WO1997003408A1 - Methods and apparatus relating to the formulation and trading of investment contracts - Google Patents

Methods and apparatus relating to the formulation and trading of investment contracts Download PDF

Info

Publication number
WO1997003408A1
WO1997003408A1 PCT/AU1996/000420 AU9600420W WO9703408A1 WO 1997003408 A1 WO1997003408 A1 WO 1997003408A1 AU 9600420 W AU9600420 W AU 9600420W WO 9703408 A1 WO9703408 A1 WO 9703408A1
Authority
WO
WIPO (PCT)
Prior art keywords
contract
entitlement
probabilities
counterparty
data
Prior art date
Application number
PCT/AU1996/000420
Other languages
French (fr)
Inventor
Ian Kenneth Shepherd
Original Assignee
Ian Kenneth Shepherd
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Priority claimed from AUPN4060A external-priority patent/AUPN406095A0/en
Priority claimed from AUPN9636A external-priority patent/AUPN963696A0/en
Application filed by Ian Kenneth Shepherd filed Critical Ian Kenneth Shepherd
Priority to US09/000,264 priority Critical patent/US6157918A/en
Priority to BR9609512-1A priority patent/BR9609512A/en
Priority to EP96921823A priority patent/EP0842479A4/en
Priority to JP50536197A priority patent/JP4795500B2/en
Priority to NZ311587A priority patent/NZ311587A/en
Priority to AU62939/96A priority patent/AU698181B2/en
Publication of WO1997003408A1 publication Critical patent/WO1997003408A1/en
Priority to US10/615,796 priority patent/US7617147B2/en
Priority to US12/607,786 priority patent/US8229817B2/en

Links

Classifications

    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q30/00—Commerce
    • G06Q30/06—Buying, selling or leasing transactions
    • G06Q30/08—Auctions
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q40/00—Finance; Insurance; Tax strategies; Processing of corporate or income taxes
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q40/00—Finance; Insurance; Tax strategies; Processing of corporate or income taxes
    • G06Q40/02—Banking, e.g. interest calculation or account maintenance
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q40/00—Finance; Insurance; Tax strategies; Processing of corporate or income taxes
    • G06Q40/04—Trading; Exchange, e.g. stocks, commodities, derivatives or currency exchange
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q40/00—Finance; Insurance; Tax strategies; Processing of corporate or income taxes
    • G06Q40/06—Asset management; Financial planning or analysis

Definitions

  • the present invention is directed to methods and apparatus relating to the formulation and trading of investment contracts.
  • the invention is directed to methods and apparatus that allow parties to invest a defined sum by way of pricing and matching a contract with one of a possible number of unidentified counte ⁇ arties to achieve the best return (or entitlement) on maturity of the contract for a specified consideration.
  • a second major disadvantage lies in the fact that investors do not have mechanisms for making contracts that are customised to meet the needs of both investor and counte ⁇ arty.
  • bank term deposits are a common form of personal investment.
  • individual investors they have the advantages of a fixed nominal return and low entry and exit fees.
  • the terms of the investment are set only by the counte ⁇ arty (i.e. the bank) and then offered to investors on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. There is no scope for investors to negotiate, for a price, the terms of these investments to better suit their individual needs.
  • a third major disadvantage is that individual investors cannot afford the fees that are involved with most investment products. For example, shares must be bought through brokers on stock exchanges, and their fees effectively deter the great majority of investors from investing directly in share markets.
  • the invention discloses a data processing system to enable the formulation of multi-party investment contracts, the system comprising: input means by which an ordering party can input contract data relating to at least one phenomenon, each said phenomenon having a range of future outcomes and a future time of maturity, the contract data including a set of probabilities of occurrence for each outcome in said range and a consideration due to a counte ⁇ arty at or after the time of maturity, and further by which at least one counte ⁇ arty can input registering data including a set of probabilities of occurrence for each outcome in said range; and data processing means operable to price and match a contract for a said phenomenon from said contract data and said registering data, the pricing including: applying at least one template of entitlement as a function of outcome to each counte ⁇ arty 's set of probabilities to give one or more individual counte ⁇ arty prices each equal to the ordering party's consideration; and applying the ordering party set of probabilities to each said template to derive an implied entitlement; the matching including: determining which counte ⁇ arty will provide
  • a template results in the multiplication of each elemental entitlement with each probability and the summing of the products. Further, a discount factor is applied to the sum to give a present day price relative to the time of maturity.
  • each template is applied to the ordering party set of probabilities, and a multiplication of the elemental entitlements with each probability performed, and the products summed to give the implied entitlement.
  • the said sum can have a discount rate applied to give a present day value relative to the time of maturity.
  • the ordering party discount rates can be different between different types of counte ⁇ arties.
  • the contract data can further include a minimum expected entitlement against which the counte ⁇ arty prices are compared for the pu ⁇ ose of accepting ones thereof for the matching.
  • the invention further discloses a method for the formulation of multi-party investment contracts, the method comprising the steps of: inputting ordering party contract data relating to at least one phenomenon, each said phenomenon having a range of future outcomes and a future time of maturity, the contract data including a set of probabilities of occurrence for each outcome in said range and a consideration due to a counte ⁇ arty at or after the time of establishment; inputting counte ⁇ arty registering data including a set of probabilities of occurrence for each outcome in said range; and pricing and matching a contract for a said phenomenon from said contract data and said registering data, said step of pricing, for each counte ⁇ arty, including: applying at least one template of entitlement as a function of outcome to the set of probabilities to give one or more individual counte ⁇ arty prices; and applying the ordering party set of probabilities to each individual counte ⁇ arty template to der
  • Embodiments of the invention can overcome the disadvantages in existing investment mechanisms and contracts. Firstly, it enables investors to place specific limits on the risk that they were prepared to tolerate in the investment before entering the investment contract. Second, it enables investors to construct and tailor their specific investment requirements into a contract that could then be offered to counte ⁇ arties in the market for matching pu ⁇ oses. Thirdly, it enables investors to make contracts with counte ⁇ arties without the high costs of intermediaries.
  • Fig. 1 is a block diagram of a generic system embodying the invention
  • Fig. 2a is a block diagram of an indicative hardware platform supporting the system of Fig. 1;
  • Fig. 2b is an alternative hardware platform that does not rely on a centralised hub data processing unit;
  • Fig. 3 is a timeline showing the steps of Example I,
  • Fig. 4 is a timeline showing the steps of Example II.
  • Fig. 5 is a timeline showing the steps of Example III.
  • Fig. 1 shows a block diagram of the generic system 10 embodying the invention.
  • the various stakeholders or parties to the system 10 each have access to a centralised processing unit 20.
  • the processing units 20 can be constituted by one or more data processing apparatus, with each one thereof providing access for any one or more of the various stakeholders to applications software supported by the system 10, as all the processing units are interconnected. Access to the one or more data processing apparams is controlled by a generic form of communications co-ordination and security processing unit 25.
  • Fig. 1 also indicates that there are a number of types of stakeholder, and a number of individual stakeholders within each stakeholder type.
  • the basic types of stakeholder are described as: applications promoters 11, product sponsors 12, product ordering parties 13, potential product counte ⁇ arties 14, counter-party guarantors 15, regulators 16, consideration/entitlement transfer ('accounting') entities 17, and miscellaneous parties 18.
  • the number of types of stakeholder represented in Fig. 1 is typically the largest that will be supported by the system 10.
  • An embodiment of a computer system for the system 10 is shown in Fig. 2a.
  • the core of the system hardware is a collection of data processing units.
  • the processing unit 20 comprises three inter-linked data processors 93,97,104, such as the Sun 670 MP manufactured by Sun Microsystems, Inc. of the USA.
  • Each processing unit 93,97, 104 runs operational system software, such as Sun Microsystems OS 4J .2, as well as applications software.
  • the processor configuration shown in Fig. 1 represents a large system designed to handle the transactions of thousands of stakeholders, the input and output data generated by those stakeholders, and risk management contract pricing, matching and subsequent processing functions.
  • Each processing unit 93,97,104 has connection with it one or more mass data storage units 95, 100,110 to store all data received from stakeholders, and other data relating to all other software operations generating or retrieving stored information.
  • Suitable mass storage units are, for example, such as those commercially available from Sun Microsystems.
  • a number of communications controllers 80.84,87, forming the communications co-ordination and security processing unit 25, are coupled with the processing unit 20. These controllers effect communications between the processing units 93,97, 104 and the various external hardware devices used by the stakeholders to communicate data or instructions to or from the processing units.
  • the communications controllers are such as the Encore ANNEX II, the IBM AS/400 server or the CISCO Systems AGS + .
  • a large range of communications hardware products are supported, and collectively are referred to as the stakeholder input/output devices 70.
  • One amongst many of the commumcation devices 70 are personal computers 51 and associated printers 52, which have communications connection with the commumcations controller 80 by means of a modem 50.
  • communications can be established simply by means of a tone dialling telephone 56, which provides for the input of instructions or data by use of the tone dialling facility itself.
  • a voice connection via an operator 75 can be effected by a conventional telephone 58. Both these external devices are shown connected with the communications controller 84.
  • a further possibility is to have data transfer by means of a facsimile machine 65, in this case shown linked to the communications controller 87.
  • the generic processing unit 20 also includes a large number of 'portable' information recordal devices, such as printers, disc drives, and the like, which allow various forms of information to be printed or otherwise written to storage media to be transferable. This is particularly appropriate where confirmatory documentation of matched risk contracts is required to be produced, either for safekeeping as a hard copy record, else to be forwarded to any one or more of the stakeholders that are a party to each individual matched contract.
  • the generic system 10 shown in Fig. 1 encompasses many varied configurations, relating not only to the number and types of stakeholders, but also the 'architectures' realisable by the system hardware and software in combination. In that sense the arrangement shown in Fig. 2a is to be considered only as broadly indicative of one type of hardware configuration that may be required to put the system into effect.
  • FIG. 2b shows an alternate configuration that does not rely upon a centralised (hub) data processing unit, rather the necessary processing is performed locally at each stakeholder site 200 n by means of distributed software.
  • This embodiment relates to an investment contract and describes the formulation of a contract based on potential future movements in the value of the fictional PTSE 75 index of share prices.
  • the example shows how the system enables one party (such as an institutional fund manager) seeking to gain from a significant decline in the value of the PTSE 75 index in the fumre, specifically a decline by June 1996, relative to the assumed current (January 1995) value of the index to make a contract with another, as-yet-unknown, party, such as another fund manager seeking to gain from a significant increase in PTSE 75 index value.
  • the specific offering is one which provides a contract ordering party with a yet-to-be-specified contingent entitlement to an Australian dollar fumre payout from a yet-to-be-identified counte ⁇ arty (i.e. at mamrity of the contract) upon the ordering party's investment of a specified consideration amount.
  • the fumre money entitlement is contingent on two factors. The first is the value, at contract mamrity date, of the value of the PTSE 75 index. The second is the ultimate "shape" of the contingent entitlement function template that is determined by the system based on ordering and registering information provided respectively by the ordering party and potential counte ⁇ arties.
  • the relevant key stakeholders are an application promoter (BLC Inc), various product sponsors (the relevant one for the example being BLC Inc itself), various product ordering parties (the relevant one for the example being Abbotts & Taylor), various potential counte ⁇ arties (the relevant ones for the example being Abrahamsons and Ca ⁇ enters Inc), a counte ⁇ arty guarantor (CNZ Banking Co ⁇ oration) and an application regulator (the Pacific Central Bank).
  • Fig. 3 The timeline depicting the steps in the contract from the first step, Application Specification, to the final step, Contract Settlement, is shown in Fig. 3.
  • the pages designated charts Al - A6 contain detailed explanatory charts supporting Fig. 3. These pages are to be read together with the following description.
  • BLC Inc established a contract APP (Application ID 001) on 91.06.03.17.00.00 (that is, 5pm on June 3, 1991) to deal with investment.
  • the application involves a pricing and matching objective function of: "maximise pre-tax expected return on consideration investment”.
  • Application ID 001 supports a range of products.
  • Chart A3 shows the specific parameters that Abbotts & Taylor has defined for the contract it is seeking at this time, including a desired investment consideration amount of A$ 51 ,920.
  • Abbotts & Taylor has specified a minimum present value expected return of A$ 54,000 together with a preparedness to accept a worst case outcome of loss of 28 per cent of the investment, that is A$ 14,480.
  • Abbotts & Taylor has the opportunity to constrain the system's determination of possible payout shapes. Note that these are two templates constituting a capped, downward sloping (45-degree) shape and a capped pe ⁇ endicular (90-degree) shape. In the preferred embodiment, an ordering party will not specify particular shapes and thus the matching system would explore all possible entitlement payout shapes.
  • the system 20 determines, for Abrahamsons, a feasible set of net contingent entitlement amounts both Abrahamsons and Abbotts & Taylor would judge worthwhile given their specified parameters (as will be described in greater detail presently). This occurs at 95.01.01.17.38.02.00.
  • the form of the calculation is included in chart A4 and results in an implicit contract bid price of A$ 51,920, the same as Abbotts & Taylor's desired investment amount, which Abrahamsons' parameters calculate will yield them a desired base margin on the contract of A$ 4,580.
  • Example I assumes that only four feasible sets of contingent entitlement amounts are available to the system 20 as the basis of a potential contract between Abrahamsons and Abbots & Taylor. They are the following:
  • a capped, downward sloping (45-degree) potential entitlement payout embodied by chart A4. Note that in this and subsequent charts the potential entitlement payout is recognised by the potential counte ⁇ arty Abrahamsons as the (negative) mirror image of the (positive) entitlement payout that the ordering party Abbott & Taylor would receive.
  • the minimum entitlement amount for Abbotts & Taylor is A$ 37,440. This amount represents 72 per cent of Abbott & Taylor's investment, the amount it specified as the minimum entitlement it was prepared to accept for the contract. This was specified by Abbotts & Taylor in terms of an investment loss limit of 28 per cent (chart A3).
  • Chart A8 shows in summary form all four feasible sets of contingent entitlement payouts to Abbotts & Taylor, from Abrahamsons' perspective.
  • the system 20 produced these potential contracts between Abrahamsons and Abbotts & Taylor in the following manner.
  • the system successively combines on a trial basis all possible combinations of entitlement attributes, namely "height" and “depth” of entitlement amounts and contingent payout range of feasible product definition values or "x-axis values", to reach a counte ⁇ arty bid price for each combination.
  • all combinations that do not produce a bid price equivalent to the ordering party's specified investment amount in this case A$ 51,920
  • These results can be reached by various sophisticated heuristic and operations research- based methods as well as by the simple trial-and -error search process described here.
