Search Images Maps Play YouTube News Gmail Drive More »
Sign in
Screen reader users: click this link for accessible mode. Accessible mode has the same essential features but works better with your reader.

Patents

  1. Advanced Patent Search
Publication numberUS20020019794 A1
Publication typeApplication
Application numberUS 09/186,155
Publication dateFeb 14, 2002
Filing dateNov 5, 1998
Priority dateNov 5, 1998
Also published asCN1325516A, EP1125234A2, US6377940, WO2000028450A2, WO2000028450A3
Publication number09186155, 186155, US 2002/0019794 A1, US 2002/019794 A1, US 20020019794 A1, US 20020019794A1, US 2002019794 A1, US 2002019794A1, US-A1-20020019794, US-A1-2002019794, US2002/0019794A1, US2002/019794A1, US20020019794 A1, US20020019794A1, US2002019794 A1, US2002019794A1
InventorsGary Katz, Jan Tilfors
Original AssigneeGary Katz, Jan Tilfors
Export CitationBiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan
External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet
A method and apparatus for setting a price for a security on an automated exchange based on a comparison of prices on other exchanges
US 20020019794 A1
Abstract
In an automated exchange system a method and a device which automatically checks the corresponding price in other exchange's order books is provided the exchange only allows a match if a better price cannot be found elsewhere. In a preferred embodiment the order is automatically transferred to the exchange having the better price if this is the case, and the order is further processed at that exchange. the method and device provides means so that investors will not have to worry about getting a better price elsewhere, when entering bids into an automated exchange.
Images(2)
Previous page
Next page
Claims(10)
1. A method in an automated exchange being connected to other exchanges, comprising the steps of:
receiving an order,
checking which exchange that is currently offering the best price for matching the order, and
automatically offer a price equal to the other exchange, if another exchange is offering a better price.
2. A method according to claim 1, wherein the price of the other exchange only is matched if a parameter set by a market maker or a primary market maker indicates to match the price offered at the exchange offering the better price.
3. A method according to claim 2, comprising the further step of:
issuing a message to the market maker or primary market maker that no match was made, if the parameter set indicated this, so that the market maker or primary market maker can handle the costumer order manually if desired.
4. A method according to any of claims 1-3, comprising the further step of:
storing the price currently offered by the exchange in a memory when an order is received.
5. A method according to claim 4, comprising the further step of:
comparing the price stored in the memory with the best price and match at the best of these two prices.
6. An automated exchange being connected to other exchanges, comprising:
means for receiving an order,
means checking which exchange that is currently offering the best price for matching the order, and
means for automatically offer a price equal to the other exchange, if another exchange is offering a better price.
7. An automated exchange according to claim 6, comprising means arranged to only match the price of the other exchange if a parameter set by a market maker or a primary market maker indicates to match the price offered at the exchange offering the better price.
8. An automated exchange according to claim 7, comprising means for issuing a message to the market maker or primary market maker that no match was made, if the parameter set indicated this, so that the market maker or primary market maker can handle the costumer order manually if desired.
9. An automated exchange according to any of claims 6-8, comprising means for storing the price currently offered by the exchange in a memory when an order is received.
10. An automated exchange according to claim 9, comprising means for comparing the price stored in the memory with the best price and match at the best of these two prices.
Description
TECHNICAL FIELD

[0001] The present invention relates to a method and a device in an automated exchange, in particular to an automated exchange being connected to other exchanges.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION AND STATE OF THE ART

[0002] In existing automated exchange systems for continuous trading (dealer market), a simple first in first served model in the matching is commonly used. Thus, if there is a selling price, which is matched by a buying price, the two orders are matched.

[0003] To increase liquidity there are Market Makers (quoters) who are required by the exchange to continuously enter two way quotes. The basic idea is that Market makers must have a two way quote in the market all the time. The quotes (together with ordinary orders) creates a best bid and offer that is sent out as the exchange official price. The best bid offer is used by investors when deciding about buying or selling an instrument.

[0004] However, in today's exchanges it has become more and more common that the same financial instrument is trades at different exchanges at the same time. Furthermore, the prices for the same financial instrument is not always the same at these different exchanges. However, investors are not interested in having to care about this. The investors wants the best available and demand that the exchange preferably should guarantee that it provides the best price if there is a deal. This has created a problem for investors, which have to chose the exchange at which the believe that they can obtain the best price at a particular moment.

