In electronic trading system for markets in which credit risks and settlement risks are born by trading parties, the trading parties input credit lines into the trading system which are used to limit a trading entity's exposure created by transactions with other trading entities on the system. For example, by entering a low or zero credit line for a particular trading counterparty, a trading entity prevents potential trades between itself and the potential counterparty. Thus, by adjusting a counterparty's credit line, a trading entity may limit its gross or net exposure (outstanding risk) based on transactions with individual counterparties and its total exposure to all counterparties.
In a matching system which enables trading entities to enter credit limits, such as those described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,136,501 and U.S. Pat. No. 5,375,055, the credit parameters input by the trading entities may result in situations in which a first trading entity, trading entity S1, enters an offer which matches a bid entered by a second trading entity, trading entity S2, but the system will not execute the trade because either trading entity S1 has not extended sufficient credit to trading entity S2, trading entity S2 has not extended sufficient credit to trading entity S1, or both. Otherwise stated, there is insufficient bilateral credit availability between trading entity S1 and trading entity S2. Notably, the trading entities may be individual banks and trading institutions and/or groups of banks and trading institutions.
Similarly, trading entity S2 may enter a bid with a higher price than an offer entered by trading entity S1. Again, S1 and S2 cannot trade with one another because there is insufficient bilateral credit availability between the two. In this instance, an “arbitrage” opportunity exists in that a third party, trading entity S3, which has sufficient bilateral credit with both trading entity S1 and trading entity S2, may buy from S1 at a low price and sell to S2 at a higher price, thereby obtaining an immediate, low-risk profit due to the credit discrepancies in the market.
The known electronic trading systems do not provide any means for automatically identifying an arbitrage opportunity created by credit discrepancies in the market and optionally automatically executing the appropriate transactions, thereby enabling trading entity S3 to automatically, efficiently and effectively capitalize on the arbitrage opportunity and increasing the liquidity of the market without the addition of new bids and offers. While the system described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,375,055 displays the best available offer and bid prices to market makers, thereby indicating that an arbitrage opportunity exists when there is a discrepancy between the two prices displayed, the '055 system does not provide any means for automatically identifying and/or capitalizing on the arbitrage opportunity. Furthermore, the known trading systems do not provide any means of ensuring that all trades needed to successfully complete the arbitrage transaction will occur prior to executing any of the trades such that trading entity S3 does not incur the risk of only one side of the arbitrage transaction being executed.
A related drawback of known electronic trading systems which accommodate markets in which the trading entities bear a credit and/or settlement risk is that these systems do not provide a means by which a less credit-worthy trading entity, trading entity S4, may trade with other trading entities using the credit line of a more credit-worthy trading entity. For example, if trading entity S4 enters a bid which is compatible with trading entity S2's offer, but trading entity S2 has not extended sufficient credit to trading entity S4, no transaction could occur in the known trading systems. However, if trading entity S4 were able to use another trading entity's (e.g., S1 or S3) credit line to complete the transaction (assuming that trading entity S1 or S3 has sufficient credit with trading entity S2 and S4) through an agreement between trading entity S4 and trading entity S1 or S3, the liquidity of the market would again be increased. This “name switch” procedure may be instantaneous (no discretion option is provided) or may be implemented to allow discretion of the part of the user in the context of an electronic trading system.
The practice of name switching in which one party trades under the credit lines of another party may currently be accomplished through the use of a broker. However, there are presently no electronic trading systems which can automatically, instantaneously, and effectively perform the name switch procedure.
USPTO Backgrounds
USPTO Backgrounds