  • Ca ⁇ enters Inc's pricing parameters indicate that their appropriate defined circumstances ID for an ordering party such as Abbotts & Taylor is 17, which implies a commission rate of 1.30%, a discount rate of 9.80% pa, a particular set of component product prices (as shown) and a particular set of assessed probabilities of occurrence (as shown).
  • the system determines a feasible set of net contingent entitlement amounts both Ca ⁇ enters Inc and Abbotts & Taylor would judge worthwhile given their specified parameters .
  • Example I assumes that only four feasible sets of contingent entitlement amounts are available as the basis of a potential contract between Ca ⁇ enters Inc and Abbotts & Taylor. They are the following:
  • a capped, downward sloping (45-degree) potential entitlement payout embodied by chart A9. Note that in this and subsequent charts the potential entitlement o payout is recognised by the potential counte ⁇ arty Ca ⁇ enters Inc as the (negative) mirror image of the (positive) entitlement payout that the ordering party Abbott & Taylor would receive.
  • the minimum entitlement amount for Abbott & Taylor 0 (the ordering party) is A$ 37,440. This amount represents 72 per cent of Abbott & Taylor's investment, the amount it specified as the minimum entitlement it was prepared to accept for the contract. This was specified by Abbotts & Taylor in terms of an investment loss limit of 28 per cent (chart A3).
  • Chart A13 shows in summary form all four feasible sets of contingent 5 entitlement payouts to Abbotts & Taylor, from Ca ⁇ enters Inc's perspective.
  • the system produced these potential contracts between Ca ⁇ enters Inc and Abbotts & Taylor in the following manner.
  • the system successively combines on a trial basis all possible combinations of entitlement attributes, namely "height" and "depth” of entitlement amounts and contingent payout range of feasible product definition values or "x-axis values” , to reach a counte ⁇ arty bid price for each combination. Simultaneously, all combinations that do not produce a bid price equivalent to the ordering party's specified investment amount (in this case A$ 51,920) are rejected.
  • the system 20 assesses the expected return of the eight contingent entitlement payout bids from Abrahamsons and Ca ⁇ enters Inc. This is performed by applying each of the derived counte ⁇ arty templates to Abbotts & Taylor's assessed probabilities of occurrence for each outcome. Each probability is multiplied by the elemental entitlement, and the products summed to give an implied entitlement, described as the "Expected Return Present Value” in chart A 14. The implied entitlement then is subtracted from the investment amount to give the "net return”. From Abbotts & Taylor's perspective, the bid of Abrahamsons termed Offer No.
  • This example of an investment contract is an extension of Example I. More particularly, however, it is a special case of the general case of Example I, in that, for any particular phenomenon, the system 20 is constrained to price a contract utilising one entitlement shape possibility only. Specifically, this shape is a straight line with respect to the "outcome" axis. Put another way, the gradient of the graph of entitlement (y-axis) against outcome (x-axis) is zero.
  • This case can be thought of as the simation where the ordering party has no direct interest in the value of the particular phenomenon at contract mamrity date. Rather, the ordering party seeks an entitlement that is independent of this outcome.
  • the investment contract, from the ordering party's view, is in the namre of a loan, in that a specified consideration will be made available to a contracting counte ⁇ arty as the means of gaining a yet-to-be-determined fumre entitlement amount. This amount is not contingent on the outcome of the product phenomenon at contract mamrity.
  • the example shows just this situation, in that one party (such as an institutional fund manager) seeks to gain from possession of a defined resource (say, Australian dollars) by becoming a party to a contract with another, as yet unknown, party (such as another fund manager) seeking to gain from making that defined resource available, the gain consisting of an entitlement payout in the fumre.
  • a defined resource say, Australian dollars
  • another party such as another fund manager
  • the party seeking to gain from making the resource available is the ordering party to the investment contract
  • the parties seeking to have possession of the defined resource are the counte ⁇ arties to the contract.
  • the specific contract proposal is one which will provide an ordering party, upon payment of its nominated consideration to a matched counte ⁇ arty, with a yet-to- be-determined entitlement (in Australian dollars) from the counte ⁇ arty on contract maturity.
  • the entitlement amount is a variable to be determined by the system 20 through pricing and matching an ordering party's input data with one or more counte ⁇ arties' input data. That is, the system determines the "location" of the straight line shape with respect to the entitlement axis (y-axis) to enable matching of a contract that is worthwhile to both the ordering party and potential counte ⁇ arty, subject to limits set by both parties.
  • the yet-to-be-determined entitlement is not contingent on the outcome of the particular phenomenon on which the contract is based.
  • the amount will thus be essentially a function of a counte ⁇ arty 's "effective discount rate", determined by three parameters:
  • Example I an application promoter (BLC Inc); various product sponsors (the relevant one for the example being BLC Inc itself); various product ordering parties (the relevant one for the example being Abbotts & Taylor); various potential counte ⁇ arties (the relevant ones for the example being Abrahamsons and Ca ⁇ enters Inc); a counte ⁇ arty guarantor (CNZ Banking Co ⁇ oration); and an application regulator (Pacific Central Bank).
  • BLC Inc application promoter
  • various product sponsors the relevant one for the example being BLC Inc itself
  • various product ordering parties the relevant one for the example being Abbotts & Taylor
  • various potential counte ⁇ arties the relevant ones for the example being Abrahamsons and Ca ⁇ enters Inc
  • a counte ⁇ arty guarantor CZ Banking Co ⁇ oration
  • an application regulator Pacific Central Bank
  • Application Specification in conjunction with chart Bl , we see that BLC Inc established a Contract APP (Application ID 001) on 91.06.03.17.00.00 (that is, at 5 pm on June 3, 1991) to deal with investment.
  • the application involves a pricing and matching objective function of: "maximise pre-tax expected return on consideration investment" .
  • Application ID 001 supports a range of products.
  • BLC inc was also the product sponsor of Product 10061 at the same time (91.06.03.17.00.00).
  • This product relates to the market for stock indices.
  • the mamrity date for Product 10061 is 96.06.03.17.00.00.00.
  • the submarket is the PTSE 75 stock index.
  • the consideration for a specific contract involving Product 10061 is in the form of money (commercial bank deposits denominated in Australian dollars).
  • the entitlement payout is also in the form of commercial bank deposits denominated in Australian dollars, payable, if necessary, after the product's specified mamrity date/time.
  • Chart B3 shows the parameters that Abbotts & Taylor has specified for the contract it is seeking at this time, including a desired investment consideration of A$51,920.
  • Abbotts & Taylor has specified a minimum present value expected return of A$54,000, based on a discount rate of 11 per cent per annum.
  • Abbotts & Taylor has constrained the system's determination of possible payout shapes to one general class of payout shape, namely, a straight line, where the gradient of the graph of entitlement (y-axis) against outcome (x axis) is zero.
  • Order Specification Pricing in conjunction with charts B4 and B5, it can be seen (chart B4) that the potential counte ⁇ arty Abrahamsons provided registering data in the form of assessed probabilities of occurrence, a discount rate from the time of mamrity to the present day, a flat commission rate and a maximum negative entitlement amount.
  • Abrahamsons' pricing parameters indicate its appropriate defined circumstances ID for an ordering party such as Abbotts & Taylor is 26, which implies a commission rate of 1.25 per cent, a discount rate of 10 per cent per annum, a particular set of component product prices (as shown) and a particular set of assessed probabilities of occurrence (as shown).
  • the system 20 determines, for Abrahamsons, a feasible set of equal net entitlement amounts that represent both Abrahamsons' best possible bid and a possibility for Abbotts & Taylor given their specified parameters.
  • the calculated entitlement matching the consideration is $57,280.
  • the form of the calculation is included in chart B4 and results in an implicit contract bid price of A$51,920, the same as Abbotts & Taylor's desired investment amount, which Abrahamsons' parameters calculate will yield it a desired base margin on the contract of A$2,019. This determination occurs at 95.01.01.17.38.02.00.
  • Chart B5 shows the feasible set of equal contingent entitlement payouts to Abbotts & Taylor, from Abrahamsons' perspective, in graphical form.
  • the system 20 generated this potential contract between Abrahamsons and Abbotts & Taylor in the following manner.
  • the system successively trialed individually all possible entitlement amounts to reach a counte ⁇ arty bid price equal to the ordering party's consideration (investment).
  • all amounts that did not produce a bid price equal to the ordering party's specified investment amount in this case A$51,920
  • Order Specification Pricing in conjunction with charts B6 and B7, it can be seen (chart B6) that the potential counte ⁇ arty Ca ⁇ enters Inc provided registering data in the form of assessed probabilities of occurrence, a discount rate from the time of mamrity to the present day, a flat commission rate and a maximum negative entitlement amount.
  • Ca ⁇ enters Inc's pricing parameters indicate its appropriate defined circumstances ID for an ordering party such as Abbotts & Taylor is 17, which implies a commission rate of 1.30 per cent, a discount rate of 9.8 per cent per annum, a particular set of component product prices (as shown) and a particular set of assessed probabilities of occurrence (as shown).
  • the system 20 determines, for Ca ⁇ enters Inc, a feasible set of equal net entitlement amounts that represent both Ca ⁇ enters Inc best possible bid and a possibility for Abbotts & Taylor given their specified parameters.
  • the calculated entitlement matching the consideration is A$57,860 (note that this entitlement amount differs from the amount determined by the system 20 using Abrahamsons' parameters).
  • the form of the calculation is included in chart B6 and results in an implicit contract bid price of A$51,920, the same as Abbotts & Taylor's desired investment amount which Ca ⁇ enters Inc's parameters calculate will yield it a desired base margin on the contract of A$l,550. This determination occurs at 95.01.01.17.38.02.00.
  • Chart B7 shows the feasible set of equal contingent entitlement payouts to Abbotts & Taylor, from Ca ⁇ enters Inc's perspective, in graphical form.
  • the system 20 generated this potential contract between Ca ⁇ enters Inc and Abbott & Taylor in the following manner.
  • the system successively trialed individually all possible entitlement amounts to reach a counte ⁇ arty bid price.
  • all amounts that did not produce a bid price equal to the ordering party's specified investment amount in this case A$51,920
  • This further example of an investment contract is a variation of Example II and describes the formulation of a contract where an ordering party seeks to gain an entitlement in a denominated resource (in this case commercial bank US dollars) from another, as yet unknown, party in exchange for a consideration in a differently denominated resource (in this case commercial bank Australian dollars).
  • a denominated resource in this case commercial bank US dollars
  • a differently denominated resource in this case commercial bank Australian dollars
  • the example is a special case of the general case of Example II in that the ordering party has no direct interest, at contract mamrity date, in the value of the product phenomenon on which the contract is based. Rather, the ordering party seeks an entitlement that is independent of this outcome.
  • the investment contract is in the nature of an exchange, in that a specified consideration in one denomination will be made available to a contracting counte ⁇ arty as the means on gaining a yet-to-be determined fumre entitlement amount in a different denomination. This amount is not contingent on the outcome of the product phenomenon at the time that the contract matures.
  • the example also involves a unique notion of contract maturity.
  • all contracts in the specified product phenomenon mature at the same time.
  • each contract in the product phenomenon matures at the precise moment in time that the contract is matched, that is, at the earliest point in time that the ordering party's contract specification is matched by the system 20 with a counte ⁇ arty bid.
  • contract maturity is simultaneous with order matching, not with a specified fumre date for all contracts related to the product phenomenon in question. Therefore the product phenomenon could be said to have a continuum of mamrity dates made up of all the points in time that contracts are matched. In this way the product could be described as maturing each time a contract is matched.
  • the investment contract offering is one where an ordering party specifies to the system 20 that it is prepared to exchange a consideration of A$102,900 for a yet-to-be-determined entitlement in US dollars of not less than US$70,000.
  • the relevant key stakeholders are the same as in Example II: an application promoter (BLC Inc); various product sponsors (the relevant one for the example being BLC Inc itself); various product ordering parties (the relevant one for the example being Abbotts & Taylor), various potential counte ⁇ arties (the relevant ones for the example being Abrahamsons and Ca ⁇ enters Inc); a counte ⁇ arty guarantor (CNZ Banking Co ⁇ oration); and an application regulator (Pacific Central Bank).
  • Application ID 201 supports a range of products.
  • Chart C3 shows the parameters that Abbotts & Taylor has specified for the contract it is seeking at this time, namely a desired investment consideration of A$102,900 to be exchanged as soon as possible for an entitlement amount of no less than US$70,000.
  • chart C4 because contract mamrity is simultaneous with contract matching, there are no feasible product definition values (that is, possible contingent outcomes for the PTSE 75 phenomenon). Abrahamsons therefore submits only an entitlement/consideration exchange rate and a per annum commission rate.
  • the component product values are, by definition, unity.
  • Order Specification Pricing in conjunction with chart C5, it can be seen that the system 20 determines that the entitlement amount that the potential counte ⁇ arty Ca ⁇ enters Inc judges to be ideal given its specified parameters is US$82,000. This determination occurs at 92.06.03.17.38.02.00.
  • Ca ⁇ enters Inc's pricing parameters specify an exchange rate of 1.239, a commission rate of 1.30 per cent and a single assessed probability of one (1) (discount (interest) rate and component product prices again being irrelevant in this case).
  • Abrahamsons' entitlement bid of US$82,000 is therefore also above Abbotts & Taylor's specified minimum entitlement amount of US$70,000.
  • a further embodiment, relevant to each of the embodiments of Examples I to III above, involves the order pricing and matching procedures as before. There then follows an additional step, before formal matching and confirmation occurs, of introducing a period of time during which the ordering party and counte ⁇ arty can seek further contracts in the same or other applications and products. This step enables ordering parties and counte ⁇ arties to take steps to manage the financial consequences of the new contract on their portfolio.
  • the period of obligation can be specified by the promoter stakeholder, and thus be known to the ordering party and the registering counte ⁇ arties.
  • a further extension of the pricing enquiry is to permit matched contracts to be repriced during the period between match and mamrity. This is performed by the party who acted as the ordering party to the contract in question to gain market knowledge of performance of the investment against a different (current) pool of counte ⁇ arties. That is, the pricing is performed on the basis of the original investment amount but against the contemporaneous counte ⁇ arty data, which is almost certain to be different from that at the time the contract was originally priced and matched. Indeed, even only a subset of the contemporaneous counte ⁇ arty data may be specified or utilised in the repricing.
  • Such repricing can be a valuable tool to the original investing ordering party, as it may prompt other investments, or the submission of registering data whereby the party concerned acts rather as a counte ⁇ arty.
  • the ordering party's investment amount is priced for its whole amount against each counte ⁇ arty 's registering data. It is equally possible for the consideration to be divided into integer components, and each integer component treated as a separate pricing and matching task. The matched contract then is constructed as the summed combination of all the matched components.
  • Expected Return PV Present value of sum [ Ordering party's assessed probabilities of occurrence x Counterparty's entitlement payout offer] at discount rate of 11% per annum.
  • PRODUCT STEP VALUE Not applicable
  • ORDER SPECIFICATION PRICING PARTY ABRAHAMSONS [Potential Counterparty No 1] DEFINED CIRCUMSTANCES ID: 54 COMMISSION RATE. 1.25% DISCOUNT RATE: Not Applicable ENTITLEMENT/CONSIDERATION EXCHANGE RATE: 1.210

