CFTC came out with this press release on Goldman Sachs failed to oversight one of its traders in accumulating an $8.3 billion worth of emini S&P contracts back in late Dec 2007.
As reported in the PR, Goldman took a loss of over $118 million in unwinding the position.
The whole situation described sounds extremely unlikely because the problem happened over 7 trading days but obviously spanning across almost a month time.
We have seen in other fat finger scenarios that the problem is caught at once.
And we also learned even with boutique shop like Rochdale that a trader doing something out of line, the company would figure that out the same day.
Am familiar with the GS manual entry of positions and I thought it would have integrated that to the backend at least 10 years ago. Obviously it is a feature of the protocol and that Goldman likes the fact that it is done manually. Isn’t that the perfect tool for making excuses?
I have not found any specifics in the PR requiring Goldman to properly upgrade their computer systems to eliminate the problem. So I guess it is acceptable by the authorities for this to happen again when someone find it necessary.
Share
Charts that will likely play a big role in the 2nd half of this year. All charts marked with 2013 STOPD levels with the usual expansions. Amazon Classic ...READ MORE
Supervision failures – can we believe that?
CFTC came out with this press release on Goldman Sachs failed to oversight one of its traders in accumulating an $8.3 billion worth of emini S&P contracts back in late Dec 2007.
As reported in the PR, Goldman took a loss of over $118 million in unwinding the position.
The whole situation described sounds extremely unlikely because the problem happened over 7 trading days but obviously spanning across almost a month time.
We have seen in other fat finger scenarios that the problem is caught at once.
And we also learned even with boutique shop like Rochdale that a trader doing something out of line, the company would figure that out the same day.
Am familiar with the GS manual entry of positions and I thought it would have integrated that to the backend at least 10 years ago. Obviously it is a feature of the protocol and that Goldman likes the fact that it is done manually. Isn’t that the perfect tool for making excuses?
I have not found any specifics in the PR requiring Goldman to properly upgrade their computer systems to eliminate the problem. So I guess it is acceptable by the authorities for this to happen again when someone find it necessary.
Share