5 ms·

If they signed a legally binding agreement, then I imagine NASDAQ breaking would be part of the game.

veyron 14y ago
The contracts absolve NASDAQ of liability in calamities of this nature (my business was almost destroyed -- had to take a 250K loss -- thanks to an order entry server failure), but it doesn't make you feel better. Having had something similar happen to me, I know how much it sucks. You accept its a possibility, but don't really believe it will happen until it does.
- joering2 14y ago
  I am sorry about you loss. The frustration must be tremendous, especially since we know the fault was so clearly on their system's part. How can you make $400MM (last year) and yet cannot come up with robust bullet proof transactional system, no idea.. Ain't that vicious on their part that the rules of game change when there is no other place to "gamble". Bet this 2648 (or whatever rule # it is) would not stand a chance when NASDAQ just started, but now it is "play with us or don't play at all". Ps. Do you think there is any business behind being a "trade insurer"? Similar to car accidents, every high volume trader would be given an options to be insured up to X amount by paying substantially smaller Y fee.
- bbrtyth 14y ago
  But then why do exchanges feel free to reverse trades after the flash crash, but not after something like this flash freeze? From a non-trader's perspective it's as if they do whatever they like.
  - luriel 14y ago
    It might look like they do whatever they like because pretty much they do whatever they like.
sp332 14y ago
It depends on the agreement, and whether the NASDAQ guys could reasonably have known there was going to be trouble. I'm pretty sure that agreement only covers unforeseen problems, so if they knew something was funky, they might be liable for a lot more than $3MM.
TimGebhardt 14y ago
If you're a small fry then your broker will probably assume the risk. If you're a big guy, like it sounds like this guy is, then he should know he assumes the risk. Buying and selling in a market carries some credit/counterparty risk. NASDAQ probably handled this poorly (Seriously, did they ask traders to be honest and self-report their trade executions as part of the official books of record?!?!), but this guy's fund will be on the hook until it all gets settled out if it does at all. EBay's an open market with buyers and sellers and people just take it for granted they'll get screwed by EBay/PayPal at some point in their lives. I understand that there is probably more at stake in the NASDAQ than on EBay, but their Risk/Compliance department should have advised the principles of his fund to hold some capital off to the side for a situation like this.

The contracts absolve NASDAQ of liability in calamities of this nature (my business was almost destroyed -- had to take a 250K loss -- thanks to an order entry server failure), but it doesn't make you feel better. Having had something similar happen to me, I know how much it sucks. You accept its a possibility, but don't really believe it will happen until it does.

joering2 14y ago
I am sorry about you loss. The frustration must be tremendous, especially since we know the fault was so clearly on their system's part. How can you make $400MM (last year) and yet cannot come up with robust bullet proof transactional system, no idea.. Ain't that vicious on their part that the rules of game change when there is no other place to "gamble". Bet this 2648 (or whatever rule # it is) would not stand a chance when NASDAQ just started, but now it is "play with us or don't play at all". Ps. Do you think there is any business behind being a "trade insurer"? Similar to car accidents, every high volume trader would be given an options to be insured up to X amount by paying substantially smaller Y fee.
bbrtyth 14y ago
But then why do exchanges feel free to reverse trades after the flash crash, but not after something like this flash freeze? From a non-trader's perspective it's as if they do whatever they like.
- luriel 14y ago
  It might look like they do whatever they like because pretty much they do whatever they like.

sp332 14y ago

It depends on the agreement, and whether the NASDAQ guys could reasonably have known there was going to be trouble. I'm pretty sure that agreement only covers unforeseen problems, so if they knew something was funky, they might be liable for a lot more than $3MM.

TimGebhardt 14y ago

If you're a small fry then your broker will probably assume the risk. If you're a big guy, like it sounds like this guy is, then he should know he assumes the risk. Buying and selling in a market carries some credit/counterparty risk. NASDAQ probably handled this poorly (Seriously, did they ask traders to be honest and self-report their trade executions as part of the official books of record?!?!), but this guy's fund will be on the hook until it all gets settled out if it does at all. EBay's an open market with buyers and sellers and people just take it for granted they'll get screwed by EBay/PayPal at some point in their lives. I understand that there is probably more at stake in the NASDAQ than on EBay, but their Risk/Compliance department should have advised the principles of his fund to hold some capital off to the side for a situation like this.