Abstract

A data processing system (10) to enable the formulation of multi-party investments contracts is disclosed. The system comprises input means (13, 14) by which an ordering party can input contract data relating to at least one phenomenon, the phenomenon having a range of future outcomes and a future time of maturity. The contract data further includes a set of probabilities of occurrence for each outcome in the range and a consideration due to a counterparty at or after the time of maturity. One or more counterparties can input registering data including a set of probabilities of occurrence for each outcome in the range. The system (10) further includes a data processor (20) that is operable to price and match a contract from the contract data and the registering data. The pricing includes applying at least one template of entitlement as a function of outcome to each counterparty's set of probabilities to give one or more individual counterparty prices each equal to the ordering party's consideration, and further, applying the ordering party's set of probabilities to each template to derive an implied entitlement. The matching includes determining which counterparty will provide the best entitlement on maturity by comparing each implied entitlement with the consideration, and matching the contract with the counterparty having the template for the best comparison.

Description

METHODS AND APPARATUS RELATING TO THE FORMULATION AND TRADING OF INVESTMENT CONTRACTS
Field of the Invention The present invention is directed to methods and apparatus relating to the formulation and trading of investment contracts. In one particular non-limiting form, the invention is directed to methods and apparatus that allow parties to invest a defined sum by way of pricing and matching a contract with one of a possible number of unidentified counteφarties to achieve the best return (or entitlement) on maturity of the contract for a specified consideration.
Background of the Invention
Reference can be had to International Patent Applications No. PCT/AU93/00250 and PCT/AU95/00827 that describe methods and apparatus for the formulation and trading of risk management contracts. These applications describe ways in which individuals and enterprises can manage risk of an economic nature with which they are faced in a manner that can be thought of as akin to hedging or lending. The present invention is concerned rather with the desire to invest available resources in the expectation of receiving the best available return at a future time. The need of entities and individuals to make investments with the aim of gaining future returns is universal and well known. In general, investors look for opportunities to earn the highest possible returns from investments that fit within their individual risk profiles and with their other investment criteria, such as type and tradeability of asset, investment price, investment growth and income potential, investment timing and regulatory regime, and so on. While the differing needs of investors lead them to a great diversity of investments, all investors share the common goal of seeking to limit the risk in any investment as much as possible. One major disadvantage is the lack of direct control that investors have over investment risk. For example, investors cannot directly limit the risk they assume when investing in products such as shares, or financial instruments such as foreign exchange or interest rate products. Instead, investors are exposed at all times to the market prices of these products and have no mechanisms for limiting their exposure either at the time the investment is made or subsequently. When, therefore, there is high volatility in these markets, investors may suffer devastating losses.
This disadvantage is serious in countries where pension retirement funds are replacing government-funded pensions as a major source of income security for people in retirement. As is well known, the values of these funds vary unpredictably from month to month and year to year, reflecting volatility in the underlying shares, property and other assets in the funds. Individual investors are exposed to all these changes in value and cannot place limits on their risk.
A second major disadvantage lies in the fact that investors do not have mechanisms for making contracts that are customised to meet the needs of both investor and counteφarty. For example, bank term deposits are a common form of personal investment. For individual investors, they have the advantages of a fixed nominal return and low entry and exit fees. However, the terms of the investment are set only by the counteφarty (i.e. the bank) and then offered to investors on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. There is no scope for investors to negotiate, for a price, the terms of these investments to better suit their individual needs.
A third major disadvantage is that individual investors cannot afford the fees that are involved with most investment products. For example, shares must be bought through brokers on stock exchanges, and their fees effectively deter the great majority of investors from investing directly in share markets.
It is an objective of the present invention to overcome or at least ameliorate one or more disadvantages in the investment contracts and contracting mechanisms that are now available to investors. Summary of the Invention
In one form, the invention discloses a data processing system to enable the formulation of multi-party investment contracts, the system comprising: input means by which an ordering party can input contract data relating to at least one phenomenon, each said phenomenon having a range of future outcomes and a future time of maturity, the contract data including a set of probabilities of occurrence for each outcome in said range and a consideration due to a counteφarty at or after the time of maturity, and further by which at least one counteφarty can input registering data including a set of probabilities of occurrence for each outcome in said range; and data processing means operable to price and match a contract for a said phenomenon from said contract data and said registering data, the pricing including: applying at least one template of entitlement as a function of outcome to each counteφarty 's set of probabilities to give one or more individual counteφarty prices each equal to the ordering party's consideration; and applying the ordering party set of probabilities to each said template to derive an implied entitlement; the matching including: determining which counteφarty will provide the best entitlement on maturity by comparing each implied entitlement with the consideration; and matching the contract with that counteφarty having the template for the best said comparison. Preferably, in the pricing, application of a template results in the multiplication of each elemental entitlement with each probability and the summing of the products. Further, a discount factor is applied to the sum to give a present day price relative to the time of maturity. In the matching, each template is applied to the ordering party set of probabilities, and a multiplication of the elemental entitlements with each probability performed, and the products summed to give the implied entitlement.
The said sum can have a discount rate applied to give a present day value relative to the time of maturity. The ordering party discount rates can be different between different types of counteφarties.
The contract data can further include a minimum expected entitlement against which the counteφarty prices are compared for the puφose of accepting ones thereof for the matching. The invention further discloses a method for the formulation of multi-party investment contracts, the method comprising the steps of: inputting ordering party contract data relating to at least one phenomenon, each said phenomenon having a range of future outcomes and a future time of maturity, the contract data including a set of probabilities of occurrence for each outcome in said range and a consideration due to a counteφarty at or after the time of establishment; inputting counteφarty registering data including a set of probabilities of occurrence for each outcome in said range; and pricing and matching a contract for a said phenomenon from said contract data and said registering data, said step of pricing, for each counteφarty, including: applying at least one template of entitlement as a function of outcome to the set of probabilities to give one or more individual counteφarty prices; and applying the ordering party set of probabilities to each individual counteφarty template to derive an implied entitlement; said step of matching including: determining which counteφarty will provide the best entitlement on maturity by comparing the implied entitlements with the consideration; and matching the contract with the counteφarty having the template for the best said comparison. Embodiments of the invention can overcome the disadvantages in existing investment mechanisms and contracts. Firstly, it enables investors to place specific limits on the risk that they were prepared to tolerate in the investment before entering the investment contract. Second, it enables investors to construct and tailor their specific investment requirements into a contract that could then be offered to counteφarties in the market for matching puφoses. Thirdly, it enables investors to make contracts with counteφarties without the high costs of intermediaries.
Description of the Drawings Embodiments of the invention now will be described with reference to the accompanying drawings, in which:
Fig. 1 is a block diagram of a generic system embodying the invention;
Fig. 2a is a block diagram of an indicative hardware platform supporting the system of Fig. 1; Fig. 2b is an alternative hardware platform that does not rely on a centralised hub data processing unit; and
Fig. 3 is a timeline showing the steps of Example I,
Fig. 4 is a timeline showing the steps of Example II; and
Fig. 5 is a timeline showing the steps of Example III.
Description of Preferred Embodiments and Best Mode of Performance
Fig. 1 shows a block diagram of the generic system 10 embodying the invention. The various stakeholders or parties to the system 10 each have access to a centralised processing unit 20. The processing units 20 can be constituted by one or more data processing apparatus, with each one thereof providing access for any one or more of the various stakeholders to applications software supported by the system 10, as all the processing units are interconnected. Access to the one or more data processing apparams is controlled by a generic form of communications co-ordination and security processing unit 25.
Fig. 1 also indicates that there are a number of types of stakeholder, and a number of individual stakeholders within each stakeholder type. The basic types of stakeholder are described as: applications promoters 11, product sponsors 12, product ordering parties 13, potential product counteφarties 14, counter-party guarantors 15, regulators 16, consideration/entitlement transfer ('accounting') entities 17, and miscellaneous parties 18. The number of types of stakeholder represented in Fig. 1 is typically the largest that will be supported by the system 10. An embodiment of a computer system for the system 10 is shown in Fig. 2a.
The core of the system hardware is a collection of data processing units. In the embodiment described, the processing unit 20 comprises three inter-linked data processors 93,97,104, such as the Sun 670 MP manufactured by Sun Microsystems, Inc. of the USA. Each processing unit 93,97, 104 runs operational system software, such as Sun Microsystems OS 4J .2, as well as applications software. The processor configuration shown in Fig. 1 represents a large system designed to handle the transactions of thousands of stakeholders, the input and output data generated by those stakeholders, and risk management contract pricing, matching and subsequent processing functions. Each processing unit 93,97,104 has connection with it one or more mass data storage units 95, 100,110 to store all data received from stakeholders, and other data relating to all other software operations generating or retrieving stored information. Suitable mass storage units are, for example, such as those commercially available from Sun Microsystems. A number of communications controllers 80.84,87, forming the communications co-ordination and security processing unit 25, are coupled with the processing unit 20. These controllers effect communications between the processing units 93,97, 104 and the various external hardware devices used by the stakeholders to communicate data or instructions to or from the processing units. The communications controllers are such as the Encore ANNEX II, the IBM AS/400 server or the CISCO Systems AGS + .
A large range of communications hardware products are supported, and collectively are referred to as the stakeholder input/output devices 70. One amongst many of the commumcation devices 70 are personal computers 51 and associated printers 52, which have communications connection with the commumcations controller 80 by means of a modem 50. There can also be an external host device 53, such as a mini or mainframe computer, again linked with the communications controller 80 by means of a modem 54. In other forms, communications can be established simply by means of a tone dialling telephone 56, which provides for the input of instructions or data by use of the tone dialling facility itself. In the alternative, a voice connection via an operator 75 can be effected by a conventional telephone 58. Both these external devices are shown connected with the communications controller 84. A further possibility is to have data transfer by means of a facsimile machine 65, in this case shown linked to the communications controller 87.
In all cases, users of the input devices are likely to be required to make use of system access password generation and encryption devices such as the Racal RG 500 Watchword Generator 66,67,68,69, (for personal use) and the Racal RG 1000, which is incoφorated in a mainframe computer 53. The corresponding decoding units for these devices are incoφorated in the communications controllers 80,84,87.
The generic processing unit 20 also includes a large number of 'portable' information recordal devices, such as printers, disc drives, and the like, which allow various forms of information to be printed or otherwise written to storage media to be transferable. This is particularly appropriate where confirmatory documentation of matched risk contracts is required to be produced, either for safekeeping as a hard copy record, else to be forwarded to any one or more of the stakeholders that are a party to each individual matched contract. The generic system 10 shown in Fig. 1 encompasses many varied configurations, relating not only to the number and types of stakeholders, but also the 'architectures' realisable by the system hardware and software in combination. In that sense the arrangement shown in Fig. 2a is to be considered only as broadly indicative of one type of hardware configuration that may be required to put the system into effect.
For example, Fig. 2b shows an alternate configuration that does not rely upon a centralised (hub) data processing unit, rather the necessary processing is performed locally at each stakeholder site 200n by means of distributed software.
Example I
This embodiment relates to an investment contract and describes the formulation of a contract based on potential future movements in the value of the fictional PTSE 75 index of share prices. In summary, the example shows how the system enables one party (such as an institutional fund manager) seeking to gain from a significant decline in the value of the PTSE 75 index in the fumre, specifically a decline by June 1996, relative to the assumed current (January 1995) value of the index to make a contract with another, as-yet-unknown, party, such as another fund manager seeking to gain from a significant increase in PTSE 75 index value. The specific offering is one which provides a contract ordering party with a yet-to-be-specified contingent entitlement to an Australian dollar fumre payout from a yet-to-be-identified counteφarty (i.e. at mamrity of the contract) upon the ordering party's investment of a specified consideration amount.
The fumre money entitlement is contingent on two factors. The first is the value, at contract mamrity date, of the value of the PTSE 75 index. The second is the ultimate "shape" of the contingent entitlement function template that is determined by the system based on ordering and registering information provided respectively by the ordering party and potential counteφarties. in this example, the relevant key stakeholders are an application promoter (BLC Inc), various product sponsors (the relevant one for the example being BLC Inc itself), various product ordering parties (the relevant one for the example being Abbotts & Taylor), various potential counteφarties (the relevant ones for the example being Abrahamsons and Caφenters Inc), a counteφarty guarantor (CNZ Banking Coφoration) and an application regulator (the Pacific Central Bank).
The timeline depicting the steps in the contract from the first step, Application Specification, to the final step, Contract Settlement, is shown in Fig. 3. The pages designated charts Al - A6 contain detailed explanatory charts supporting Fig. 3. These pages are to be read together with the following description.
Looking at the first step in the timeline, Application Specification, in conjunction with chart Al, we see that BLC Inc established a contract APP (Application ID 001) on 91.06.03.17.00.00 (that is, 5pm on June 3, 1991) to deal with investment. The application involves a pricing and matching objective function of: "maximise pre-tax expected return on consideration investment". As a system instruction this means: identify a counteφarty (or counteφarties) who have defmed pricing and limit parameters which, when combined with the ordering party's specified consideration, will yield an entitlement payout shape that maximises the ordering party's pre-tax expected return on consideration investment subject to whatever match constraints the ordering party and/or counteφarty has specified. Application ID 001 supports a range of products.
Looking at the second step in the timeline, Product Specification, in conjunction with chart A2, we see that BLC Inc was also product sponsor of Product 10061 at the same time (91.06.03.17.00.00). This product relates to the market termed Stock Indices and to the sub-market termed PTSE 75. The mamrity date for Product 10061 is 96.06.03.17.00.00.00. The consideration for a specific contract involving Product 10061 is in the form of commercial bank deposits denominated in Australian dollars. The entitlement is also in the form of commercial bank deposits denominated in Australian dollars, payable (if necessary) immediately after the Product's specified maturity date/time.