SUMMARY

[0005] It is an object of the present invention to overcome the problem as outlined above and to provide an automated exchange having functionality which reduces or eliminates the risk for a person entering an order into an automated exchange to get a worse price than he could have got at another exchange.

[0006] This object is obtained by a method and a device which automatically checks the best bid/offer from other exchanges.

[0007] In a preferred embodiment the exchange only allows a match if a better price cannot be found elsewhere. Instead, the market maker (or primary market maker) of the exchange has entered a parameter to the exchange. The parameter indicates if the market maker is prepared to give a better price, and if so how much better. If the better price is better or equal to the price offered at the other exchange, the deal is automatically closed at the price offered at the other exchange. If the price is still not equal to the price offered at the other exchange, the incoming order is placed in the order book, but no match takes place directly. Instead, a message is sent to the market maker. The market maker can then contact the other exchange and make a deal at their offered price and send a trade report with the customer order to the order book. If a deal is not made with the other exchange the other exchange will update their price to a worse price, and matching can now take place, since no other exchange offers a better price.

[0008] In another preferred embodiment, when the other exchange offering the better price is an automated exchange, the order is automatically transferred to the exchange having the better price if this is the case, and the order is processed further at that exchange, or the exchange automatically makes a deal with the other exchange and then in turn makes a deal with the customer.

[0009] By using such method and device investors will not have to worry about getting a better price elsewhere.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0010] The present invention will now be described by way of non-limiting examples and with reference to the accompanying drawings, in which:

[0011]FIG. 1 is a general view of several interconnected exchanges.

[0012]FIG. 2 is a flow chart illustrating the steps carried out in a procedure when matching orders in an automated exchange system.

DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

[0013] In FIG. 1, a general view of several interconnected exchanges is shown. Thus, the exchanges 101, 103 and 105 are all interconnected by bi-directional communication paths. The communication paths interconnecting the different exchanges 101, 103 and 105, respectively can be wireless or wireline communication paths, which ever turns out to be the most suitable for the particular case.

[0014] In FIG. 2, a flow chart illustrating the steps carried out in a procedure when matching orders in the exchange system shown in FIG. 1 is shown. In the example below it is assumed that a buying order is received in the exchange 101, which is an automated exchange. The other exchanges can be open outcry exchanges or can be automated exchanges too.

[0015] Thus, first in a step 201 the buying order is received. Next in a step 203 the best selling order in the order book is checked. Thereupon, the best selling orders in the other automated exchanges, i.e. the exchanges 103 and 105 in this example, is checked in a step 215. Then, in a step 207 the procedure determines where the best price can be obtained at the moment.

[0016] Thus, if the best price can be obtained at the exchange 101 the procedure proceeds to a step 209 where matching takes place, and else the procedure proceeds to a step 211, where the following steps are executed:

[0017] check if the market maker is prepared to adjust his price to the price offered by the other exchange. This is preferably carried out by checking a parameter which indicates how much the market maker is prepared to adjust his price. If the adjusted price is better or equal to the price offered by the other exchange, matching automatically takes place at the price offered by the other exchange. The parameter, which is set by the market maker, can also indicate the maximum volume which the market maker is prepared to trade at the adjusted price.

[0018] If the adjusted price is not equal to or better than the price offered by the other exchange a message is transmitted to the market maker or to personnel at the exchange or the like.

[0019] The market maker receiving such a message can then contact the exchange offering the better price close a deal at this price with the other exchange, and then close a deal with the customer who then will have received the best price. If a deal is not made with the other exchange, the other exchange will update their price to a worse price, and matching can now take place, since no other exchange offers a better price. The customer will thus have received the best price on the market in this case too.

[0020] In another preferred embodiment, when the other exchange offering the better price is an automated exchange, the order is automatically transferred to the exchange, i.e. the exchange 103 or 105 in this example, having the better price if this is the case, and the order is processed further at that exchange, or the exchange automatically makes a deal with the other exchange and then in turn makes a deal with the customer.

