
NYSE fines Morgan Stanley $300,000 for e-trading error and slams bank's procedures
LOSSES & LAWSUITS
On September 1, 2004, a customer contacted Morgan Stanley to unwind part of a swap. A Morgan Stanley affiliate was the counterparty to the swap, and had hedged its exposure by maintaining a short position in shares underlying the trade. As a portion of the swap was unwound, a Morgan Stanley trader tried to buy a basket of stocks to cover some of the firm's short position.
The trader entered an agency order on behalf of the firm, to buy 100,000 units of the basket to cover a portion of the short position. But the system used to create the basket built in a multiplier of one thousand, so the trader created a basket with a value of $10.8 billion. As a result, erroneous orders for around 677 million shares were transmitted for execution. Around 82 million shares with a market value of $875.3 million were traded before the firm cancelled the order.
The error caused significant market disruption, and NYSE has accused the bank of having inadequate features in place to validate order accuracy and establish limits or prohibitors to prevent orders exceeding pre-set parameters. The bank was also adjudged to have inadequate procedures for training, supervision and control of traders.
Morgan Stanley consented to the $300,000 fine without admitting or denying guilt, and has subsequently established pre-set trade limitations for each of its traders. It now requires each trader, upon seeing a red warning light, to make a manual computer entry to verify and acknowledge that a trade will exceed a pre-set limit.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Grim repo warning spotlights BNP Paribas booking model
Federal regulators may be targeting French bank’s Paris-based book of US Treasuries
We’re all outliers now: Europe’s unflattering IRRBB test
Banks, fearing overreaction from supervisors, urge European Commission to reject NII-based assessment
SEC targets ‘dark magic’ in fixed-income pricing with Bloomberg fine
US regulator is going after pricing vendors that deviate from their published methodologies
Alameda’s mystery bank stake reignites Fed deposit debate
Crypto challenger Custodia accuses regulator of unlevel playing field over master accounts
More EU banks will fail new IRRBB test as rates push upwards
Half of all EU banks could cross outlier threshold for new test of net interest income
Finra head recognises ‘challenges’ for bond transparency drive
Cook says regulators thinking about industry’s operational and liquidity concerns
Why central banks shouldn’t ignore stablecoins
Rapid growth of stablecoins could impair monetary policy transmission
Hedge funds doubt tall tales around UK short-selling review
FCA has never used powers to ban short-selling, but reporting tweaks would be welcome