Looking at the third step in the timeline, Potential Counteφarty Product Pricing Specifications, one can find two entities, Abrahamsons and Caφenters Inc, acting as potential counteφarties for forthcoming primary product orders dealing with Product 10061. At this point in the timeline (95.01.01.17.00.00.00), 42 months after the specification of Product 10061, both Abrahamsons and Caφenters Inc have currently-specified parameters for pricing potentially forthcoming orders for the product. Looking at the fourth step in the timeline, Primary Order Specification, in conjunction with chart A3, it can be seen that an ordering party, Abbotts & Taylor, is seeking a contract, from an offering party, in Product 10061 at that time (95.01.01.17.37.06.00). Chart A3 shows the specific parameters that Abbotts & Taylor has defined for the contract it is seeking at this time, including a desired investment consideration amount of A$ 51 ,920. For this investment of A$ 51 ,920, Abbotts & Taylor has specified a minimum present value expected return of A$ 54,000 together with a preparedness to accept a worst case outcome of loss of 28 per cent of the investment, that is A$ 14,480.
Abbotts & Taylor has the opportunity to constrain the system's determination of possible payout shapes. Note that these are two templates constituting a capped, downward sloping (45-degree) shape and a capped peφendicular (90-degree) shape. In the preferred embodiment, an ordering party will not specify particular shapes and thus the matching system would explore all possible entitlement payout shapes.
Looking at the fifth step in the timeline, Order Specification Pricing and Contract Specification Limits, in conjunction with chart A4, the potential counteφarty No. 1 Abrahamsons, has provided registering data in the form of assessed probabilities of occurrence, a discount rate from the time of mamrity to the present day, a flat commission rate, and a maximum negative entitlement amount. Abrahamsons' pricing parameters indicate that their appropriate defined circumstances ID for an ordering party such as Abbotts & Taylor is 26, which implies a commission rate of 1.25%, a discount rate of 10.00% pa, a particular set of component product prices (as shown) and a particular set of assessed probabilities of occurrence (as shown). It can further be seen that the system 20 determines, for Abrahamsons, a feasible set of net contingent entitlement amounts both Abrahamsons and Abbotts & Taylor would judge worthwhile given their specified parameters (as will be described in greater detail presently). This occurs at 95.01.01.17.38.02.00. The form of the calculation is included in chart A4 and results in an implicit contract bid price of A$ 51,920, the same as Abbotts & Taylor's desired investment amount, which Abrahamsons' parameters calculate will yield them a desired base margin on the contract of A$ 4,580.
An ordering party and each potential counteφarty could potentially contract with each other on the basis of multiple sets of contingent entitlement payout amounts. For simplicity of explanation, Example I assumes that only four feasible sets of contingent entitlement amounts are available to the system 20 as the basis of a potential contract between Abrahamsons and Abbots & Taylor. They are the following:
1. A capped, downward sloping (45-degree) potential entitlement payout, embodied by chart A4. Note that in this and subsequent charts the potential entitlement payout is recognised by the potential counteφarty Abrahamsons as the (negative) mirror image of the (positive) entitlement payout that the ordering party Abbott & Taylor would receive.
2. A second capped, downward sloping (45-degree) potential entitlement payout embodied by chart A5.
3. A capped, peφendicular (90-degree) potential entitlement payout embodied by chart A6.
4. A second capped peφendicular (90-degree) potential entitlement payout embodied by chart A7. In all four feasible sets, the minimum entitlement amount for Abbotts & Taylor (the ordering party) is A$ 37,440. This amount represents 72 per cent of Abbott & Taylor's investment, the amount it specified as the minimum entitlement it was prepared to accept for the contract. This was specified by Abbotts & Taylor in terms of an investment loss limit of 28 per cent (chart A3).
Chart A8 shows in summary form all four feasible sets of contingent entitlement payouts to Abbotts & Taylor, from Abrahamsons' perspective. The system 20 produced these potential contracts between Abrahamsons and Abbotts & Taylor in the following manner. First, the system successively combines on a trial basis all possible combinations of entitlement attributes, namely "height" and "depth" of entitlement amounts and contingent payout range of feasible product definition values or "x-axis values", to reach a counteφarty bid price for each combination. Simultaneously, all combinations that do not produce a bid price equivalent to the ordering party's specified investment amount (in this case A$ 51,920) are rejected. These results can be reached by various sophisticated heuristic and operations research- based methods as well as by the simple trial-and -error search process described here. Still looking at the fifth step in the timeline, in conjunction with chart A9, it can be seen that Caφenters Inc's pricing parameters indicate that their appropriate defined circumstances ID for an ordering party such as Abbotts & Taylor is 17, which implies a commission rate of 1.30%, a discount rate of 9.80% pa, a particular set of component product prices (as shown) and a particular set of assessed probabilities of occurrence (as shown). As before, The system determines a feasible set of net contingent entitlement amounts both Caφenters Inc and Abbotts & Taylor would judge worthwhile given their specified parameters . This occurs at 95.01.01 J 7.38.02.00 , (note that these contingent entitlement amounts differ from the amounts determined using Abrahamsons' parameters), and results in an implicit contract bid price of A$ 51,920, the same as Abbotts & Taylor's desired investment amount, which Caφenters Inc's parameters calculate will yield them a desired base margin on the contract of A$ 5,610.
Again, an ordering party and each potential counteφarty could potentially contract with each other on the basis of multiple sets of contingent entitlement amounts. 5 For simplicity of explanation, Example I assumes that only four feasible sets of contingent entitlement amounts are available as the basis of a potential contract between Caφenters Inc and Abbotts & Taylor. They are the following:
1. A capped, downward sloping (45-degree) potential entitlement payout, embodied by chart A9. Note that in this and subsequent charts the potential entitlement o payout is recognised by the potential counteφarty Caφenters Inc as the (negative) mirror image of the (positive) entitlement payout that the ordering party Abbott & Taylor would receive.
2. A second capped, downward sloping (45-degree) potential entitlement payout embodied by chart AIO. 5 3. A capped, peφendicular (90-degree) potential entitlement payout embodied by chart All.
4. A second capped, peφendicular (90-degree) potential entitlement payout embodied by chart A12.
In all four feasible sets, the minimum entitlement amount for Abbott & Taylor 0 (the ordering party) is A$ 37,440. This amount represents 72 per cent of Abbott & Taylor's investment, the amount it specified as the minimum entitlement it was prepared to accept for the contract. This was specified by Abbotts & Taylor in terms of an investment loss limit of 28 per cent (chart A3).
Chart A13 shows in summary form all four feasible sets of contingent 5 entitlement payouts to Abbotts & Taylor, from Caφenters Inc's perspective. The system produced these potential contracts between Caφenters Inc and Abbotts & Taylor in the following manner. First, the system successively combines on a trial basis all possible combinations of entitlement attributes, namely "height" and "depth" of entitlement amounts and contingent payout range of feasible product definition values or "x-axis values" , to reach a counteφarty bid price for each combination. Simultaneously, all combinations that do not produce a bid price equivalent to the ordering party's specified investment amount (in this case A$ 51,920) are rejected. Looking at the sixth step in the timeline, Order Matching, and at chart A14, it can be seen that the system 20 assesses the expected return of the eight contingent entitlement payout bids from Abrahamsons and Caφenters Inc. This is performed by applying each of the derived counteφarty templates to Abbotts & Taylor's assessed probabilities of occurrence for each outcome. Each probability is multiplied by the elemental entitlement, and the products summed to give an implied entitlement, described as the "Expected Return Present Value" in chart A 14. The implied entitlement then is subtracted from the investment amount to give the "net return". From Abbotts & Taylor's perspective, the bid of Abrahamsons termed Offer No. 4 (A$ 57,312) is a superior offering to all other bids, yielding Abbotts & Taylor a net return on investment of A$ 5,392. This leads to a formal matching of Abbotts & Taylor's order by Abrahamsons at 95.01.01.17.38.07.00, involving Abbotts & Taylor's original specified investment consideration amount of A$ 51 ,920.
Before the matching formally occurs, a check is made that absolute loss, expected loss, expected value and portfolio attribute limits are not violated. The seventh step in the timeline, Order/Contract Confirmation (which is not illustrated in detail in the charts) can be seen to take place five seconds later at 95.01.01.17.38.11.00, after the system has determined that Abbotts & Taylor is able to (and then does) immediately pay its desired investment (consideration) amount of A$ 51 ,920 to Abrahamsons. The remaining steps shown in the timeline of Fig. 3, including contract mamrity and settlement, are not described, rather are incoφorated herein by cross- reference to International Publication No. WO 94/28496 (PCT/AU93/00250). Example II
This example of an investment contract is an extension of Example I. More particularly, however, it is a special case of the general case of Example I, in that, for any particular phenomenon, the system 20 is constrained to price a contract utilising one entitlement shape possibility only. Specifically, this shape is a straight line with respect to the "outcome" axis. Put another way, the gradient of the graph of entitlement (y-axis) against outcome (x-axis) is zero.
This case can be thought of as the simation where the ordering party has no direct interest in the value of the particular phenomenon at contract mamrity date. Rather, the ordering party seeks an entitlement that is independent of this outcome. The investment contract, from the ordering party's view, is in the namre of a loan, in that a specified consideration will be made available to a contracting counteφarty as the means of gaining a yet-to-be-determined fumre entitlement amount. This amount is not contingent on the outcome of the product phenomenon at contract mamrity. The example shows just this situation, in that one party (such as an institutional fund manager) seeks to gain from possession of a defined resource (say, Australian dollars) by becoming a party to a contract with another, as yet unknown, party (such as another fund manager) seeking to gain from making that defined resource available, the gain consisting of an entitlement payout in the fumre. In the example, the party seeking to gain from making the resource available is the ordering party to the investment contract, and the parties seeking to have possession of the defined resource are the counteφarties to the contract.
The specific contract proposal is one which will provide an ordering party, upon payment of its nominated consideration to a matched counteφarty, with a yet-to- be-determined entitlement (in Australian dollars) from the counteφarty on contract maturity. The entitlement amount is a variable to be determined by the system 20 through pricing and matching an ordering party's input data with one or more counteφarties' input data. That is, the system determines the "location" of the straight line shape with respect to the entitlement axis (y-axis) to enable matching of a contract that is worthwhile to both the ordering party and potential counteφarty, subject to limits set by both parties.
The yet-to-be-determined entitlement is not contingent on the outcome of the particular phenomenon on which the contract is based. The amount will thus be essentially a function of a counteφarty 's "effective discount rate", determined by three parameters:
1. The discount (time of mamrity to present day interest) rate specified by a counteφarty for the contract; 2. The commission rate specified by a counteφarty for the contract; and
3. The difference (positive or negative) between the sum of the counteφarty 's component product prices and unity.
Note that if, say, the sought-after contract entitlement denomination were US dollars, the matter of the counteφarty 's defmed forward Australian dollar/US dollar exchange rate would also be relevant to the determination of the effective discount rate. As noted, the relevant key stakeholders are the same as in Example I: an application promoter (BLC Inc); various product sponsors (the relevant one for the example being BLC Inc itself); various product ordering parties (the relevant one for the example being Abbotts & Taylor); various potential counteφarties (the relevant ones for the example being Abrahamsons and Caφenters Inc); a counteφarty guarantor (CNZ Banking Coφoration); and an application regulator (Pacific Central Bank).
A timeline depicting the steps in the contract from the first step, Application Specification, to the final step, Contract Settlement, is shown in Fig. 4 and further supported by charts B1-B8. Looking at the first step in the timeline, Application Specification, in conjunction with chart Bl , we see that BLC Inc established a Contract APP (Application ID 001) on 91.06.03.17.00.00 (that is, at 5 pm on June 3, 1991) to deal with investment. The application involves a pricing and matching objective function of: "maximise pre-tax expected return on consideration investment" . As a system instruction this means: identify a counteφarty (or counteφarties) who have defined pricing parameters and contract, product and portfolio limits which, when combined with the ordering party's specified consideration, will yield an entitlement payout that is not contingent on the outcome of the product phenomenon and maximises the ordering party's pre-tax expected retum on investment, subject to whatever match constraints the ordering party and/or counteφarty have specified. Application ID 001 supports a range of products.
Looking at the second step in the timeline, Product Specification, in conjunction with chart B2, we see that BLC inc was also the product sponsor of Product 10061 at the same time (91.06.03.17.00.00). This product relates to the market for stock indices. The mamrity date for Product 10061 is 96.06.03.17.00.00.00. The submarket is the PTSE 75 stock index. The consideration for a specific contract involving Product 10061 is in the form of money (commercial bank deposits denominated in Australian dollars). The entitlement payout is also in the form of commercial bank deposits denominated in Australian dollars, payable, if necessary, after the product's specified mamrity date/time.
Looking at the third step in the timeline, Potential Counteφarty Product Pricing Specifications, one finds two entities, Abrahamsons and Caφenters Inc, acting as potential counteφarties for forthcoming primary product orders for Product 10061. At this point in the timeline (95.01.01.17.00.00.00), 43 months after the specification of Product 10061, both Abrahamsons and Caφenters Inc have current specified parameters for pricing potential forthcoming orders for the product.
Looking at the fourth step in the timeline, Primary Order Specification, in conjunction with chart B3, it can be seen that an ordering party, Abbotts & Taylor, is seeking a contract from an offering party in Product 10061 at that time (95.01.01.17.37.06.00). Chart B3 shows the parameters that Abbotts & Taylor has specified for the contract it is seeking at this time, including a desired investment consideration of A$51,920. For this investment, Abbotts & Taylor has specified a minimum present value expected return of A$54,000, based on a discount rate of 11 per cent per annum. In the specification, Abbotts & Taylor has constrained the system's determination of possible payout shapes to one general class of payout shape, namely, a straight line, where the gradient of the graph of entitlement (y-axis) against outcome (x axis) is zero.
Looking at the fifth step in the timeline, Order Specification Pricing, in conjunction with charts B4 and B5, it can be seen (chart B4) that the potential counteφarty Abrahamsons provided registering data in the form of assessed probabilities of occurrence, a discount rate from the time of mamrity to the present day, a flat commission rate and a maximum negative entitlement amount. Abrahamsons' pricing parameters indicate its appropriate defined circumstances ID for an ordering party such as Abbotts & Taylor is 26, which implies a commission rate of 1.25 per cent, a discount rate of 10 per cent per annum, a particular set of component product prices (as shown) and a particular set of assessed probabilities of occurrence (as shown). The system 20 determines, for Abrahamsons, a feasible set of equal net entitlement amounts that represent both Abrahamsons' best possible bid and a possibility for Abbotts & Taylor given their specified parameters. The calculated entitlement matching the consideration is $57,280. The form of the calculation is included in chart B4 and results in an implicit contract bid price of A$51,920, the same as Abbotts & Taylor's desired investment amount, which Abrahamsons' parameters calculate will yield it a desired base margin on the contract of A$2,019. This determination occurs at 95.01.01.17.38.02.00.
Chart B5 shows the feasible set of equal contingent entitlement payouts to Abbotts & Taylor, from Abrahamsons' perspective, in graphical form. The system 20 generated this potential contract between Abrahamsons and Abbotts & Taylor in the following manner. First, the system successively trialed individually all possible entitlement amounts to reach a counteφarty bid price equal to the ordering party's consideration (investment). Simultaneously, all amounts that did not produce a bid price equal to the ordering party's specified investment amount (in this case A$51,920) were rejected. As in Example I, these results could be reached by various sophisticated heuristic and operations research based methods as well as by the simple trial-and-error search process described here.
