Lost numbers at Optiver
No news on the 2011 results of Optiver. The year was more volatile than the current one, and Financieele Dagblad reported months ago the firm made a profit of EUR 160 million – up from 75 from the preceding year. For us mere mortals, we had to wait for the official annual report for the juicy details. Average bonus or details on expenses – whatever.
Well, there it is but curb your enthusiasm. Chemtrails and other conspiracy theories aren’t my cup of tea, but Optiver’s financial statements have lost the 2011 numbers in the copy machine. Not only the numbers have been erased, also the graphs have come under attack (page 20). Don’t believe in fairy tales, it seems Optiver tried to hide details from curious competitors. Apparently with a little help from some friends.
After all, there’s no upside in opening your books to the rest of the world. Sure, the original statements can be seen in the office of the Chamber of Commerce (kvk) here in Amsterdam – but that isn’t comfortable if you’re in Chicago, Hong Kong or Leeuwarden.
Anyway – Johan Kaemingk assured a new copy will be made with clear 2011 numbers. Guess we’ll just have to wait for that. Hat tip to Henk Willem Smits from Quote.
Such utter nonsense from Quote. The 2011 numbers and graphics are in a different color that doesn’t come out well after photocopying. Hence the information is very difficult to make out in the KvK copy. The lengths some people will go to to accuse HFTs ….
must have been a tough year, even IMC is shy about its figures…
nonsense. IMC posted their numbers well before Optiver did.
Great color they choose then!
Even without the numbers, the report provides for an interesting read. It seems that for the first time in a very long time (if not ever) Johann’s decided to become operationally involved by becoming director of Optiver Holding. It makes you wonder what Edwin (and Randal) did to blow it so badly.
On another note, we can read that the IT systems are performing so well that they could kick the former CIO out of the management team! Them’s mighty good systems then.
as has been discussed before, systems can be made to go only so fast, after that is accomplished, sorry the CIO is out, new project for him.
@7:23 thinking that there is a limit to how fast a ‘system’ can be makes as much sense as claiming that noting will beat an open outcry market.
While there may be elements of the system that have been tweaked no further, there are huge improvements that can be made elsewhere in systems.
On top of that, a CIO is not there to head a development team. A company needs a CIO to make sure the whole IT infra is used to the max and to make sure that the company stays one step ahead. It will be fun to see the first market maker to really approach the markets with an IT centric vision with the right type of BA’s capable of truly developing the tools to blow the competition away.
‘It will be fun to see the first market maker to really approach the markets with an IT centric vision with the right type of BA’s capable of truly developing the tools to blow the competition away.’
sounds like some business bullshit sentence, it’s all about trading, IT is just support and will never make the difference, it’s a commodity
‘thinking that there is a limit to how fast a ‘system’ can be makes as much sense as claiming that noting will beat an open outcry market.’
if you are already the fastest, how would doubling the IT budget make any extra revenue to cover the extra cost, does that make sense or you are still stuck in your stupid open outcry market analogy.
‘there are huge improvements that can be made elsewhere in systems’
management needs to buy that vision, you sound like a Tech staffer justifying his existence to himself.
‘On top of that, a CIO is not there to head a development team. A company needs a CIO to make sure the whole IT infra is used to the max and to make sure that the company stays one step ahead.’
who said anything abt heading a development team. well if cio is required, then they probably have one, he just doesn’t have enough to contribute to the management team.
‘It will be fun to see the first market maker to really approach the markets with an IT centric vision with the right type of BA’s capable of truly developing the tools to blow the competition away.’
Its called Timber Hill and I am suspect if IT or Interactive Brokers is the key to the success.
btw, BA is business analyst? you are taking a piss, aren’t you?
Ever heard of a tech dude setting up a marker maker & killin it?
Didn’t think so.
But if the idea gets you through the day, so be it.
‘sounds like some business bullshit sentence, it’s all about trading, IT is just support and will never make the difference, it’s a commodity’
disagree – in OMM poor traders with good systems will make some cash, good traders with poor systems will make nothing. in prop it’s different.
