The Locate Letter That Was Only Indicative
At 08:40 the equity derivatives desk of a foreign branch short sells 2.1 million shares of a KOSPI-listed company, equal to 0.7% of shares outstanding. The only 'locate' is an email from the prime broker stating 'indicative borrow, subject to confirmation'. The trade fails to settle on T+2 and is bought back. At 09:05 the cash equities desk receives a large institutional buy order for 3.5 million shares of the same stock; before executing, the prop desk buys call options and the sales desk tells two hedge-fund clients that 'flow is coming'. All sell orders are tagged 'long' in the branch system because the tag field defaults. No short-position report is made. The compliance officer later sees the chat messages.
1. Identify every market-conduct breach in the sequence.
Read the worked answer
The short sale was naked: an 'indicative, subject to confirmation' email is not a confirmed borrow or locate, and the failure to settle confirms that. Naked short selling is prohibited; the branch needed a firm borrow or equivalent arrangement before the order. The prop desk's option purchases ahead of the client buy order look like front-running, and the sales desk's 'flow is coming' messages are tipping of confidential client order information. Both can be unfair trade practices. Tagging all sell orders as 'long' is a false order record and defeats short-sale monitoring. The 0.7% position also triggers short-position reporting obligations that were missed. Separately, the branch's supervision failed: no pre-trade locate control, no order-tag validation, and no escalation when settlement failed. Market manipulation is not automatically established, but the chat messages and timing should be investigated for intent to create a false appearance of demand.
2. How would you distinguish front-running from legitimate hedging and from market manipulation in this fact pattern?
Read the worked answer
Front-running turns on confidential information about an imminent client order and trading ahead of it for the firm's or another client's benefit. Here the prop desk bought calls after the 3.5 million-share buy order arrived and before execution; that timing and the sales desk's messages support front-running and tipping. Legitimate hedging would be independently justified, typically executed after or alongside the client order under a disclosed hedge policy, and would not depend on leaking 'flow'. Market manipulation requires intent to mislead the market about price or demand, for example by placing orders the firm does not intend to execute. The facts do not yet show a manipulative scheme, but the option buying plus 'flow is coming' messages could be used to induce others to trade. The investigation should separate: (a) the naked short and locate failure; (b) the prop option trades; (c) the sales desk communications; (d) the order-tagging and reporting failures. Each has a different intent and evidence standard.
3. What should compliance do immediately, and what penalties or supervisory outcomes are realistic?
Read the worked answer
Immediately suspend the derivatives and prop desks involved, preserve chats, emails, order logs, locate emails and settlement records, and place the individuals on administrative leave if needed. Notify the FSS and cooperate with any inspection; do not wait for the internal investigation to conclude. Assess whether the client order was affected and whether compensation or trade reversal is appropriate. Remediate controls: hard pre-trade locate validation, no 'indicative' locates, order-tag defaults that cannot be overridden, short-position reporting automation, and surveillance for cross-desk information flow. Realistic outcomes include criminal referral for naked short selling and front-running, administrative fines, business suspension, personnel sanctions and reputational damage. The branch should also review whether the prime broker's 'indicative' language was relied on elsewhere. A cover-up or deletion of chats would aggravate penalties significantly.