Still looking at the fifth step in the timeline, Order Specification Pricing, in conjunction with charts B6 and B7, it can be seen (chart B6) that the potential counteφarty Caφenters Inc provided registering data in the form of assessed probabilities of occurrence, a discount rate from the time of mamrity to the present day, a flat commission rate and a maximum negative entitlement amount. Caφenters Inc's pricing parameters indicate its appropriate defined circumstances ID for an ordering party such as Abbotts & Taylor is 17, which implies a commission rate of 1.30 per cent, a discount rate of 9.8 per cent per annum, a particular set of component product prices (as shown) and a particular set of assessed probabilities of occurrence (as shown). The system 20 determines, for Caφenters Inc, a feasible set of equal net entitlement amounts that represent both Caφenters Inc best possible bid and a possibility for Abbotts & Taylor given their specified parameters. The calculated entitlement matching the consideration is A$57,860 (note that this entitlement amount differs from the amount determined by the system 20 using Abrahamsons' parameters). The form of the calculation is included in chart B6 and results in an implicit contract bid price of A$51,920, the same as Abbotts & Taylor's desired investment amount which Caφenters Inc's parameters calculate will yield it a desired base margin on the contract of A$l,550. This determination occurs at 95.01.01.17.38.02.00.
Chart B7 shows the feasible set of equal contingent entitlement payouts to Abbotts & Taylor, from Caφenters Inc's perspective, in graphical form. The system 20 generated this potential contract between Caφenters Inc and Abbott & Taylor in the following manner. First, the system successively trialed individually all possible entitlement amounts to reach a counteφarty bid price. Simultaneously, all amounts that did not produce a bid price equal to the ordering party's specified investment amount (in this case A$51,920) were rejected. These results could be reached by various sophisticated heuristic and operations research based methods as well as by the simple trial-and-error search process described here. Looking at the sixth step in the timeline, Primary Order Matching (chart B8), it can be seen that the system 20 assessed the expected return to Abbotts & Taylor on the two entitlement payout bids from Abrahamsons and Caφenters Inc, respectively. Abrahamson's bid of A$57,280 yields an expected return to Abbotts & Taylor of A$42,730 and Caφenters Inc's bid of A$57,860 yields an expected return of A$43J64. Both amounts are below Abbotts & Taylor's specified minimum expected return of A$54,000. In addition, both bids would result in a negative net return on investment to Abbotts & Taylor of (A$9J90) and (A$8,756) respectively. Therefore the order matching fails.
Since the transaction does not proceed, the steps of Contract Confirmation, Contract Mamrity and Contract Settlement, as shown in the timeline, do not occur in relation to Abbotts & Taylor's order specification.
Example III
This further example of an investment contract is a variation of Example II and describes the formulation of a contract where an ordering party seeks to gain an entitlement in a denominated resource (in this case commercial bank US dollars) from another, as yet unknown, party in exchange for a consideration in a differently denominated resource (in this case commercial bank Australian dollars).
The example is a special case of the general case of Example II in that the ordering party has no direct interest, at contract mamrity date, in the value of the product phenomenon on which the contract is based. Rather, the ordering party seeks an entitlement that is independent of this outcome. Unlike Example II, however, the investment contract is in the nature of an exchange, in that a specified consideration in one denomination will be made available to a contracting counteφarty as the means on gaining a yet-to-be determined fumre entitlement amount in a different denomination. This amount is not contingent on the outcome of the product phenomenon at the time that the contract matures.
The example also involves a unique notion of contract maturity. In the case of Examples I and II, all contracts in the specified product phenomenon mature at the same time. In this example, however, each contract in the product phenomenon matures at the precise moment in time that the contract is matched, that is, at the earliest point in time that the ordering party's contract specification is matched by the system 20 with a counteφarty bid. Put another way, contract maturity is simultaneous with order matching, not with a specified fumre date for all contracts related to the product phenomenon in question. Therefore the product phenomenon could be said to have a continuum of mamrity dates made up of all the points in time that contracts are matched. In this way the product could be described as maturing each time a contract is matched.
In the example, the investment contract offering is one where an ordering party specifies to the system 20 that it is prepared to exchange a consideration of A$102,900 for a yet-to-be-determined entitlement in US dollars of not less than US$70,000. The relevant key stakeholders are the same as in Example II: an application promoter (BLC Inc); various product sponsors (the relevant one for the example being BLC Inc itself); various product ordering parties (the relevant one for the example being Abbotts & Taylor), various potential counteφarties (the relevant ones for the example being Abrahamsons and Caφenters Inc); a counteφarty guarantor (CNZ Banking Coφoration); and an application regulator (Pacific Central Bank).
A timeline depicting the steps in the contract from the first step, Application Specification, to the final step. Contract Settlement, is shown in Fig. 5 and further supported by charts C1-C5. Looking at the first step in the timeline, Application Specification, in conjunction with chart Cl, we see that BLC Inc established a Contract APP (Application ID 201) on 91.06.03.17.00.00 (that is, at 5 pm on June 3, 1991) to deal with investment. The application involves a pricing and matching objective function of: "maximise pre-tax expected return on consideration entitlement investment" . Application ID 201 supports a range of products.
Looking at the second step in the timeline, Product Specification, in conjunction with chart C2, we see that BLC inc was also the product sponsor of Product 11099 at the same time (91.06.03.17.00.00). This product relates to the market of immediate exchange. The mamrity date for contracts in Product 11099 is "simultaneous with contract matching". The consideration for a specific contract involving Product 11099 is in the form of money (commercial bank deposits denominated in Australian dollars). The entitlement payout is in the form of commercial bank deposits denominated in US dollars, payable immediately at contract matching; that is, the product matures on contract matching.
Looking at the third step in the timeline, Potential Counteφarty Product Pricing Specifications, two entities, Abrahamsons and Caφenters Inc, are potential counteφarties for forthcoming primary product orders dealing with Product 11099. At this point in the timeline (92.06.03.15.00.00.00), 12 months after the specification of Product 11099. both Abrahamsons and Caφenters Inc have current specified parameters for pricing potential forthcoming orders for the product.
Looking at the fourth step in the timeline, Primary Order Specification, in conjunction with chart C3, it can be seen that an ordering party, Abbotts & Taylor, is seeking a contract from an offering party in Product 11099 at that time (92.06.03.17.00.00.00). Chart C3 shows the parameters that Abbotts & Taylor has specified for the contract it is seeking at this time, namely a desired investment consideration of A$102,900 to be exchanged as soon as possible for an entitlement amount of no less than US$70,000. As can be seen in chart C4, because contract mamrity is simultaneous with contract matching, there are no feasible product definition values (that is, possible contingent outcomes for the PTSE 75 phenomenon). Abrahamsons therefore submits only an entitlement/consideration exchange rate and a per annum commission rate. The component product values are, by definition, unity.
Looking at the fifth step in the timeline, Order Specification Pricing, in conjunction with chart C4, it can be seen that the system 20 determines that the entitlement amount that the potential counteφarty Abrahamsons judges to be ideal given its specified parameters is US$84,000. This determination occurs at 92.06.03 J 7.38.02.00. Abrahamsons ' pricing parameters specify an exchange rate of 1.210, a commission rate of 1.25 per cent and a single assessed probability of one (1) (discount (interest) rate and component product prices being irrelevant in this case). Abrahamsons' entitlement bid of US$84,000 is therefore above Abbotts & Taylor's specified minimum entitlement amount of US$70,000. Still looking at the fifth step in the timeline, Order Specification Pricing, in conjunction with chart C5, it can be seen that the system 20 determines that the entitlement amount that the potential counteφarty Caφenters Inc judges to be ideal given its specified parameters is US$82,000. This determination occurs at 92.06.03.17.38.02.00. Caφenters Inc's pricing parameters specify an exchange rate of 1.239, a commission rate of 1.30 per cent and a single assessed probability of one (1) (discount (interest) rate and component product prices again being irrelevant in this case). Abrahamsons' entitlement bid of US$82,000 is therefore also above Abbotts & Taylor's specified minimum entitlement amount of US$70,000.
Looking at the sixth step in the timeline, Primary Order Matching, it can be seen that the system 20 assessed Abrahamsons' bid to be superior to that of Caφenters Inc and above Abbotts & Taylor's specified minimum entitlement amount. This led to a formal matching and confirmation of Abbotts & Taylor's order by Abrahamsons at 92.06.03 J 7.38 J 2.00. Contract order matching and confirmation is contemporaneous with contract mamrity, which can be seen in the seventh step in the timeline to occur four seconds later at 92.06.03.17.38.12.04, at which time the exchange of Abbotts & Taylor's consideration of A$102,900 for Abrahamsons' entitlement of US$84,000 takes place. The seventh and final step in the timeline, Contract Settlement, is completed six seconds later at 92.06.03.38.18.00.00.
Delay of Formal Order Matching
A further embodiment, relevant to each of the embodiments of Examples I to III above, involves the order pricing and matching procedures as before. There then follows an additional step, before formal matching and confirmation occurs, of introducing a period of time during which the ordering party and counteφarty can seek further contracts in the same or other applications and products. This step enables ordering parties and counteφarties to take steps to manage the financial consequences of the new contract on their portfolio. The period of obligation can be specified by the promoter stakeholder, and thus be known to the ordering party and the registering counteφarties.
Pricing Only As a further embodiment, it is possible for any ordering party to make a
'pricing only' enquiry of the system 20 in relation to potential, but unmatched, investment contracts. The system treats the enquiry as a normal contact request, however after deriving the one or more implied entitlements from the set of templates arrived at, does not perform the final steps of comparing the implied entitlements against the investment amount (consideration). In this way potential counteφarties can gain market knowledge without committing themselves to a contractual obligation. Pricing after Match
A further extension of the pricing enquiry is to permit matched contracts to be repriced during the period between match and mamrity. This is performed by the party who acted as the ordering party to the contract in question to gain market knowledge of performance of the investment against a different (current) pool of counteφarties. That is, the pricing is performed on the basis of the original investment amount but against the contemporaneous counteφarty data, which is almost certain to be different from that at the time the contract was originally priced and matched. Indeed, even only a subset of the contemporaneous counteφarty data may be specified or utilised in the repricing.
Such repricing can be a valuable tool to the original investing ordering party, as it may prompt other investments, or the submission of registering data whereby the party concerned acts rather as a counteφarty.
Multiple Component Counteφarties
In the Examples given above, the ordering party's investment amount is priced for its whole amount against each counteφarty 's registering data. It is equally possible for the consideration to be divided into integer components, and each integer component treated as a separate pricing and matching task. The matched contract then is constructed as the summed combination of all the matched components.
Figure imgf000028_0001
Figure imgf000029_0001
Figure imgf000030_0001
CHART A4
APPLICATION ID: 001
Figure imgf000031_0001
ORDER SPECIFICATION PRICING AS AT 95.01.01.17.38.02.00 PRODUCT ID: 10061
ORDER SPECIFICATION PRICING PARTY: ABRAHAMSONS [Potential Counterparty No 1]
DEFINED CIRCUMSTANCES ID: 26 COMMISSION RATE: 1.25%
DISCOUNT RATE : 10.00% pa
COMPONENT PRODUCT PRICES: see Column 3 below
Feasible Net Component Implied Assessed Net Net Maximum
Product Contingent Product Contingent Probabilities Contingent Contingent Absolute
Definition Entitlement Prices Entitlement of Entitlement Negative Negative
Values Amounts [ID 26] Amounts Occurrence (Valuation) Entitlement Entitlement Amounts (Valuation) Amount
Amounts
< 0.00
1600 (187.200) 0.000220 (0.041 ) 0.000020 (0.004) (0.004) (187.200)
1610 (187.200) 0.000227 (0.042) 0.000027 (0.005) (0.005) VD
1620 (187.200) 0.000237 (0.044) 0.000037 (0.007) (0.007)
1630 (187.200) 0.000249 (0.047) 0.000049 (0.009) (0.009)
1640 (187.200) 0.000266 (0.050) 0.000066 (0.012) (0.012)
1650 (187.200) 0.000287 (0.054) 0.000087 (0.016) (0.016)
1660 (187.200) 0.000314 (0.059) 0.000114 (0.021 ) (0.021 )
2130 (37.440) 0.029642 (1.110) 0.029442 (1.102) (1.102)
2140 (37.440) 0.028625 (1.072) 0.028425 (1.064) (1.064)
2150 (37.440) 0.027469 (1.028) 0.027269 (1.021 ) (1.021)
2160 (37.440) 0.026193 (0.981) 0.025993 (0.973) (0.973)
2170 (37.440) 0.024819 (0.929) 0.024619 (0.922) (0.922)
2180 (37.440) 0.023369 (0.875) 0.023169 (0.867) (0.867)
2190 (37.440) 0.021865 (0.819) 0.021665 (0.811) (0.811)
2200 (37.440) 0.020330 (0.761 ) 0.020130 (0.754) (0.754)
> 0.000 0.146635 0.000 0.158835 0.000 0.000
1.0402 (59.580) 1.0000 (55.000) (55.000) (187.200)
Base Contract Bid Price (in Product Denomination terms): 59.580
Net Present Value (at 10.00% pa): 51.280 47.340
+ Flat Commission (1.25%): 0.640
= Contract Bid Pri ze (in Product Denomination Terms): 51.920
Implied Base Margin on Contract: 4.580
CHART A5
APPLICATION ID: 001
ORDER SPECIFICATION PRICING AS AT 95.01.01.17.38.02.00 PRODUCT ID: ' 10061
ORDER SPECIFICATION PRICING PARTY: ABRAHAMSONS [Potential Counterparty No 1]
DEFINED CIRCUMSTANCES ID: 26 COMMISSION RATE: 1.25%
DISCOUNT RATE : 10.00% pa
COMPONENT PRODUCT PRICES: see Column 3 below
Feasible Net Component Implied Assessed Net Net Maximum
Product C ontingent Product Contingent Probabilities Contingent Contingent Absolute
Definition Entitlement Prices Entitlement of Entitlement Negative Negative
Values Amounts [ID 26] Amounts Occurrence (Valuation) Entitlement Entitlement Amounts (Valuation) Amount
Amounts
< 0.00
1600 188.200) 0.000220 (0.041 ) 0.000020 (0.004) (0.004) (188.200)
1610 (188.200) 0.000227 (0.042) 0.000027 (0.005) (0.005) o
1620 (188.200) 0.000237 (0.044) 0.000037 (0.007) (0.007)
1630 188.200) 0.000249 (0.047) 0.000049 (0.009) (0.009)
1640 (188.200) 0.000266 (0.050) 0.000066 (0.012) (0.012)
1650 (188.200) 0.000287 (0.054) 0.000087 (0.016) (0.016)
1660 (188.200) 0.000314 (0.059) 0.000114 (0.021 ) (0.021 )
2130 (37.440) 0.029642 (1.110) 0.029442 (1.102) (1.102)
2140 (37.440) 0.028625 (1.072) 0.028425 (1.064) (1.064)
2150 (37.440) 0.027469 (1.028) 0.027269 (1.021 ) (1.021 )
2160 (37.440) 0.026193 (0.981 ) 0.025993 (0.973) (0.973)
2170 (37.440) 0.024819 (0.929) 0.024619 (0.922) (0.922)
2180 (37.440) 0.023369 (0.875) 0.023169 (0.867) (0.867)
2190 (37.440) 0.021865 (0.819) 0.021665 (0.811 ) (0.811 )
2200 (37.440) 0.020330 (0.761 ) 0.020130 (0.754) (0.754)
> 0.000 0.146635 0.000 0.158835 0.000 0.000
1.0402 (59.580) 1.0000 (55.000) (55.000) (188.200)
Baεe Contract Bid Pr ce (in Product Denomination terms): 59.580
Net Present Value (at 10.00% pa): 51.280 47.340
+ Flat Commission (' .25%): 0.640
= Contract Bid Price in Product Denomination Terms): 51.920
Implied Base Margin on Contract: 4.580
CHART A6
APPLICATION ID: 001
ORDER SPECIFICATION PRICING AS AT 95.01.01J7.38.02.00 PRODUCT ID: 10061
ORDER SPECIFICATION PRICING PARTY: ABRAHAMSONS [Potential Counterparty No 1]
DEFINED CIRCUMSTANCES ID: 26 COMMISSION RATE 1.25%
DISCOUNT RATE 10.00% pa
COMPONENT PRODUCT PRICES: see Column 3 below
Feasible Net Component Implied Assessed Net Net Maximum
Product Contingent Product Contingent Probabilities Contingent Contingent Absolute
Definition Entitlement Prices Entitlement of Entitlement Negative Negative
Values Amounts [ID 26] Amounts Occurrence (Valuation) Entitlement Entitlement Amounts (Valuation) Amount
Amounts
< 0 00
1600 (187 200) 0 000220 (0 041 ) 0 000020 (0 004) (0 004) (187 200) 1610 (187 200) 0 000227 (0 042) 0 000027 (0 005) (0 005) lω 1620 (187 200) 0 000237 (0 044) 0 000037 (0 007) (0 007) 1630 (187 200) 0 000249 (0 047) 0 000049 (0 009) (0 009) 1640 (187 200) 0 000266 (0 050) 0 000066 (0 012) (0 012) 1650 (187 200) 0 000287 (0 054) 0 000087 (0 016) (0 016) 1660 (187 200) 0 000314 (0 059) 0 000114 (0 021 ) (0 021)
2130 (37 440) 0 029642 (1 110) 0 029442 (1 102) (1 102) 2140 (37 440) 0 028625 (1 072) 0 028425 (1 064) (1 064) 2150 (37 440) 0 027469 (1 028) 0 027269 (1 021 ) (1 021) 2160 (37 440) 0 026193 (0 981) 0 025993 (0 973) (0 973) 2170 (37 440) 0 024819 (0 929) 0 024619 (0 922) (0 922) 2180 (37 440) 0 023369 (0 875) 0 023169 (0 867) (0 867) 2190 (37 440) 0 021865 (0 819) 0 021665 (0 811 ) (0 811 ) 2200 (37 440) 0 020330 (0 761 ) 0 020130 (0 754) (0 754) 0 000 0 146635 0 000 0 158835 0 000 0 000
1.0402 (59.580) 1.0000 (55.000) (55.000) (187.200)
Base Contract Bid Price (in Product Denomination terms) 59 580 Net Present Value (at 10 00% pa) 51 280 47 340 + Flat Commission (1 25%) 0 640 = Contract Bid Price (in Product Denomination Terms) 51 920 Implied Base Margin on Contract 4 580
CHART A7
APPLICATION ID: 001
ORDER SPECIFICATION PRICING AS AT 95.01.01.17.38.02.00 PRODUCT ID: 10061
ORDER SPECIFICATION PRICING PARTY: ABRAHAMSONS [Potential Counterparty No 1]
DEFINED CIRCUMSTANCES ID: 26 COMMISSION RATE 1 25%
DISCOUNT RATE 10 00% pa
COMPONENT PRODUCT PRICES: see Column 3 below
Feasible Net Component Implied Assessed Net Net Maximum
Product Contingent Product Contingent Probabilities Contingent Contingent Absolute
Definition Entitlement Prices Entitlement of Entitlement Negative Negative
Values Amounts [ID 26] Amounts Occurrence (Valuation) Entitlement Entitlement Amo'unts (Valuation) Amount
Amounts
< 0 00
1600 (188 200) 0 000220 (0 041 ) 0 000020 (0 004) (0 004) (188 200)
1610 (188 200) 0 000227 (0 042) 0 000027 (0 005) (0 005)
1620 (188 200) 0 000237 (0 044) 0 000037 (0 007) (0 007) t
1630 (188 200) 0 000249 (0 047) 0 000049 (0 009) (0 009)
1640 (188 200) 0 000266 (0 050) 0 000066 (0 012) (0 012)
1650 (188 200) 0 000287 (0 054) 0 000087 (0 016) (0 016)
