Dow Jones Gltich

It seems to me that it had to be more than typing a B instead of an M. As it turns out I just happened to be watching CNBC and eating lunch when all this occurred. CNBC just happened to be looking at P&G when these events apparently started. P&G was trading right around $60 when it started.

Did the trader type Buy xB @ $59 or Sell xB @ $59 when they meant xM? How could either one of those trades have accounted for PG dropping to $40?

It is notable that PG only has 2.8B shares outstanding. How could a trade, that at a minimum represented 1/3 of the shares of PG, get in the system?

I think that the design of trading systems reflects the rationality of the trading markets. I would expect the order to go through and the system would try to satisfy as much of it as possible. There's always the possibility that someone might sell additional stocks at some time, so the buy order could get more stocks than those visible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbasnett

It seems to me that it had to be more than typing a B instead of an M. As it turns out I just happened to be watching CNBC and eating lunch when all this occurred. CNBC just happened to be looking at P&G when these events apparently started. P&G was trading right around $60 when it started.

Did the trader type Buy xB @ $59 or Sell xB @ $59 when they meant xM? How could either one of those trades have accounted for PG dropping to $40?

It is notable that PG only has 2.8B shares outstanding. How could a trade, that at a minimum represented 1/3 of the shares of PG, get in the system?

---

There was a Japanese trader who royally screwed up and cost his company like $100 million dollars.

That didn't really crash the market.

Might be more of anxiety about the Greek Rioters who actually killed three bankers via setting fire to the building.

It seems to me that it had to be more than a one key mistake.