SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Tech Stock Options -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: WBendus who wrote (45731)6/14/1998 6:29:00 PM
From: AlanH  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 58727
 
WBendus, re:I have a question regarding the filling of orders on AMEX options exchange for stock options. On Friday I placed a limit order to purchase 10 DIS-FC options at 1 3/8 in the early afternoon. At 2:32.17 there was a print reported for 10 contracts at that price and I was subsequently notified that I received a partial fill of 6 contracts. The data I was using was of the internet, so I requested that my broker confirm via a times-in-trade. The times-in-trade reported confirmed that my fill was part of that 10 contract fill.

My question is, Why would I only be filled on 6 out of the 10 I bid? And, Is it common for the traders on the floor to combine orders and report as one fill? Any help would be greatly appreciated.


While each exchange has its nuances, the scenario you've described seems to happen frequently and, more or less, universally. (Of course, it's only an issue when the trade reflects profit potential -- as is the case for DISFC.)

So, I'll offer opinion in two areas: a) how this may have occurred; and, b) what can be done to prevent it in the future.

As I understand your situation, you placed a limit order to buy 10 DISFC contracts @1.375; six contracts were filled, four with nothing done. The question is: who bought the outstanding four, and how did they apparently supercede your order. The simple answer is that IF a market order was placed, such an order is assured 'immediate' execution -- with priority over limit orders. (Whether a market order was actually placed is a potential topic of discussion with your broker.) Reasonably, you might ponder the chronology of such events. However, don't assume that your six contracts were filled prior to the other four; the mystery four could just as easily have preceded your contracts AND would not need to be market orders. So, why was a ten contract lot filled? This has to do with the floor task of matching buy and sell orders. A reasonable explanation is that a seller placed an order with a 10 contract minimum.

Of course, all of this is related to liquidity and open interest. Checking www.cboe.com (which provides quotation data for the various exchanges), DISFC appears to be reasonably liquid with 586 contracts traded on 6/12.

How can you attempt to avoid similar situations in the future? As you probably know, the order can be placed with a minimum requirement. The risk here is that none of the contracts may be filled if the minimum is too high. (Other variations exist, although such variations are generally appropriate for cleanly exiting hedged positions, etc.) So, IMO the only way to assure execution is with a market order -- running the risk of being fleeced.

Hopefully, this at least partially fulfills your request;) It may be worth revisiting with your broker if you feel uncomfortable. BTW, welcome to the club, it happens to many of us!

Good trading!
Alan