1660 (188 200) 0 000314 (0 059) 0 000114 (0 021 ) (0 021 )
2130 (37 440) 0 029642 (1 110) 0 029442 (1 102) (1 102)
2140 (37 440) 0 028625 (1 072) 0 028425 (1 064) (1 064)
2150 (37 440) 0 027469 (1 028) 0 027269 (1 021) (1 021)
2160 (37 440) 0 026193 (0 981) 0 025993 (0 973) (0 973)
2170 (37 440) 0 024819 (0 929) 0 024619 (0 922) (0 922)
2180 (37 440) 0 023369 (0 875) 0 023169 (0 867) (0 867)
2190 (37 440) 0 021865 (0 819) 0 021665 (0 811) (0 811)
2200 (37 440) 0 020330 (0 761 ) 0 020130 (0 754) (0 754)
> 0 000 0 146635 0 000 0 158835 0 000 0 000
1.0402 (59.580) 1.0000 (55.000) (55.000) (188.200)
Base Contract Bid Pr ce (in Product Den omination terms) 59 580
Net Present Value (a 10 00% pa) 51 280 47 340
+ Flat Commission (• 25%) 0 640
= Contract Bid Price in Product Denomination Terms ) 51 920
Implied Base Margin on Contract 4 580
Figure imgf000035_0001
CHART A9
APPLICATION ID: 001
ORDER SPECIFICATION PRICING AS AT 95.01.01.17.38.02.00 PRODUCT ID: 10061
ORDER SPECIFICATION PRICING PARTY: CARPENTERS [Potential Counterparty No 2]
DEFINED CIRCUMSTANCES ID: 17 COMMISSION RATE 1 30%
DISCOUNT RATE : 9 8% pa
COMPONENT PRODUCT PRICES, see Column 3 below
Feasible Net Component Implied Assessed Net Net Maximum
Product Contingent Product Contingent Probabilities Contingent Contingent Absolute
Definition Entitlement Prices Entitlement of Entitlement Negative Negative
Values Amounts [ID 17] Amounts Occurrence (Valuation) Entitlement Entitlement Amounts (Valuation) Amount
Amounts
< 0 00
1600 (185 000) 0 000220 (0 041) 0 000020 (0 004) (0 004) (185 000)
1610 (185 000) 0 000226 (0 042) 0 000027 (0 005) (0 005) Li
1620 (185 000) 0 000237 (0 044) 0 000037 (0 007) (0 007)
1630 (185 000) 0 000249 (0 046) 0 000049 (0 009) (0 009)
1640 (185 000) 0 000265 (0 049) 0 000066 (0 012) (0 012)
1650 (185 000) 0 000287 (0 053) 0 000087 (0 016) (0 016)
1660 (185 000) 0 000314 (0 058) 0 000114 (0 021) (0 021)
2130 (37 440) 0 029641 (1 110) 0 029442 (1 102) (1 102)
2140 (37 440) 0 028625 (1 072) 0 028425 (1 064) (1 064)
2150 (37 440) 0 027469 (1 028) 0 027269 (1 021 ) (1 021)
2160 (37 440) 0 026192 (0 981 ) 0 025993 (0 973) (0 973)
2170 (37 440) 0 024819 (0 929) 0 024619 (0 922) (0 922)
2180 (37 440) 0 023369 (0 875) 0 023169 (0 867) (0 867)
2190 (37 440) 0 021864 (0 819) 0 021665 (0 811) (0 811)
2200 (37 440) 0 020330 (0 761 ) 0 020130 (0 754) (0 754)
> 0 000 0 146635 0 000 0 158835 0 000 0 000
1.0300 (59.600) 1.0000 (55.120) (55.120) (185.000)
Base Contract Bid Price (in Product Den omination terms) 59 600
Net Present Value (at 9 8% pa) 51 310 46 310
+ Flat Commission (1 30%) 0 610
= Contract Bid Price (in Product Denomination Terms) 51 920
Implied Base Marg in on Contract 5 610
CHART MO
APPLICATION ID: 001
ORDER SPECIFICATION PRICING AS AT 95.01.01.17.38.02.00 PRODUCT ID: 10061
ORDER SPECIFICATION PRICING PARTY: CARPENTERS [Potential Counterparty No 2]
DEFINED CIRCUMSTANCES ID: 17 COMMISSION RATE 1 30%
DISCOUNT RATE : 9 8% pa
COMPONENT PRODUCT PRICES see Column 3 below
Feasible Net Component Implied Assessed Net Net Maximum
Product Contingent Product Contingent Probabilities Contingent Contingent Absolute
Definition Entitlement Prices Entitlement of Entitlement Negative Negative
Values Amounts [ID 17] Amounts Occurrence (Valuation) Entitlement Entitlement Amounts (Valuation) Amount
Amounts
< 0 00
1600 (186 000) 0 000220 (0 041 ) 0 000020 (0 004) (0 004) (186 000) J
1610 (186 000) 0 000226 (0 042) 0 000027 (0 005) (0 005)
1620 (186 000) 0 000237 (0 044) 0 000037 (0 007) (0 007)
1630 (186 000) 0 000249 (0 046) 0 000049 (0 009) (0 009)
1640 (186 000) 0 000265 (0 049) 0 000066 (0 012) (0 012)
1650 (186 000) 0 000287 (0 053) 0 000087 (0 016) (0 016)
1660 (186 000) 0 000314 (0 058) 0 000114 (0 021 ) (0 021)
2130 (37 440) 0 029641 (1 110) 0 029442 (1 102) (1 102)
2140 (37 440) 0 028625 (1 072) 0 028425 (1 064) (1 064)
2150 (37 440) 0 027469 (1 028) 0 027269 (1 021) (1 021)
2160 (37 440) 0 026192 (0 981 ) 0 025993 (0 973) (0 973)
2170 (37 440) 0 024819 (0 929) 0 024619 (0 922) (0 922)
2180 (37 440) 0 023369 (0 875) 0 023169 (0 867) (0 867)
2190 (37 440) 0 021864 (0 819) 0 021665 (0 811) (0 811)
2200 (37 440) 0 020330 (0 761 ) 0 020130 (0 754) (0 754)
> 0 000 0 146635 0 000 0 158835 0 000 0 000
1.0300 (59 600) 1.0000 (55.120) (55.120) (186.000)
Base Contract Bid Price (in Product Denomination terms) 59 600
Net Present Value (at 9 8% pa) 51 310 46 310
+ Flat Commission (1 30%) 0 610
= Contract Bid Price (in Product Dene minatioπ Terms ) 51 920
Implied Base Marg n on Contract 5 610
CHART A11
APPLICATION ID: 001
ORDER SPECIFICATION PRICING AS AT 95.01.01.17.38.02.00 PRODUCT ID: 10061
ORDER SPECIFICATION PRICING PARTY: CARPENTERS [Potential Counterparty No 2]
DEFINED CIRCUMSTANCES ID: 17 COMMISSION RATE: 1.30%
DISCOUNT RATE .: 9.8% pa
COMPONENT PRODUCT PRICES: see Column 3 below
Feasible Net Component Implied Assessed Net Net Maximum
Product Contingent Product Contingent Probabilities Contingent Contingent Absolute
Definition Entitlement Prices Entitlement of Entitlement Negative Negative
Values Amounts [ID 17] Amounts Occurrence (Valuation) Entitlement Entitlement Amounts (Valuation) Amount
Amounts
< 0.00
1600 (185.000) 0.000220 (0.041 ) 0.000020 (0.004) (0.004) (185.000)
1610 (185.000) 0.000226 (0.042) 0.000027 (0.005) (0.005) σv
1620 (185.000) 0.000237 (0.044) 0.000037 (0.007) (0.007)
1630 (185.000) 0.000249 (0.046) 0.000049 (0.009) (0.009)
1640 (185.000) 0.000265 (0.049) 0.000066 (0.012) (0.012)
1650 (185.000) 0.000287 (0.053) 0.000087 (0.016) (0.016)
1660 (185.000) 0.000314 (0.058) 0.000114 (0.021) (0.021)
2130 (37.440) 0.029641 (1.110) 0.029442 (1 102) (1.102)
2140 (37.440) 0.028625 (1.072) 0.028425 (1.064) (1.064)
2150 (37.440) 0.027469 ( 1.028) 0.027269 (1.021 ) (1.021)
2160 (37.440) 0.026192 (0.981) 0.025993 (0.973) (0.973)
2170 (37.440) 0.024819 (0.929) 0.024619 (0.922) (0.922)
2180 (37.440) 0.023369 (0.875) 0.023169 (0.867) (0.867)
2190 (37.440) 0.021864 (0.819) 0.021665 (0.811) (0.811)
2200 (37.440) 0.020330 (0.761) 0.020130 (0.754) (0.754)
> 0.000 0.146635 0.000 0.158835 0.000 0.000
1.0300 (59.600) 1.0000 (55.120) (55.120) (185.000)
Base Contract Bid Price (in Product Denomination terms): 59.600
Net Present Value (at 9.8% pa): 51.310 46.310
+ Flat Commiεsior l (1.30%): 0.610
= Contract Bid Price (in Product Denomination Terms): 51.920
Implied Base Margin on Contract: 5.610
CHART A12
APPLICATION ID: 001
ORDER SPECIFICATION PRICING AS AT 95.01.01.17.38.02.00 PRODUCT ID: 10061
ORDER SPECIFICATION PRICING PARTY: CARPENTERS [Potential Counterparty No 2]
DEFINED CIRCUMSTANCES ID: 17 COMMISSION RATE 1 30%
DISCOUNT RATE . 9 8% pa
COMPONENT PRODUCT PRICES: see Column 3 below
Feasible Net Component Implied Assessed Net Net Maximum
Product Contingent Product Contingent Probabilities Contingent Contingent Absolute
Definition Entitlement Prices Entitlement of Entitlement Negative Negative
Values Amounts [ID 17] Amounts Occurrence (Valuation) Entitlement Entitlement Amounts (Valuation) Amount
Amounts
< 0 00
1600 (186 000) 0 000220 (0 041 ) 0 000020 (0 004) (0 004) (186 000)
1610 (186 000) 0 000226 (0 042) 0 000027 (0 005) (0 005)
1620 (186 000) 0 000237 (0 044) 0 000037 (0 007) (0 007)
1630 (186 000) 0 000249 (0 046) 0 000049 (0 009) (0 009)
1640 (186 000) 0 000265 (0 049) 0 000066 (0 012) (0 012)
1650 (186 000) 0 000287 (0 053) 0 000087 (0 016) (0 016)
1660 (186 000) 0 000314 (0 058) 0 000114 (0 021 ) (0 021 )
2130 (37 440) 0 029641 (1 110) 0 029442 (1 102) (1 102)
2140 (37 440) 0 028625 (1 072) 0 028425 (1 064) (1 064)
2150 (37 440) 0 027469 (1 028) 0 027269 (1 021 ) (1 021)
2160 (37 440) 0 026192 (0 981 ) 0 025993 (0 973) (0 973)
2170 (37 440) 0 024819 (0 929) 0 024619 (0 922) (0 922)
2180 (37 440) 0 023369 (0 875) 0 023169 (0 867) (0 867)
2190 (37 440) 0 021864 (0 819) 0 021665 (0 811) (0 811)
2200 (37 440) 0 020330 (0 761 ) 0 020130 (0 754) (0 754)
> 0 000 0 146635 0 000 0 158835 0 000 0.000
1.0300 (59.600) 1.0000 (55.120) (55.120) (186.000)
Figure imgf000039_0001
Base Contract Bid Price (in Product Denomination terms) 59 600
Net Present Value (at 9 8% pa) 51 310 46 310
+ Flat Commission (1 30%) 0 610
= Contract Bid Price (in Product Denomination Terms ) 51 920
Implied Base Marg in on Contract 5 610
Figure imgf000040_0001
CHART A14
APPLICATION ID: 001
PRIMARY ORDER MATCHING AS AT 95.01.01.17.38.07.00 PRODUCT ID: 10061
Ordering Party
Feasible Assessed Counterparty Contingent Entitlement Payout (A$) Product Probabilities of Abrahamsons' Offers Carpenters' Offers Values Occurrence No 1 No 2 No 3 No 4 No 1 No 2 No 3 No 4
< o oooooo 187,200 188,200 187,200 188,200 185,000 186,000 185,000 186,000
1600 0 000020 187,200 188,200 187,200 188,200 185,000 186,000 185,000 186,000
1920 0 000224 187,200 188,200 187,200 188,200 185,000 186,000 185,000 186,000
1930 0 000183 187,200 163,073 187,200 188,200 163,920 161 ,240 185,000 186,000
1940 0 000153 162,240 137,946 187,200 188,200 142,840 136,480 185,000 186,000
1950 0 000123 137,280 112,820 187,200 37,440 121 ,760 111,720 185,000 37,440
1960 0 000089 112,320 87,693 37,440 37,440 100,680 86,960 185,000 37,440 KD
1970 0 000063 87,200 62,566 37,440 37,440 79,600 62,200 185,000 37,440
1980 0 000049 62,400 37,440 37,440 37,440 58,520 37,440 185,000 37,440
1990 0 000038 37,440 37,440 37,440 37,440 37,440 37,440 185,000 37,440
2200 0 000028 37,440 37,440 37,440 37,440 37,440 37,440 37,440 37,440
> 0 158835 37,440 37,440 37,440 37,440 37,440 37,440 37,440 37,440
Expected Retum PV *: 55,226 56,210 55,900 57,312 54,120 55,111 54,914 56,213 **
Investment: 51 ,920 51,920 51,920 51,920 51 ,920 51 ,920 51 ,920 51 ,920
Net Return: 3,306 4,290 3,980 5,392 2,200 3,191 2,994 4,293
Figure imgf000041_0001
* Expected Return PV = Present value of sum [ Ordering party's assessed probabilities of occurrence x Counterparty's contingent entitlement payout offer ] at discount rate of 11 % per annum.
** All offers satisfy Abbotts & Taylor's minimum expected return (PV) of A$54,000.
CHART B1
Figure imgf000042_0001
APPLICATION SPECIFICATION AS AT 91.06.03.17.00.00.00
APPLICATION ID: 001
APPLICATION PROMOTER: BLC INC
PRIMARY APPLICATION USE: INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT
FEASIBLE COUNTERPARTY NUMBERS: MULTIPLE COUNTERPARTIES J-. o
PRIVATE/PUBLIC USE: PUBLIC USE
ACCEPTABLE COMMS MEDIUMS: COMPUTER - COMPUTER LINK
RETAIL/WHOLESALE USE: WHOLESALE USE
PRICING AND MATCHING PROCESS: MAXIMISE PRE-TAX EXPECTED RETURN ON
CONSIDERATION INVESTMENT
CONTRACT REVALUATION FREQUENCY: DAILY
ORDERING PARTIES ALLOWED NEGATIVE CONTRACT PAYOFFS ? YES
APPLICATION ACCESS LIMITATIONS: NONE
Figure imgf000043_0001
Figure imgf000044_0001
CHART B4
APPLICATION ID: 001
ORDER SPECIFICATION PRICING AS AT 95.01.01.17.38.02.00 PRODUCT ID: 10061
ORDER SPECIFICATION PRICING PARTY: ABRAHAMSONS [Potential Counterparty No 1]
DEFINED CIRCUMSTANCES ID • 26 COMMISSION RATE: 1.25%
DISCOUNT RATE: 10.00% pa
COMPONENT PRODUCT PRICES: see Column 3 below
Feasible Net Component Implied Net Assessed Net Net Maximum
Product Contingent X Product = Contingent Contingent X Probabilities = Contingent Contingent Absolute
Definition Entitlement Prices Entitlement Entitlement of Entitlement Negative Negative
Values Amounts [ID 26] Amounts Amounts Occurrence (Valuation) Entitlement Entitlement
(A$000) (A$000) (A$000) Amounts (Valuation) Amount (A$000) Amounts (A$000)
< 0.000 0.000 (A$000)
1600 (57.280) 0.000220 (0.0126) (57.280) 0.000020 (0.0011 ) (0.0011) (57.280)
1610 (57.280) 0.000227 (0.0130) (57.280) 0.000027 (0.0015) (0.0015)
1620 (57.280) 0.000237 (0.0136) (57.280) 0.000037 (0.0021 ) (0.0021 )
1630 (57.280) 0.000249 (0.0143) (57.280) 0.000049 (0.0028) (0.0028)
1640 (57.280) 0.000266 (0.0152) (57.280) 0.000066 (0.0038) (0.0038)
1650 (57.280) 0.000287 (0.0164) (57.280) 0.000087 (0.0050) (0.0050)
1660 (57.280) 0.000314 (0.0180) (57.280) 0.000114 (0.0065) (0.0065)
2130 (57.280) 0.029642 (1.6979) (57.280) 0.029442 (1.6864) (1.6864)
2140 (57.280) 0.028625 (1.6396) (57.280) 0.028425 (1.6282) (1.6282)
2150 (57.280) 0.027469 (1.5734) (57.280) 0.027269 (1.5620) (1.5620)
2160 (57.280) 0.026193 (1.5003) (57.280) 0.025993 (1.4889) (1.4889)
2170 (57.280) 0.024819 (1.4216) (57.280) 0.024619 (1.4102) (1.4102)
2180 (57.280) 0.023369 (1.3386) (57.280) 0.023169 (1.3271 ) (1.3271)
2190 (57.280) 0.021865 (1.2524) (57.280) 0.021665 (1.2410) (1.2410)
2200 (57.280) 0.020330 (1.1645) (57.280) 0.020130 (1.1530) (1.1530)
> 0.000 0.146635 0.000 0.000 0.158835 (0.000) 0.000
1.0402 (59.580) 1.0000 (57.280) (57.280) (57.280)
Figure imgf000045_0001
Base Contract Bid Price (in Product Denomination terms): 59.580
Net Present Value (at 10.00% pa): 51.280 49.261
+ Flat Commis sion (1.25%): 0.640
= Contract Bid Price (in Product Denomination Terms): 51.920
Implied Base Margin on Contract: 2.019
Figure imgf000046_0001
CHART B6
APPLICATION ID: 001
ORDER SPECIFICATION PRICING AS AT 95.01.01.17.38.02.00 PRODUCT ID: 10061
ORDER SPECIFICATION PRICING PARTY: CARPENTERS [Potential Counterparty No 2]
DEFINED CIRCUMSTANCES ID: 17 COMMISSION RATE 1 30%
DISCOUNT RATE 9 8% pa
COMPONENT PRODUCT PRICES see Column 3 below
Feasible Net Component Implied Net Assessed Net Net Maximum
Product Contingent X Product = Contingent Contingent X Probabilities = Contingent Contingent Absolute
Definition Entitlement Prices Entitlement Entitlement of Entitlement Negative Negative
Values Amounts [ID 17] Amounts Amounts Occurrence (Valuation) Entitlement Entitlement
(A$000) (A$000) (A$000) Amounts (Valuation) Amount (A$000) Amounts (A$000) (A$000)
< 0 000 0 000
1600 (57 860) 0 000220 (0 0127) (57 860) 0 000020 (0 0012) (0 0012) (57 860) 4s-
1610 (57 860) 0 00023 (0 0131 ) (57 860) 0 000027 (0 0016) (0 0016)
1620 (57 860) 0 00024 (0 0137) (57 860) 0 000037 (0 0021) (0 0021)
1630 (57 860) 0 00025 (0 0144) (57 860) 0 000049 (0 0028) (0 0028)
1640 (57 860) 0 00027 (0 0153) (57 860) 0 000066 (0 0038) (0 0038)
1650 (57 860) 0 00029 (0 0166) (57 860) 0 000087 (0 0050) (0 0050)
1660 (57 860) 0 00031 (0 0182) (57 860) 0 000114 (0 0066) (0 0066)
2130 (57 860) 0 029641 (1 7150) (57 860) 0 029442 (1 7035) (1 7035)
2140 (57 860) 0 028625 (1 6562) (57 860) 0 028425 (1 6447) (1 6447)
2150 (57 860) 0 027469 (1 5894) (57 860) 0 027269 (1 5778) (1 5778)
2160 (57 860) 0 026192 (1 5155) (57 860) 0 025993 (1 5040) (1 5040)
2170 (57 860) 0 024819 (1 4360) (57 860) 0 024619 (1 4245) (1 4245)
2180 (57 860) 0 023369 (1 3521 ) (57 860) 0 023169 (1 3406) (1 3406)
2190 (57 860) 0 021864 (1 2651) (57 860) 0 021665 (1 2535) (1 2535)
2200 (57 860) 0 020330 (1 1763) (57 860) 0 020130 (1 1647) (1 1647)
> 0 000 0 146635 0 000 0 000 0 158835 0 000 0 000
1 0300 (59 600) 1 0000 (57 860) (55 120) (57 860)
Base Contract Bid Price (in Product Denomination terms) 59 600
Net Present Value (at 9 8% pa) 51 310 49 760
+ Flat Commission (1 30%) 0 610
= Contract Bid Price (in Product Denomination Terms) 51 920
Implied Base Margin on Contract 1 550
Figure imgf000048_0001
CHART B8
APPLICATION ID: 001
PRIMARY ORDER MATCHING AS AT 95.01.01.17.38.07.00 PRODUCT ID: 10061
Ordering Party
Figure imgf000049_0001
Feasible Assessed Counterparty Contingent Entitlement Payout (A$)
Product Probabilities of
Values Occurrence Abrahamsons' Offer Carpenter Inc's Offer
< o oooooo 57,280 57,860
1600 0 000020 57,280 57,860
1920 0 000224 57,280 57,860
1930 0 000183 57,280 57,860
1940 0 000153 57,280 57,860
1950 0 000123 57,280 57,860
1960 0 000089 57,280 57,860
1970 0 000063 57,280 57,860
1980 0 000049 57,280 57,860 3
1990 0 000038 57,280 57,860 57,860
2200 0 000028 57,280 57,860
> 0 158835 57,280 57,860
Expected Return PV *: 42,730 43, 164
Investment: 51 ,920 51 ,920
Net Return: (9, 190) (8,756)
Expected Return PV = Present value of sum [ Ordering party's assessed probabilities of occurrence x Counterparty's entitlement payout offer] at discount rate of 11% per annum.
Figure imgf000049_0002
* Neither offer satisfies Abbotts & Taylor's minimum expected return (PV) of A$54,000. ** Neither offer satisfies Abbott & Taylor's requirement of a positive net return.
CHART C1
Figure imgf000050_0001
APPLICATION SPECIFICATION AS AT 91.06.03.17.00.00.00
APPLICATION ID: 201
APPLICATION PROMOTER: BLC INC
PRIMARY APPLICATION USE: INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT
FEASIBLE COUNTERPARTY NUMBERS: MULTIPLE COUNTERPARTIES
PRIVATE/PUBLIC USE: PUBLIC USE
00
ACCEPTABLE COMMS MEDIUMS: COMPUTER - COMPUTER LINK
RETAIL/WHOLESALE USE: WHOLESALE USE
PRICING AND MATCHING PROCESS: MAXIMISE PRE-TAX EXPECTED RETURN
ON CONSIDERATION INVESTMENT
CONTRACT REVALUATION FREQUENCY: DAILY
ORDERING PARTIES ALLOWED NEGATIVE CONTRACT PAYOFFS ? YES
APPLICATION ACCESS LIMITATIONS: NONE
CHART C2
Figure imgf000051_0001
PRODUCT SPECIFICATION AS AT 91.06.03.17.00.00.00
PRODUCT ID: 11099
PRODUCT SUMMARY:
APPLICATION ID: 201
APPLICATION PROMOTER: BLC INC
PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS:
MARKET: STOCK INDICES
SUB-MARKET: PTSE 75
MARKET TYPE: SPOT
ESTABLISHMENT DATE/TIME: 91.06.03.17.00.00.00
MATURITY DATE/TIME: By contract, at order matching
CONSIDERATION/ENTITLEMENT DENOMINATION TYPE: MONEY
CURRENCY TYPE (IF APPLICABLE): COMMERCIAL BANK DEPOSIT
NATIONAL CURRENCY TYPE (IF APPLICABLE): AUD (CONSIDERATION) and USD (ENTITLEMENT)
MINIMUM PRODUCT DEFINITION VALUE: Not Applicable
MAXIMUM PRODUCT DEFINITION VALUE: Not applicable
PRODUCT STEP VALUE: Not applicable
Figure imgf000052_0001
CHART C4
APPLICATION ID: 201
ORDER SPECIFICATION PRICING AS AT 92.06.03.17.38.02.00 PRODUCT ID: 11099
ORDER SPECIFICATION PRICING PARTY: ABRAHAMSONS [Potential Counterparty No 1] DEFINED CIRCUMSTANCES ID: 54 COMMISSION RATE. 1.25% DISCOUNT RATE: Not Applicable ENTITLEMENT/CONSIDERATION EXCHANGE RATE: 1.210
Feasible Net Component Implied Net Assessed Net Net Maximum
Product Contingent X Product = Contingent Contingent X Probabilities = Contingent Contingent Absolute Definition Entitlement Prices Entitlement Entitlement of Entitlement Negative Negative Values Amounts [ID 54] Amounts Amounts Occurrence (Valuation) Entitlement Entitlement
(US$000) (US$000) (US$000) Amounts (Valuation) Amount (US$000) Amounts
i
Not (84 00) 1 0000 (84 00) (84 00) 1 0000 (84 00) Applicable
1.0000 (84.00) 1.0000 (84.00)
Figure imgf000053_0001
Base Contract Bid Price (in AUD @ 1 210 exchange rate) 101 620
Net Present Value 101 620 NA
+ Flat Commission (1 25%) 1 280
= Contract Bid Price (in Product Denomination Terms) (A$000) 102 900
Implied Base Margin on Contract NA
CHART C5
APPLICATION ID: 201
ORDER SPECIFICATION PRICING AS AT 92.06.03.17.38.02.00 PRODUCT ID: 11099
ORDER SPECIFICATION PRICING PARTY: CARPENTERS INC [Potential Counterparty No 2] DEFINED CIRCUMSTANCES ID: 27 COMMISSION RATE: 1.30% DISCOUNT RATE: Not Applicable ENTITLEMENT/CONSIDERATION EXCHANGE RATE: 1.239
Feasible Net Component Implied Net Assessed Net Net Maximum
Product Contingent Product Contingent Contingent Probabilities Contingent Contingent Absolute
Definition Entitlement X Prices = Entitlement Entitlement X of Entitlement Negative Negative
Values Amounts [ID 27] Amounts Amounts Occurrence (Valuation) Entitlement Entitlement
(US$000) (US$000) (US$000) Amounts (Valuation) Amount (US$000) Amounts
Not Applicable (82 00) 1 0000 (82 00) (82 00) 1 0000 (82 00)
1.0000 (82.00) 1.0000 (82.00)
Figure imgf000054_0001
Base Contract Bid Price (in AUD @1 239 exchange rate) 101 563
Net Present Value 101 563 NA
+ Flat Commission (1 30%) 1 337
= Contract Bid Price (in Product Denomination Terms) (A$000) 102 900
Implied Base Margin on Contract NA

