←back to thread

518 points bwfan123 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.205s | source
Show context
cs702 ◴[] No.44483909[source]
According to Indian regulators, every trading day Jane Street would:

1) buy large volumes of stocks and/or stock futures that are part of an index tracking India’s banking sector, early in the day,

2) subsequently place large options trades, betting that the index would decline or volatility would spike later in the day, and

3) later in the day, cash out of the large long positions, dragging the index lower, making far more money on the options trades than on the long positions.

Jane Street can and likely will claim the firm was only arbitraging away pricing inefficiencies, nothing more, nothing less. It was just business as usual, etc., etc.

However, given the scale of the operation, Jane Street's actions sure look like textbook market manipulation. Calling it like I see it.

replies(22): >>44483959 #>>44484082 #>>44484085 #>>44484194 #>>44484621 #>>44484974 #>>44485377 #>>44485557 #>>44485564 #>>44485830 #>>44485855 #>>44485873 #>>44486444 #>>44487132 #>>44487671 #>>44487911 #>>44487912 #>>44489362 #>>44490126 #>>44492949 #>>44497566 #>>44499330 #
conditionnumber ◴[] No.44484621[source]
Don't know about Jane Street, but that sounds like a general problem.

If options & futures are more liquid than the underlying, someone will be tempted to nudge the underlying.

Bond ETFs and their options chains seem like another locale where this could happen.

replies(2): >>44484723 #>>44485530 #
throwaway2037 ◴[] No.44485530[source]

    > If options & futures are more liquid than the underlying, someone will be tempted to nudge the underlying.
This is a weird statement. Why would liquidity matter here? As a point of reference there are generally two types of options: (1) options that depend directly upon the underlying, like a Tesla stock option, or (2) options that depend indirectly upon the underlying, like options on S&P 500 index futures. The liquidity in category 2 is normally tiny. Cat 1 normally has far less liquidity than the underlying.

Why is the adjective "more" important here? Even if less, the opportunity to profit is still good, assuming that one chooses the path of market manipulation.

replies(1): >>44485677 #
lmm ◴[] No.44485677[source]
What matters is the volume rather than the liquidity per se, but the two are generally pretty well correlated. The point is that moving a market costs money, making a trade moves the market against that trade, so even if someone is deliberately trying to move a market they'll pay more than they could ever hope to recoup. The exception is when there's a derivative market that has more volume than the underlying - in that case profitable manipulation becomes possible, as you can spend to move the underlying, losing money, but making more money on the derivatives where you'd bought the other side.
replies(2): >>44485974 #>>44486724 #
PartiallyTyped ◴[] No.44485974[source]
Heavy gamma exposure also helps move the market by forcing dealers to hedge in some particular direction.
replies(1): >>44486104 #
toomuchtodo ◴[] No.44486104[source]
During the memestock craze, retail traders were able to create a gamma squeeze due to this forced hedging.

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/what-gamma-squeeze-understan...

replies(1): >>44487921 #
1. PartiallyTyped ◴[] No.44487921[source]
And it was glorious! MMs sure learned though. Premiums have exploded now.