Are you developing such systems? You are basically suggesting that in OMM, whatever that is, a developer can run away with his system and become a trader, perhaps a bad one but thats ok
1:48 am. Yes, Ive heard of tech dude setting up a market maker and making a killing. Ever read about timber hill? Programmer/Founder is worth billions.
‘Ever heard of a tech dude setting up a marker maker & killin it’
what about Thomas Peterffy or a number of tech/trader setting up profitable shops, they were not old school floor traders?
‘in OMM poor traders with good systems will make some cash, good traders with poor systems will make nothing. in prop it’s different.’
the old school debate about human trader vs systematic/tech trading would never go away, so give it a rest.
‘Yes, Ive heard of tech dude setting up a market maker and making a killing’
i’m suspect if it’s the tech or the Interactive brokers which is the real source of profits
it’s not the tech for sure, it’s their innovative business model, a sort of discount shop to attract client flow which is worth a lot, if they cannot deal with it they can still resell it. The success of IB is purely business driven, not related to technology
sounds about right, otherwise they could have just closed IB down and down a pure HF like what james simmons does in renaissance technologies or david harding at Winton
During the time when Peterffy made his first billions (yeah that’s a B alright), the IB brokerage outfit was relatively small in size (as in number of clients and flow it generated). In fact in many markets back then you weren’t even allowed to do some sort of internal matching, but let’s not mention such inconvenient facts.
So their market making profits (Timber Hill) were really mostly due to their tech/trading algos/savvy/whatever you want to call it. It’s only in the last couple of years that IB has grown a lot, their customer base and flow and also in terms of profitability (commissions) compared to market making profits. In fact, their market making profits (Timber) have gone DOWN whereas IB’s contribution to overall profits (measured in terms of commissions only, meaning that channeling the client flow to Timber adds to the Timber profits) has gone UP. That’s the impact of increased competition from HFTs and other MMs who are catching up to Timber which at one point in time was years ahead of the competition. The OPPOSITE would be true if their business model was what the idiots above me (1:37pm, 10:58am, 12:13pm) try to pass off for fact. Hint: you guys may want to read up on IBKR’s earnings history, you’ll learn some facts that are always better than brainfarts that only demonstrate your stupidity. Anyone who suggests that Timber has first and foremost been so succesfull because of the IB client flow is showing disrepect to Peterffy, his vision and Timber Hill brainchild and furthermore displays a poor understanding of their success. In short: yet another trader-wanne-be polluting this blog.
calm down man, no need to get all upset, peterffy is a genius and you are close second, tell us more.
‘The OPPOSITE would be true if their business model was what ‘
no man, the opposite is currently true which was what was being discussed, if you wanna shed more light on peterffy’s erstwhile billions and timber hill’s earning history, feel free.. and if you don’t mind, loose all the ‘brain fart’ bs macho language you are coming up, it doesn’t impress anyone here.
‘his vision and Timber Hill brainchild and furthermore displays a poor understanding of their success’
the only thing is you have said regarding his success is no competition at the time, so being tech savvy few years ahead of competition, is that really all that visionary, you got more?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/08/27/159992076/a-father-of-high-speed-trading-thinks-we-should-slow-down
Of course he thinks we should slow down. They invested over time a lot in smart algorithms, but they forgot about speed. Even Actant was able to beat Timberhill on speed. That’s why profitability at Timberhill is dropping. He’s just trying to get rid of some competition.
@ 2:07am: no competition? What are you smoking? 2008 was IB’s best year by a stretch when they cleaned up a cool billion dollars (the vast majority being made by timber). Last time I checked nearly all of today’s major players were around then as well. To put this into perspective: the combined 2008 net profits of Optiver, IMC and all the other Dutch mm’s was less than half of what timber made with far fewer people to boot. The level of stupidity displayed by some people on this blog continues to reach new highs. And “nice” of you to downplay Peterffy’s success and vision. Where were you in 2008 and how much did you make?
lol, calm down man, lot of made and lost money in 2008, no credit taken away from anyone.