Claims

CLAIMS:
1. A data processing system to enable the formulation of multi-party investment contracts, the system comprising: input means by which an ordering party can input contract data relating to a least one phenomenon, each said phenomenon having a range of fumre outcomes and a fumre time of mamrity, the contract data including a set of probabilities of occurrence for each outcome in said range and a consideration due to a counterparty at or after the time of mamrity, and further by which at least one counterparty can input registering data including a set of probabilities of occurrence for each outcome in said range; and data processing means operable to price and match a contract for a said phenomenon from said contract data and said registering data, the pricing including: applying at least one template of entitlement as a function of outcome to each counterparty's set of probabilities to give one or more individual counterparty prices each equal to the ordering party's consideration; and applying the ordering party set of probabilities to each said template to derive an implied entitlement; the matching including: determining which counterparty will provide the best entitlement on maturity by comparing each implied entitlement with the consideration; and matching the contract with that counterparty having the template for the best said comparison.
2. A data processing system as claimed in claim 1, wherein, in the pricing, application of a template results in the multiplication of each elemental entitlement with each probability, and the summing of the products.
3. A data processing system as claimed in claim 2, further wherein a discount factor is applied to the sum to give a present day price relative to the time of mamrity.
4. A data processing system as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 3, wherein, in the pricing, each template is applied to the ordering party set of probabilities, and a multiplication of the elemental entitlements with each probability performed, and the products summed to give the implied entitlement.
5. A data processing system as claimed in claim 4, wherein the said sum has a discount rate applied to give a present day value relative to the time of mamrity.
6. A data processing system as claimed in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the contract data further includes a minimum expected entitlement against which the counterparty prices are compared for the purpose of accepting ones thereof for the matching.
7. A data processing system as claimed in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the contract data includes a constraint on the one or more templates applied by the data processing means.
8. A data processing system as claimed in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the data processing means periodically reprices the contract data for a matched contract to derive one or more implied entitlements for one or more counterparties.
9. A data processing system to enable the formulation of potential multi¬ party investments contracts, the system comprising: input means by which an ordering party can input contract data relating to a least one phenomenon, each said phenomenon having a range of fumre outcomes and a fumre time of mamrity, the contract data including a set of probabilities of occurrence for each outcome in said range and a consideration due to a counterparty at or after the time of mamrity, and further by which at least one counterparty can input registering data including a set of probabilities of occurrence for each outcome in said range; and data processing means operable to price a contract for a said phenomenon from said contract data and said registering data, the pricing including: applying at least one template of entitlement as a function of outcome to each counterparty's set of probabilities to give one or more individual counterparty prices each equal to the ordering party's consideration; and applying the ordering party set of probabilities to each said template to derive an implied entitlement.
10. A data processing system to enable the formulation of potential multi¬ party investments contracts, the system comprising: input means by which an ordering party can input contract data relating to a least one phenomenon, each said phenomenon having a range of fumre outcomes and a fumre time of mamrity, the contract data including a set of probabilities of occurrence for each outcome in said range and a consideration due to a counterparty at or after the time of mamrity, and further by which at least one counterparty can input registering data including a set of probabilities of occurrence for each outcome in said range; and data processing means operable to price and match a contract for a said phenomenon from said contract data and said registering data, the pricing including: dividing the consideration into integer components, and for each component: applying at least one template of entitlement as a function of outcome to each counterparty's set of probabilities to give one or more individual counterparty prices each equal to the ordering party's component consideration; and applying the ordering party set of probabilities to each said template to derive an implied component entitlement; the matching including: determimng which counterparty will provide the best entitlement on mamrity by comparing each implied component entitlements with the consideration; and matching the contract with the counterparties having the templates for the best said component comparisons.
11. A method for the formulation of multi-party investment contracts, the method comprising the steps of: inputting ordering party contract data relating to at least one phenomenon, each said phenomenon having a range of fumre outcomes and a fumre time of mamrity, the contract data including a set of probabilities of occurrence for each outcome in said range and a consideration due to a counterparty at or after the time of establishment; inputting counterparty registering data including a set of probabilities of occurrence for each outcome in said range; and pricing and matching a contract for a said phenomenon from said contract data and said registering data, said step of pricing, for each counterparty, including: applying at least one template of entitlement as a function of outcome to the set of probabilities to give one or more individual counterparty prices; and applying the ordering party set of probabilities to each individual counteφarty template to derive an implied entitlement; said step of matching including: deteπnining which counterparty will provide the best entitlement on mamrity by comparing the implied entitlements with the consideration; and matching the contract with the counteφarty having the template for the best said comparison.
12. A method as claimed in claim 11, whereby the step of pricing comprises the further steps of multiplying each elemental entitlement with each probability and summing the products.
13. A method as claimed in claim 11, comprising the further step of applying a discount factor to the sum to give a present day price relative to the time of mamrity.
14. A method as claimed in any one of claims 11 to 13, whereby the step of pricing comprises the further steps of applying each template to the ordering party set of probabilities, multiplying the elemental entitlements with each probability, and summing the products to give the implied entitlement.
15. A method as claimed in claim 14, comprising the further step of applying a discount rate to the sum to give a present day value relative to the time of mamrity.
16. A method as claimed in any one of claims 12 to 15, whereby the contract data further includes a minimum expected entitlement, and the step of pricing further including the step of comparing the minimum expected entitlement against the counteφarty prices to accept ones thereof for the step of matching.
17. A method as claimed in any one of claims 12 to 16, whereby the
5 contract data includes a constraint on the one or more templates applied in the step of giving the individual counteφarty prices.
18. A method as claimed in any one of claims 11 to 17, comprising the further step of periodically repricing the contract data for a matched contract to derive o one or more implied entitlements for one or more counteφarties.
19. A method for the formulation of potential multi-party investments contracts, the method comprising the steps of: inputting ordering party contract data relating to at least one phenomenon, each 5 said phenomenon having a range of fumre outcomes and a fumre time of mamrity, the contract data including a set of probabilities of occurrence for each outcome in said range and a consideration due to a counteφarty at or after the time of establishment; inputting counteφarty registering data including a set of probabilities of occurrence for each outcome in said range; and o pricing a potential contract for a said phenomenon from said contract data and said registering data, said step of pricing, for each counteφarty, including: applying at least one template of entitlement as a function of outcome to the set of probabilities to give one or more individual counteφarty prices; and applying the ordering party set of probabilities to each individual counteφarty 5 template to derive an implied entitlement.
20. A method for the formulation of multi-party investment contracts, the method comprising the steps of: inputting ordering party contract data relating to at least one phenomenon, each said phenomenon having a range of fumre outcomes and a fumre time of mamrity, the contract data including a set of probabilities of occurrence for each outcome in said range and a consideration due to a counteφarty at or after the time of establishment; inputting counteφarty registering data including a set of probabilities of occurrence for each outcome in said range; and pricing and matching a contract for a said phenomenon from said contract data and said registering data, said step of pricing, for each counteφarty, including: dividing the consideration into integer components are for each component; applying at least one template of entitlement as a function of outcome to the set of probabilities to give one or more individual counteφarty prices; and applying the ordering party set of probabilities to each individual counteφarty template to derive an implied component entitlement; said step of matching including: determining which counteφarty will provide the best entitlement on mamrity by comparing the implied component entitlements with the consideration; and matching the contract with the counteφarty having the templates for the best said component comparisons.
PCT/AU1996/000420 1995-07-07 1996-07-05 Methods and apparatus relating to the formulation and trading of investment contracts WO1997003408A1 (en)

Priority Applications (8)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
US09/000,264 US6157918A (en) 1995-07-07 1996-07-05 Methods and apparatus relating to the formulation and trading of investment contracts
BR9609512-1A BR9609512A (en) 1995-07-07 1996-07-05 Data processing system and process for the formulation of investment contracts of multiple parties.
EP96921823A EP0842479A4 (en) 1995-07-07 1996-07-05 Methods and apparatus relating to the formulation and trading of investment contracts
JP50536197A JP4795500B2 (en) 1995-07-07 1996-07-05 Investment contract formulation and transaction method and apparatus
NZ311587A NZ311587A (en) 1995-07-07 1996-07-05 Formulation and trading of investment contracts
AU62939/96A AU698181B2 (en) 1995-07-07 1996-07-05 Methods and apparatus relating to the formulation and trading of investment contracts
US10/615,796 US7617147B2 (en) 1995-07-07 2003-07-10 Methods and apparatus relating to the formulation and trading of investment contracts
US12/607,786 US8229817B2 (en) 1995-07-07 2009-10-28 Methods and apparatus relating to the formulation and trading of investment contracts

Applications Claiming Priority (4)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
AUPN4060 1995-07-07
AUPN4060A AUPN406095A0 (en) 1995-07-07 1995-07-07 Methods and apparatus relating to the formulation and trading of economic management contracts
AUPN9636 1996-05-02
AUPN9636A AUPN963696A0 (en) 1996-05-02 1996-05-02 Methods and apparatus relating to the formulation and trading of investment contracts

Related Child Applications (2)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
US09000264 A-371-Of-International 1996-07-05
US09/667,423 Continuation US6622130B1 (en) 1995-07-07 2000-09-21 Methods and apparatus relating to the formulation and trading of investment contracts

Publications (1)

Publication Number Publication Date
WO1997003408A1 true WO1997003408A1 (en) 1997-01-30

Family

ID=25644990

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
PCT/AU1996/000420 WO1997003408A1 (en) 1995-07-07 1996-07-05 Methods and apparatus relating to the formulation and trading of investment contracts

Country Status (9)

Country Link
US (4) US6157918A (en)
EP (1) EP0842479A4 (en)
JP (3) JP4795500B2 (en)
CN (1) CN1222899C (en)
AU (1) AU698181B2 (en)
BR (1) BR9609512A (en)
CA (1) CA2220903A1 (en)
NZ (1) NZ311587A (en)
WO (1) WO1997003408A1 (en)

Cited By (10)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
WO2000028449A2 (en) * 1998-11-05 2000-05-18 Om Technology Ab An automated exchange system
WO2000043937A2 (en) * 1999-01-21 2000-07-27 Sedco Forex International Inc. Effect of idle time for pricing lease contracts and lease contract options
JP2007035064A (en) * 1995-07-07 2007-02-08 Swychco Infrastructure Services Pty Ltd Methods and apparatus relating to formulation and trading of investment contracts
US7246093B1 (en) 1998-11-03 2007-07-17 International Sercurities Exchange, Llc Automated exchange for trading derivative securities
JP2009175985A (en) * 2008-01-23 2009-08-06 Daiwa Securities Group Inc Securities trading order support system, securities trading order support processing method, and program
US7689498B2 (en) 2000-08-24 2010-03-30 Volbroker Limited System and method for trading options
US7761364B2 (en) 2005-09-07 2010-07-20 International Securities Exchange, Llc Midpoint matching system
US7774263B1 (en) 2005-09-07 2010-08-10 International Securities Exchange, Llc Linked displayed market and midpoint matching system
EP2400453A1 (en) * 2002-02-14 2011-12-28 Zachary Pessin Apparatus and method of a distributed captial system
US8224741B2 (en) 2008-04-28 2012-07-17 International Securities Exchange, Llc Complex order leg synchronization

Families Citing this family (87)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US6134536A (en) * 1992-05-29 2000-10-17 Swychco Infrastructure Services Pty Ltd. Methods and apparatus relating to the formulation and trading of risk management contracts
US6421653B1 (en) * 1997-10-14 2002-07-16 Blackbird Holdings, Inc. Systems, methods and computer program products for electronic trading of financial instruments
US20060190383A1 (en) * 2003-03-24 2006-08-24 Blackbird Holdings, Inc. Systems for risk portfolio management
US6313833B1 (en) * 1998-10-16 2001-11-06 Prophet Financial Systems Graphical data collection and retrieval interface
US7451105B1 (en) * 1999-03-22 2008-11-11 Four Four Corporation Computer apparatus and method for trading and clearing futures contracts to accommodate a variable sensitivity related to the general level of interest rates
US7228286B1 (en) * 1999-05-06 2007-06-05 Gamble Iii James L Market system and method for promotion of innovations to efficient public policy
US6691094B1 (en) * 1999-09-28 2004-02-10 Lee N. Herschkorn Bank loan trading system and method
US9727916B1 (en) 1999-12-30 2017-08-08 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated Automated trading exchange system having integrated quote risk monitoring and integrated quote modification services
US20020026401A1 (en) * 2000-02-21 2002-02-28 Hueler Kelli Hustad System and method for facilitating electronic bidding between buyers and sellers in financial industries
US7970681B1 (en) 2000-04-10 2011-06-28 Goldman Sachs & Co. Reduction of financial instrument volatility
US7299204B2 (en) * 2000-05-08 2007-11-20 Karl Peng System for winning investment selection using collective input and weighted trading and investing
JP2003533793A (en) * 2000-05-16 2003-11-11 ブラックバード・ホールディングス，インコーポレイテッド System and method for electronically executing a derivative transaction
US6868400B1 (en) * 2000-05-24 2005-03-15 Nehanet Corp. Spread-maximizing travel-services trading system using buyer- and seller-specified multi-attribute values
JP2003536146A (en) * 2000-06-09 2003-12-02 ブラックバード・ホールディングス，インコーポレイテッド System and method for reverse auction of financial instruments
US7136834B1 (en) 2000-10-19 2006-11-14 Liquidnet, Inc. Electronic securities marketplace having integration with order management systems
US20050131796A1 (en) * 2000-11-28 2005-06-16 Goldman Sachs & Co. Reduction of financial instrument volatility
US7457774B1 (en) * 2000-11-28 2008-11-25 Goldman Sachs & Co. Dynamic reallocation hedge accounting
US7340428B1 (en) * 2000-11-28 2008-03-04 Gxs, Inc. System and method for using composite scoring in an auction process
US7295999B1 (en) 2000-12-20 2007-11-13 Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. System and method for determining eligibility and enrolling members in various programs
US20030236727A1 (en) * 2001-03-08 2003-12-25 Champion Robert R. Enhanced techniques for generating and managing electronic investment contracts
US20020128941A1 (en) * 2001-03-08 2002-09-12 Champion Robert R. Techniques for generating and managing electronic investment contracts
WO2002086671A2 (en) * 2001-04-20 2002-10-31 American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. System and method for travel carrier contract management and optimization
US7653560B2 (en) * 2001-04-25 2010-01-26 Hueler Investment Services, Inc. Independent annuity placement system and method
US7409367B2 (en) 2001-05-04 2008-08-05 Delta Rangers Inc. Derivative securities and system for trading same
US20020188552A1 (en) * 2001-06-07 2002-12-12 Lawrence Kavounas Devices, softwares and methods for automated execution of conditional securities trade orders and interfaces for entering the same
WO2003005161A2 (en) 2001-07-02 2003-01-16 American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. System and method for airline purchasing program management
US20040249642A1 (en) * 2003-06-03 2004-12-09 The Boeing Company Systems, methods and computer program products for modeling uncertain future benefits
US7747503B2 (en) * 2001-07-10 2010-06-29 The Boeing Company System, method and computer program product for determining a minimum asset value for exercising a contingent claim of an option
US7676413B2 (en) * 2001-07-10 2010-03-09 The Boeing Company System, method and computer program product for determining a minimum asset value for exercising a contingent claim of an option
US6862579B2 (en) * 2001-07-10 2005-03-01 The Boeing Company Systems, methods and computer program products for performing a generalized contingent claim valuation
US7739176B2 (en) * 2001-07-10 2010-06-15 The Boeing Company System, method and computer program product for performing a contingent claim valuation of an early-launch option
US7698189B2 (en) * 2001-07-10 2010-04-13 The Boeing Company System, method and computer program product for determining a minimum asset value for exercising a contingent claim of an option
US7761361B2 (en) * 2001-07-10 2010-07-20 The Boeing Company System, method and computer program product for performing a contingent claim valuation of a combination option
US7752113B2 (en) * 2001-07-10 2010-07-06 The Boeing Company System, method and computer program product for performing a contingent claim valuation of a multi-stage option
US7676412B2 (en) * 2001-07-10 2010-03-09 The Boeing Company System, method and computer program product for determining a minimum asset value for exercising a contingent claim of an option
US7747504B2 (en) * 2001-07-10 2010-06-29 The Boeing Company System, method and computer program product for determining a minimum asset value for exercising a contingent claim of an option
WO2003012598A2 (en) * 2001-08-02 2003-02-13 American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. System and method for the interactive trading of derivatives
US7539620B2 (en) * 2002-07-02 2009-05-26 American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. System and method for facilitating transactions among consumers and providers of travel services
US20040260581A1 (en) * 2001-08-23 2004-12-23 American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. Travel market broker system
US7499864B2 (en) 2002-01-25 2009-03-03 American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. Integrated travel industry system
US8560425B2 (en) * 2001-12-10 2013-10-15 Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Method and system for adding liquidity to alternative investment transactions
US7805323B2 (en) 2002-01-25 2010-09-28 American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. System and method for processing trip requests
US7624062B1 (en) 2002-03-18 2009-11-24 Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. Method and system for generating and trading composite contracts
US7685051B2 (en) * 2002-05-31 2010-03-23 Intercontinentalexchange, Inc. System for settling over the counter trades
US7716095B2 (en) * 2002-09-30 2010-05-11 Fannie Mae Web-based financial reporting system and method
US20050080701A1 (en) * 2002-12-23 2005-04-14 Ge Corporate Financial Services, Inc. Methods and systems for managing risk management information
US7660762B1 (en) 2003-03-28 2010-02-09 Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. Method and system for efficiently matching long and short positions in securities trading and transacting a series of overnight trades for balance sheet netting
US7233922B2 (en) 2003-04-02 2007-06-19 Cantor Index Llc System and method for wagering-based transferable financial instruments
US7962400B2 (en) 2003-04-02 2011-06-14 Cfph, Llc System and method for wagering based on the movement of financial markets
US7739166B2 (en) * 2003-06-03 2010-06-15 The Boeing Company Systems, methods and computer program products for modeling demand, supply and associated profitability of a good in a differentiated market
US7599849B2 (en) * 2003-06-03 2009-10-06 The Boeing Company Systems, methods and computer program products for determining a learning curve value and modeling associated profitability and costs of a good
US7627495B2 (en) * 2003-06-03 2009-12-01 The Boeing Company Systems, methods and computer program products for modeling demand, supply and associated profitability of a good
US7769628B2 (en) 2003-06-03 2010-08-03 The Boeing Company Systems, methods and computer program products for modeling uncertain future demand, supply and associated profitability of a good
US7627494B2 (en) 2003-06-03 2009-12-01 The Boeing Company Systems, methods and computer program products for modeling a monetary measure for a good based upon technology maturity levels
US7908193B2 (en) * 2003-10-20 2011-03-15 BGC Partrners, Inc. System and method for providing futures contracts in a financial market environment
US8121925B1 (en) 2004-02-11 2012-02-21 Ives Jr E Russell Method for managing an investment company
US7835961B2 (en) 2004-03-05 2010-11-16 Cantor Index Llc System and method for wagering in a financial market environment
US20050197938A1 (en) 2004-03-05 2005-09-08 Cantor Index Llc System and method for determining odds for wagering in a financial market environment
US8128474B2 (en) 2004-03-05 2012-03-06 Cantor Index, Llc Computer graphics processing methods and systems for presentation of graphics objects or text in a wagering environment
US7711628B2 (en) * 2004-03-05 2010-05-04 Cantor Index Llc System and method for offering intraday wagering in a financial market environment
US7637807B2 (en) 2004-04-29 2009-12-29 Cfph, L.L.C. System and method for mapping results from sporting events to game inputs
US20050245308A1 (en) 2004-04-29 2005-11-03 Cfph, Llc System and method for wagering based on financial market indicators
US7566270B2 (en) 2004-04-29 2009-07-28 Cfph, Llc System and method for wagering based on multiple financial market indicators
AU2005299618A1 (en) * 2004-10-27 2006-05-04 Itg Software Solutions, Inc. System and method for generating liquidity
US7840478B1 (en) 2004-11-17 2010-11-23 Icap Services North America Llc Pass through liquidity in a multi-tiered trading system and method
US20060200409A1 (en) * 2005-03-04 2006-09-07 Mcmahon Kevin R Method and system for trading in the future popularity of people, places, and things using pop future cards, contracts, and composites
US20060253361A1 (en) * 2005-05-04 2006-11-09 Robinson Mark I Method for providing total return swaps using a dealer hedging facility
US20070061239A1 (en) * 2005-09-12 2007-03-15 Cdc Investments, Lllp Sports player investment system
US8073763B1 (en) 2005-09-20 2011-12-06 Liquidnet Holdings, Inc. Trade execution methods and systems
US7818238B1 (en) * 2005-10-11 2010-10-19 Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Upside forward with early funding provision
US20070226119A1 (en) * 2006-03-21 2007-09-27 Balser Robert J Online valuation and trading of digital media
US20080015967A1 (en) * 2006-07-14 2008-01-17 Joseph Melville Gilmer Trend Contract
US8521627B2 (en) 2007-04-18 2013-08-27 Blockross Holdings, LLC Systems and methods for facilitating electronic securities transactions
US8117105B2 (en) 2007-04-18 2012-02-14 Pulse Trading, Inc. Systems and methods for facilitating electronic securities transactions
US8938397B2 (en) * 2007-07-23 2015-01-20 Icap Services North America Llc Systems and methods of facilitating trading of instruments
US8460085B2 (en) * 2007-12-21 2013-06-11 Cfph, Llc System and method for providing a roulette game based on financial market indicators
US8535140B2 (en) 2007-12-21 2013-09-17 Cfph, Llc System and method for providing a baccarat game based on financial market indicators
US10332332B2 (en) 2007-12-21 2019-06-25 Cfph, Llc System and method for slot machine game associated with financial market indicators
US8758108B2 (en) 2007-12-21 2014-06-24 Cfph, Llc System and method for slot machine game associated with market line wagers
US11257330B2 (en) 2008-02-15 2022-02-22 Cfph, Llc System and method for providing a baccarat game based on financial market indicators
US9886483B1 (en) * 2010-04-29 2018-02-06 Quest Software Inc. System for providing structured query language access to non-relational data stores
US8768812B2 (en) 2011-05-02 2014-07-01 The Boeing Company System, method and computer-readable storage medium for valuing a performance option
US11068979B1 (en) * 2011-11-07 2021-07-20 Nyse Chicago, Inc. Fee/rebate contingent order matching system and method
US8894462B2 (en) * 2011-12-22 2014-11-25 Activision Publishing, Inc. Interactive video game with visual lighting effects
US9183272B1 (en) 2013-11-06 2015-11-10 Dell Software Inc. System and method for accessing dimensional databases
US10157234B1 (en) 2015-02-27 2018-12-18 Quest Software Inc. Systems and methods for transforming datasets
US10559034B2 (en) * 2015-08-05 2020-02-11 The Toronto-Dominion Bank Systems and methods for verifying user identity based on social media messaging

