Analysis Of The Series Case About The Mandatory Liquidation Of Future Trading

Since the futures market does not need to pay all the funds,only the corresponding margin is required to obtain the trading rights,so futures trading is more risky.Mandatory liquidation is an important system to control trading risks.However,in practice,due to the incomplete improvement of relevant laws and regulations,mandatory liquidation may not only play its due role,but has repeatedly become the trigger for disputes.Although the futures exchange has formulated a series of special trading rules,there is a lack of a national-level law to uniformly stipulate the mandatory liquidation system.The existing legal and regulatory levels are too low,and the mechanism for forcibly closing the position is There are legal gaps and even legal conflicts,so it is easy to cause litigation disputes in practice.This paper selects three typical cases of mandatory liquidation and finds that the controversial focus of this type of case mainly focuses on the following aspects: whether the futures company implements the mandatory liquidation of whether there is a fault;how to determine the distribution of responsibility after the improper liquidation is improper;Liability and loss calculation problems caused by mandatory liquidation.After sorting out the relevant provisions of China's laws and regulations,combining the views of the academic circles on these issues,using legal,logical and legislative purposes as tools,the conclusions are as follows: When a futures company implements a mandatory liquidation,it f irst needs to determine that the margin is insufficient and requires futures.Under the premise that the company's margin ratio is set reasonably,according to the funds actually occupied after the settlement on the current day,the risk degree is greater than or equal to 100% and the account equity is less than the level of the exchange according to the exchange margin standard;secondly,the notification obligation must be fully fulfilled.In terms of methods,futures companies should contact customers as much as possible to ensure the preservation of relevant evidence;in the performance time,when the margin is lower than the agreed margin but higher than the statutory deposit,the notification obligation must be fulfilled first;when the margin is lower than the margin When the legal standard is met,the position can be closed directly.Finally,if the customer adds the margin or self-closing and the conditions for exercising in a timely manner,the risk of overnight risk is not difficult because of the long-term risk from the receipt of the margin call from the customer to the opening of the market;Intraday risks are often caused by extreme market conditions.It is difficult to have uniform standards for different cases,and specific analysis is needed to determine reasonable time.When reviewing whether a customer has a margin call condition,it means that the margin account can deposit the deposit.On the issue of the distribution of responsibilities after the improper implementation of the mandatory l iquidation,the most important issue is the need to clarify the legal nature of the mandatory liquidation,the mandatory liquidation of the rights of the futures company,the improper exercise of the rights,and the combination of the fault size and Responsibility distribution of causal relationships between losses.In the liability commitment and calculation of improperly forcibly closing a futures company,it is generally feasible to use the method of compensation for losses.The compensation is limited to the actual loss,and the actual loss is calculated as: the total loss of the customer is deducted before the mandatory liquidation.The part of the floating profit and loss(the second day becomes the actual profit and loss)displayed after the settlement of the trading day is the result of the customer's loss caused by the forcible liquidation of the futures company,which is the final calculation result of the futures company's responsibility.