Peterffy: it’s funny that he criticizes high frequency now that Timberhill is no more competitive, but when he started electronic trading in the 90′ it was high frequency for that times, and he received the same type of criticism
You guys need to read the earnings reports and info on routing on Timber’s site to get clued in. Timber does not see IB flow. Meanwhile, they still make a fair amount from market making which I think is greater than the major Dutch firms. Given the brain power at that firm, his $5 Billion in cash and their resources, I suspect his criticism of high frequency has nothing to do with their competitiveness. (if any of you are old enough to remember the ways specialist literally stole from the public during the open outcry era and what Timber Hill and other like Hull Trading did to clean the game up and try to compare that to the current state of sub-pennying and bait orders in the HFT game, you’re comparing apples and oranges).
‘Peterffy: it’s funny that he criticizes high frequency now that Timberhill is no more competitive, but when he started electronic trading in the 90′ it was high frequency for that times, and he received the same type of criticism’
are you high or what, it’s one thing to go from pits to electronic trading and whole another to go from milli to micro second. Peterffy revolutionzed the industry and now he’s speaking to prick the high frequency bubble.
‘You guys need to read the earnings reports and info on routing on Timber’s site to get clued in.’
what other clues you got from there?
‘Timber does not see IB flow.’
Do they consume it like Optiver consumes TOM?
‘they still make a fair amount from market making which I think is greater than the major Dutch firms.’
Most american market makers do, remember dutchchies are too old skool and small timers.
‘I suspect his criticism of high frequency has nothing to do with their competitiveness.’
You don’t have to suspect, there are plenty of successful people like Peterffy & Soros who go around doing the right thing for society at large, they have made enough personal money already.
‘it’s one thing to go from pits to electronic trading and whole another to go from milli to micro second. Peterffy revolutionzed the industry’
yes, it is different, but you have to relate things to the times. When Peterffy started with electronic trading he was heavily criticized by everyone, from traders to common person who did not see any social utility updating automatically prices of hundreds of equities several times per second. So it’s the same like HF in our days. The increase of speed does not change anything, do you think that the fundamental value of a stock changes every minutes or every hour? Probably not…
yo, don’t play this game, let me give the full quote so that the context of the quote is not lost on anyone.
‘are you high or what, it’s one thing to go from pits to electronic trading and whole another to go from milli to micro second. Peterffy revolutionzed the industry and now he’s speaking to prick the high frequency bubble.’
by deleting the last phrase, you are completely changing the key point of pricking the bubble where firm cometes from milli seconds to micro seconds.
‘So it’s the same like HF in our days.’
No it’s not like our days, i get plenty of liquidity these days, i don’t need anymore and so special privileges to high frequency can be stopped. 20 years ago, there was no electronic trading to begin with and that’s the revolution which peterffy was part of.
‘The increase of speed does not change anything’
precisely, let’s tax the unproductive part of economy, it does not add anything.
‘do you think that the fundamental value of a stock changes every minutes or every hour?’
lol, you got to be high if you start talking about fundamental value. like any other asset, prices are set based on demand and supply which in turn is affected by news. Can you switch off news at any time of the day? Isn’t that the new novelty, auto algo’s readying social media and news filter words to come up with buy/sell signal.
what sort of 1990’s copier does the KVK use? Why don’t they buy one that can scan documents in color – the ridiculous fees they charge to access their files should easily cover the costs of a new printer/copier/scanner. Nitwits
‘precisely, let’s tax the unproductive part of economy, it does not add anything.’
no, you can not start taxing human activities, you should just tax income as it is currently done and that’s it. Make sure to ensure competition, to have free markets and do not interfere. If HFT are making money under competition and free markets it simply means they deserve it, even if the reason might be unclear to you, and there is no point to tax this.
‘Nitwits’
no, they work for govt, in case you haven’t noticed what’s going on in Europe and want to understand the rot from within.
‘no, you can not start taxing human activities’
yes we can, and we definitely should.
‘If HFT are making money under competition’
they don’t need to make money, we don’t need all this liquidity, which part of that don’t you understand?
‘even if the reason might be unclear to you’
you, think rest of the world is too dumb to understand your stupid stat arb algo trading?
‘there is no point to tax this.’
lol, my man, you are shitting your pants, here’s some tissue.