Gold Futures Position-Limit Aggregation at the Close
Assume a PMEX member's proprietary gold futures desk has a published proprietary limit of 1,000 lots per contract. The member's 90%-owned subsidiary holds 150 lots in the same contract, and the member's own desk holds 850 lots. A corporate client already holds 460 lots against a client limit of 500 lots. At 14:55, the client instructs the desk to buy 100 more lots before the 15:00 close. The desk head says the client order is 'just client business' and should not affect the member's proprietary headroom; the subsidiary's trader says its 150 lots are 'separate legal entity.' The compliance system shows no hedge exemption on file, and the member has not aggregated related proprietary accounts in its limit monitor. The exchange's rule, as stated in the member's rulebook, aggregates a member and its related corporations for the proprietary limit; client limits apply per client.
1. Calculate the relevant positions and decide what quantity, if any, the desk may accept at 14:55.
Read the worked answer
The proprietary position is 850 lots plus the related subsidiary's 150 lots, which the rule aggregates: 1,000 lots. That is exactly the 1,000-lot proprietary limit, so there is no proprietary headroom and adding any proprietary lot would breach. Separately, the client holds 460 lots against a 500-lot client limit, so the maximum additional quantity for that client is 40 lots. The client's instruction is for 100 lots, so the desk cannot accept the full order. It may accept no more than 40 lots, and only if the client explicitly agrees to a partial fill and all other controls pass. The desk head's view that client business does not affect proprietary headroom is irrelevant to the client limit, and the subsidiary's 'separate legal entity' argument fails because the rule aggregates related corporations. With no hedge exemption on file, the desk cannot claim one.
2. What should the desk and compliance do if the client insists on 100 lots or proposes splitting the order across two sub-accounts?
Read the worked answer
The desk should refuse the excess and explain the client-limit constraint. If the client proposes splitting the order across two sub-accounts, compliance should aggregate the beneficial client position and treat the split as an attempt to evade the 500-lot limit unless the accounts are genuinely separate beneficial owners with different control. The desk must not execute 100 lots in any form. It should document the order, the partial fill, the client's instructions and the reason for refusal. Compliance should also correct the limit monitor to aggregate related proprietary accounts and review why the aggregation was missing. If any excess fill has already occurred, the member should immediately assess whether a position-limit breach has occurred, reduce the position without delay, and make any required exchange notification. The priority is to prevent the breach, not to preserve the client relationship or the desk's convenience.