Citations (7)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US4831526A (en) * 1986-04-22 1989-05-16 The Chubb Corporation Computerized insurance premium quote request and policy issuance system
US4903201A (en) * 1983-11-03 1990-02-20 World Energy Exchange Corporation Automated futures trading exchange
EP0434224A2 (en) * 1989-11-22 1991-06-26 Reuters Limited Integrated trading
WO1994028496A1 (en) * 1993-05-28 1994-12-08 Ian Kenneth Shepherd Methods and apparatus relating to the formulation and trading of risk management contracts
WO1995006917A1 (en) * 1993-09-02 1995-03-09 Equitrade Informations Systems Corporation Computerized system for developing multi-party property equity exchange scenarios
WO1996005563A1 (en) * 1994-08-17 1996-02-22 Reuters Transaction Services Limited Negotiated matching system
WO1996018160A1 (en) * 1993-05-28 1996-06-13 Ian Kenneth Shepherd Methods and apparatus relating to the formulation and trading of risk management contracts

Family Cites Families (30)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US3573747A (en) * 1969-02-24 1971-04-06 Institutional Networks Corp Instinet communication system for effectuating the sale or exchange of fungible properties between subscribers
GB1489573A (en) * 1974-10-18 1977-10-19 Automated Real Time Investment Communication system
US4346442A (en) * 1980-07-29 1982-08-24 Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated Securities brokerage-cash management system
US4376978A (en) * 1980-07-29 1983-03-15 Merrill Lynch Pierce, Fenner & Smith Securities brokerage-cash management system
US4980826A (en) * 1983-11-03 1990-12-25 World Energy Exchange Corporation Voice actuated automated futures trading exchange
US4722055A (en) * 1984-03-08 1988-01-26 College Savings Bank Methods and apparatus for funding future liability of uncertain cost
US4751640A (en) * 1984-06-14 1988-06-14 Citibank, Na Automated investment system
US4739478A (en) * 1984-11-21 1988-04-19 Lazard Freres & Co. Methods and apparatus for restructuring debt obligations
US4674044A (en) * 1985-01-30 1987-06-16 Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. Automated securities trading system
US4766539A (en) * 1985-03-08 1988-08-23 Fox Henry L Method of determining the premium for and writing a policy insuring against specified weather conditions
US4823264A (en) * 1986-05-27 1989-04-18 Deming Gilbert R Electronic funds transfer system
US4839804A (en) * 1986-12-30 1989-06-13 College Savings Bank Method and apparatus for insuring the funding of a future liability of uncertain cost
US4953085A (en) * 1987-04-15 1990-08-28 Proprietary Financial Products, Inc. System for the operation of a financial account
US4933842A (en) * 1988-02-29 1990-06-12 Tesseract Corporation Automated investment fund accounting system
US4975840A (en) * 1988-06-17 1990-12-04 Lincoln National Risk Management, Inc. Method and apparatus for evaluating a potentially insurable risk
AU5418190A (en) * 1989-03-28 1990-10-22 Chicago Board Of Trade Simulated live market trading system
US5077665A (en) * 1989-05-25 1991-12-31 Reuters Limited Distributed matching system
DE69023705T2 (en) * 1989-05-25 1996-07-04 Reuters Ltd Distributed system and method for establishing business relationships between buyers and sellers.
US5136501A (en) * 1989-05-26 1992-08-04 Reuters Limited Anonymous matching system
US5101353A (en) * 1989-05-31 1992-03-31 Lattice Investments, Inc. Automated system for providing liquidity to securities markets
US5126936A (en) * 1989-09-01 1992-06-30 Champion Securities Goal-directed financial asset management system
US5297031A (en) * 1990-03-06 1994-03-22 Chicago Board Of Trade Method and apparatus for order management by market brokers
EP0448800A1 (en) * 1990-03-29 1991-10-02 International Business Machines Corporation Securities instruments trading system
EP0512702A3 (en) * 1991-05-03 1993-09-15 Reuters Limited Automated currency trade matching system with integral credit checking
US5375055A (en) * 1992-02-03 1994-12-20 Foreign Exchange Transaction Services, Inc. Credit management for electronic brokerage system
US5970479A (en) * 1992-05-29 1999-10-19 Swychco Infrastructure Services Pty. Ltd. Methods and apparatus relating to the formulation and trading of risk management contracts
US6134536A (en) 1992-05-29 2000-10-17 Swychco Infrastructure Services Pty Ltd. Methods and apparatus relating to the formulation and trading of risk management contracts
WO1994020912A1 (en) * 1993-03-09 1994-09-15 C*Ats Software Inc. An object-oriented system for creating, structuring, manipulating and evaluating a financial instrument
GB9416673D0 (en) * 1994-08-17 1994-10-12 Reuters Ltd Data exchange filtering system
AU698181B2 (en) * 1995-07-07 1998-10-29 Swychco Infrastructure Services Pty Ltd Methods and apparatus relating to the formulation and trading of investment contracts

Patent Citations (7)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US4903201A (en) * 1983-11-03 1990-02-20 World Energy Exchange Corporation Automated futures trading exchange
US4831526A (en) * 1986-04-22 1989-05-16 The Chubb Corporation Computerized insurance premium quote request and policy issuance system
EP0434224A2 (en) * 1989-11-22 1991-06-26 Reuters Limited Integrated trading
WO1994028496A1 (en) * 1993-05-28 1994-12-08 Ian Kenneth Shepherd Methods and apparatus relating to the formulation and trading of risk management contracts
WO1996018160A1 (en) * 1993-05-28 1996-06-13 Ian Kenneth Shepherd Methods and apparatus relating to the formulation and trading of risk management contracts
WO1995006917A1 (en) * 1993-09-02 1995-03-09 Equitrade Informations Systems Corporation Computerized system for developing multi-party property equity exchange scenarios
WO1996005563A1 (en) * 1994-08-17 1996-02-22 Reuters Transaction Services Limited Negotiated matching system

Non-Patent Citations (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Title
See also references of EP0842479A4 *

Cited By (21)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
JP2007035064A (en) * 1995-07-07 2007-02-08 Swychco Infrastructure Services Pty Ltd Methods and apparatus relating to formulation and trading of investment contracts
JP2010176694A (en) * 1995-07-07 2010-08-12 Swychco Infrastructure Services Pty Ltd Method and apparatus relating to formulation and trading of investment contract
US7246093B1 (en) 1998-11-03 2007-07-17 International Sercurities Exchange, Llc Automated exchange for trading derivative securities
US9996876B1 (en) 1998-11-03 2018-06-12 International Securities Exchange, Llc Automated exchange for trading of securities
WO2000028449A3 (en) * 1998-11-05 2000-08-17 Om Technology Ab An automated exchange system
WO2000028449A2 (en) * 1998-11-05 2000-05-18 Om Technology Ab An automated exchange system
WO2000043937A2 (en) * 1999-01-21 2000-07-27 Sedco Forex International Inc. Effect of idle time for pricing lease contracts and lease contract options
WO2000043937A3 (en) * 1999-01-21 2001-04-12 Sedco Forex Internat Inc Effect of idle time for pricing lease contracts and lease contract options
US8032444B2 (en) 2000-08-24 2011-10-04 Volbroker Limited System and method for trading options
US7689498B2 (en) 2000-08-24 2010-03-30 Volbroker Limited System and method for trading options
EP2400453A1 (en) * 2002-02-14 2011-12-28 Zachary Pessin Apparatus and method of a distributed captial system
CN102496107A (en) * 2002-02-14 2012-06-13 Z·佩森 Apparatus and method of a distributed capital system
US8224744B2 (en) 2002-02-14 2012-07-17 Zachary Pessin Apparatus and method of a distributed capital system
US9020851B2 (en) 2002-02-14 2015-04-28 Zachary Pessin Apparatus and method of a distributed capital system
US9830656B2 (en) 2002-02-14 2017-11-28 Zachary Pessin Apparatus and method of a distributed capital system
US10643279B2 (en) 2002-02-14 2020-05-05 Zachary Pessin Apparatus and method of a distributed capital system
US7774263B1 (en) 2005-09-07 2010-08-10 International Securities Exchange, Llc Linked displayed market and midpoint matching system
US7761364B2 (en) 2005-09-07 2010-07-20 International Securities Exchange, Llc Midpoint matching system
US8326736B2 (en) 2005-09-07 2012-12-04 International Securities Exchange, Llc Linked displayed market and midpoint matching system
JP2009175985A (en) * 2008-01-23 2009-08-06 Daiwa Securities Group Inc Securities trading order support system, securities trading order support processing method, and program
US8224741B2 (en) 2008-04-28 2012-07-17 International Securities Exchange, Llc Complex order leg synchronization

Also Published As

Publication number Publication date
JP4795500B2 (en) 2011-10-19
JP2010176694A (en) 2010-08-12
JPH11513152A (en) 1999-11-09
US6622130B1 (en) 2003-09-16
JP4934734B2 (en) 2012-05-16
NZ311587A (en) 1998-04-27
US20040059667A1 (en) 2004-03-25
EP0842479A4 (en) 2004-03-24
CN1190479A (en) 1998-08-12
US20100049649A1 (en) 2010-02-25
AU698181B2 (en) 1998-10-29
US8229817B2 (en) 2012-07-24
US7617147B2 (en) 2009-11-10
CN1222899C (en) 2005-10-12
JP4733605B2 (en) 2011-07-27
BR9609512A (en) 1999-12-14
JP2007035064A (en) 2007-02-08
US6157918A (en) 2000-12-05
CA2220903A1 (en) 1997-01-30
EP0842479A1 (en) 1998-05-20
AU6293996A (en) 1997-02-10

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
AU698181B2 (en) Methods and apparatus relating to the formulation and trading of investment contracts
US6263321B1 (en) Apparatus and process for calculating an option
US7908195B2 (en) System for calculating model option settlement prices
US20120072373A1 (en) System and Method of Margining Fixed Payoff Products
US20030023546A1 (en) Methods and apparatus relating to the formulation and trading of risk management contracts
US8781941B2 (en) Method and apparatus for conducting loan repurchase transactions
US8417605B2 (en) Compound redemption processor
AU692967B2 (en) Methods and apparatus relating to the formulation and trading of risk management contracts
CA2809046A1 (en) Non-biased, centrally-cleared financial instrument and method of clearing and settling
US20120030138A1 (en) Compound redemption processor for a single issuer
Jacobs et al. The long and short on long-short
US20060041490A1 (en) Optimizing investment strategies for long/short fund portfolios
US8326719B2 (en) Compound redemption device
US20120173455A1 (en) Apparatus for processing compound redemption of a single issuer
US20140297497A1 (en) Compound redemption processor
Robinson Asset allocation in balanced portfolios: a note on the place of property
AU2019203554A1 (en) Non-biased, centrally-cleared financial instrument and method of clearing and settling
Iwaszczuk Managing Exporters’ Foreign Exchange Risk Using Vanilla Currency Options1

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
WWE Wipo information: entry into national phase

Ref document number: 96195322.5

Country of ref document: CN

AK Designated states

Kind code of ref document: A1

Designated state(s): AL AM AT AU AZ BB BG BR BY CA CH CN CZ DE DK EE ES FI GB GE HU IL IS JP KE KG KP KR KZ LK LR LS LT LU LV MD MG MK MN MW MX NO NZ PL PT RO RU SD SE SG SI SK TJ TM TR TT UA UG US UZ VN AM AZ BY KG KZ MD RU TJ TM

AL Designated countries for regional patents

Kind code of ref document: A1

Designated state(s): KE LS MW SD SZ UG AT BE CH DE DK ES FI FR GB GR IE IT LU MC NL PT SE BF BJ CF CG CI CM GA

DFPE Request for preliminary examination filed prior to expiration of 19th month from priority date (pct application filed before 20040101)
121 Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application
WWE Wipo information: entry into national phase

Ref document number: 311587

Country of ref document: NZ

ENP Entry into the national phase

Ref document number: 2220903

Country of ref document: CA

Ref document number: 2220903

Country of ref document: CA

Kind code of ref document: A

ENP Entry into the national phase

Ref document number: 1997 505361

Country of ref document: JP

Kind code of ref document: A

WWE Wipo information: entry into national phase

Ref document number: 1996921823

Country of ref document: EP

REG Reference to national code

Ref country code: DE

Ref legal event code: 8642

WWE Wipo information: entry into national phase

Ref document number: 09000264

Country of ref document: US

WWP Wipo information: published in national office

Ref document number: 1996921823

Country of ref document: EP