  The important thing about internalization in this context isn't who takes the other side, but the fact that the trade gets done before it even reaches an exchange. You're right that it usually refers to a market maker taking the other side as principal off exchange. > To clarify, Goldmans are offering to buy* futures their clients want to sell, if they can line up one of their other clients/counterparties to buy it from Goldmans at the same time. This is not what clearing means. You're talking about execution. They'll still clear the trades even if you execute away. There's not really anything else I can add to this discussion. An imperfect analogy is that you're buying the futures with a credit card and Goldman will step in and pay the bill if you can't.

> It's where Goldman would net off trades between their own clients This is internalization, which is different from clearing.

by vostok 9y ago

> It's where Goldman would net off trades between their own clients This is internalization, which is different from clearing.

riazrizvi 9y ago

Hmm, in trading, internalization is where a broker would fill a buy order from its own inventory instead of acting as the middle man it normally is. So not sure why that idea has been brought up. To clarify, Goldmans are offering to buy* futures their clients want to sell, if they can line up one of their other clients/counterparties to buy it from Goldmans at the same time. Goldmans is acting only as an intermediary or a broker. The key idea for clients is that if you want to sell, you want to get a quick and good bid from your trading partner. Goldmans are not offering to do that. They won’t make a price straight away for their client, they will only broker trades, so they will need to call up others to find out what their price is, hold them on the line and then offer the price to the client. At the end of the trading day, all Goldmans will do is net off trades between their own counterparties. Goldman clients expect the company usually to act as market maker for futures trades. As a former sell-side trader, what that means is I can make my own prices for the client, buy their futures off them, hold them, and later in the day I can sell them myself, possibly to the exchange. I hold my own position, I assume my own risk, on a short term/daily basis. This is better for the client because they can get an immediate market, they don’t have to wait for me to call someone else. In a way Goldmans are saying they won’t trade against their own clients. Given their history with the CDOs (think The Big Short), and given how opaque the underlying Bitcoin market is, this seems to me to be a covert reassurance that they won’t be working against their clients. * or sell obviously.

vostok 9y ago
The important thing about internalization in this context isn't who takes the other side, but the fact that the trade gets done before it even reaches an exchange. You're right that it usually refers to a market maker taking the other side as principal off exchange. > To clarify, Goldmans are offering to buy* futures their clients want to sell, if they can line up one of their other clients/counterparties to buy it from Goldmans at the same time. This is not what clearing means. You're talking about execution. They'll still clear the trades even if you execute away. There's not really anything else I can add to this discussion. An imperfect analogy is that you're buying the futures with a credit card and Goldman will step in and pay the bill if you can't.