NYSE fines Morgan Stanley $300,000 for e-trading error and slams bank's procedures
NEW YORK - The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) has fined US investment bank Morgan Stanley $300,000, after its order-routing system failed to prevent an erroneous transaction to buy $10.8 billion of stocks, instead of the intended $10.8 million.
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.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
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. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Double, but no trouble? CVA capital hit may lack clout
Industry opinion mixed around Basel III endgame derivatives charge
Amid debanking drama, banks try to say ‘no’, safely
A basic risk management tool – the ability to turn a customer away – has become a political football
Erba myth: will US banks choose new capital measure?
B3E gives US banks a dilemma – adopt expanded risk-based approach, or a new standardised alternative
Illiquid assets pricing still needs expert judgement, say banks
EU regulators want more transparency in valuations, but some asset prices remain elusive
Fed to move tailored-capital goalposts soon, says Bowman
Banks hope agencies will index triggers for harsher capital rules to economic growth
Will SEC reporting proposal supercharge alt data providers?
Move that would allow companies to opt out of quarterly reporting disclosures welcomed
EU lawmaker calls for review of Luxembourg’s cross-border rules
Grand Duchy accused of side-stepping rules aimed at prising away banking business from London
Un-American or un-JPM? Surcharge rethink divides G-Sibs
Some see sense in rethink to funding indicator, others call for a backtrack