The Block That Filled Better Than Expected
On Monday your institutional desk receives a single order to buy 400,000 shares of Hanil Chemical for one client, to be worked during the day, with discretion over price and venue. At 10:12 the trader enters a market order and it fills in three prints: 150,000 at 28.40, 150,000 at 28.55, and 100,000 at 28.70, an average of 28.52. The stock closes the session at 28.10. The desk had a poor quarter. At 16:50 the trader proposes to allocate only 250,000 shares to the client at 28.52 and to keep 150,000 for the firm's own inventory at the same average, reasoning that the client 'got a good fill and won't notice' and that the desk can carry the position into Tuesday. Separately, a retail client's limit order to buy 2,000 shares at 28.65 arrived Friday, sat unrouted in the order queue over the weekend, and was still unrouted when the block traded. When the retail client called at 14:00, the order was entered and filled at 28.95. On Wednesday the institutional client's custodian says its cash will arrive one business day after the contractual settlement date.
1. Evaluate the proposed allocation of the 400,000-share fill.
Read the worked answer
Reject it. The firm received a 400,000-share order and bought exactly 400,000 shares. There is nothing to allocate: the fill belongs to the client in full at the average price of 28.52 or at whatever price the pre-trade arrangement specifies. Withholding 150,000 for the desk is not an allocation decision, it is the firm taking a position out of its own client's order, and the stated motives make it worse: a weak quarter and the belief the client will not notice both go to intent, not to economics. Hindsight is doing the work here too; the close at 28.10 is irrelevant, and the desk may not use it to shift a loss onto the client or to capture a gain for itself.
Any genuine allocation question has to be resolved before execution under written, disclosed procedures, and any correction afterwards must run through the error-and-omission process with supervisory approval and contemporaneous documentation. Discretion over price and venue is not discretion over whether the client gets the shares. If the desk wants inventory, it buys in the market after the client order is complete, at its own risk.
2. What is wrong with how the retail limit order was handled, and what should the client be paid?
Read the worked answer
Two problems. First, prompt handling: a customer limit order that arrived Friday and could have executed should have been routed and worked, not left in a queue over a weekend and into a session in which the same security traded actively. Second, priority: while the retail order sat unrouted, the desk executed a large buy for another client in the same stock. Whether or not the desk saw the retail order, holding it while proprietary and institutional orders are filled is a priority-of-orders failure, and the appearance of trading ahead of a customer order is exactly what order-handling rules exist to prevent.
The remedy is to put the client in the position it would have occupied. The order should have been executed at 28.65 or better once the stock was trading through that price, so the fill should be repriced to 28.65, not the 28.95 actually obtained, with the difference absorbed by the firm. Then: document the timeline from order receipt to routing to fill, escalate to supervision, review the trader's other orders for the same pattern, and fix the queue process that allowed an executable order to sit. The representative should not negotiate a private settlement or explain the internal cause to the client beyond the correction.
3. Can the firm simply wait for the institutional client's cash after the settlement date? What governs that decision?
Read the worked answer
Not as an informal favor. On the contractual settlement date the firm is expected to deliver the securities against payment. If it delivers while the cash is still outstanding, it is extending unsecured credit to the client's custodian and carrying the counterparty and market risk until the money arrives, and if the client fails, the firm owns the problem. Whether that is acceptable depends on approved credit lines, the client's standing, and written extension procedures, not on the representative's relationship with the client.
The options are: an approved, documented settlement extension with operations and credit sign-off; accepting the fail and managing it under the firm's fail procedures, which may include a buy-in; or holding delivery until payment is received, if the agreement permits. What is not acceptable is silence, a verbal 'it's fine,' or back-dating anything. The representative should notify operations on the day the shortfall is known, put the custodian's statement in the file, and confirm the arrangement in writing. If the same custodian is repeatedly late, that belongs in the client's risk record, not in a series of undocumented accommodations.