[0021] Furthermore, the customer may when entering his order to the automated exchange indicate that he wants the order to be traded at the automated exchange and ignoring prices at the other exchange. This can be beneficial if the customer is more interested in a quick deal than in the best price. Another example when this can be beneficial is when the customer wants trade a whole volume or nothing (“fill or kill”).

[0022] In yet another preferred embodiment, the exchange guaranties that the customer gets the price offered by the exchange when the order is entered to the exchange at worst. This can be carried out in the following manner. First when the customer enters the order the exchange checks its best price at stores this price in a memory.

[0023] Thereupon, other events takes place before a match is done, e.g. the prices at other exchanges is checked and the market maker possibly trades manually with another exchange. During this time there may be a change in the market resulting in that the best price in the matching is worse than the price offered by the exchange when the costumer initially entered his price. Thus, before matching is performed, the guarantee price stored in the memory is checked and if the guarantee price is better than the best price the customer gets the guarantee price.

[0024] In this manner the customer is always guaranteed to get the price offered by the exchange when he enters his order. The guaranteed price can be limited by the market maker or primary market maker to a certain maximum volume.

[0025] By using such method and device investors will not have to worry about getting a better price elsewhere.

Referenced by
Citing PatentFiling datePublication dateApplicantTitle
US7925566Jul 17, 2000Apr 12, 2011Ubs Financial Services, Inc.System and method for trading fixed income financial instruments
US8065220 *Dec 5, 2003Nov 22, 2011Guillaume BlacherFinancial product pricing system
US8224729 *May 27, 2011Jul 17, 2012Buymetrics, Inc.System and method for managing and evaluating network commodities purchasing
US8321317 *May 18, 2012Nov 27, 2012Buymetrics, Inc.System and method for managing and evaluating network commodities purchasing
US8442888 *Aug 28, 2012May 14, 2013Buymetrics, Inc.Managing and evaluating price data for purchasing
US8447623 *Aug 11, 2008May 21, 2013Walker Digital, LlcSystems and methods to provide a product to a customer before a final transaction term value is established
US8478687Apr 28, 2011Jul 2, 2013Edge Capture, LlcAutomated trading system in an electronic trading exchange
US8498923Apr 28, 2011Jul 30, 2013Edge Capture, LlcAutomated trading system in an electronic trading exchange
US8635139Jan 17, 2013Jan 21, 2014Buymetrics, Inc.System and method for managing and evaluating network commodities purchasing
US8660940Feb 12, 2007Feb 25, 2014Edge Capture LlcAutomated trading system in an electronic trading exchange
US8700521Mar 18, 2013Apr 15, 2014Buymetrics, Inc.System and method for managing and evaluating network commodities purchasing
US8725621Jun 27, 2006May 13, 2014Dcfb LlcAutomated trading system in an electronic trading exchange
US8732048Apr 28, 2011May 20, 2014Edge Capture, LlcAutomated trading system in an electronic trading exchange
US8762258Apr 24, 2013Jun 24, 2014Buymetrics, Inc.System and method for managing and evaluating network commodities purchasing
US20110231339 *May 27, 2011Sep 22, 2011Buymetrics, Inc.System and method for managing and evaluating network commodities purchasing
Classifications
U.S. Classification705/37
International ClassificationH04M, H04L12/18, G06Q40/00, G06Q30/00
Cooperative ClassificationG06Q40/04
European ClassificationG06Q40/04
Legal Events
DateCodeEventDescription
Oct 23, 2013FPAYFee payment
Year of fee payment: 12
Oct 23, 2009FPAYFee payment
Year of fee payment: 8
Oct 24, 2005FPAYFee payment
Year of fee payment: 4
Aug 15, 2002ASAssignment
Owner name: INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE, INC., NEW YORK
Free format text: MERGER;ASSIGNOR:INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE LLC, A NEW YORK LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION;REEL/FRAME:013203/0035
Effective date: 20020430
Owner name: INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE, INC. 60 BROAD S
Free format text: MERGER;ASSIGNOR:INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE LLC, A NEW YORK LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION /AR;REEL/FRAME:013203/0035
May 10, 1999ASAssignment
Owner name: ISE, LLC, NEW YORK
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:TILFORS, JAN;KATZ, GARY;REEL/FRAME:009957/0307
Effective date: 19990416