Platform · Risk
Before you chase return, know your exposure.
Risk controls that live in a policy document are not controls. Raptor enforces limits in the order path, shows the trader why an order was refused, and keeps a kill switch where a human can reach it.
- What it is
- A risk engine in the order path: pre-trade validation, exposure and concentration limits, daily loss and drawdown guards, and operator kill switches.
- Who it is for
- Risk managers, desk heads and brokers who are accountable for what the platform is allowed to do.
- Why it matters
- The moment you need a limit is the moment nobody has time to enforce it manually.
- How it connects
- Every order — human or automated — passes the same checks. The engine is what bounds EMIL: the intelligence layer can conclude anything it likes and still be refused here, with the reason logged.
- What happens next
- Bring a limit you actually enforce. We will configure it, breach it deliberately, and read the refusal together.
Risk
Before you chase return, know your exposure.
Most damaging positions were not obviously large. They were correlated, concentrated, or held into a session that behaves differently. Raptor makes that shape visible, and puts the controls in the order path rather than in a policy document.
Exposure by asset class
Illustrative notional exposure, 1142k USD total. Simulated book.
Capital protection
Structure the account, not just the position.
Protected capital, a profit floor that only ratchets upward, a drawdown guard measured from the high-water mark, and a daily loss budget. Three horizons, because a bad hour and a structural decline are different problems.
- Protected
- 10,000USDDeclared untouchable. EMIL may not put it at risk — an order that would draw on it is refused before it becomes an order.
- Banked profit
- 2,841USDGains moved above the profit floor. Once banked they join the protected side rather than funding larger positions.
- Working
- 1,420USDThe portion actually deployed. Exposure limits, loss budgets and drawdown guards all measure against this.
Three controls at three horizons, because a bad hour, a bad fortnight and a structural decline are different problems. All three are enforced in the order path, outside the intelligence layer, so nothing EMIL concludes can widen them. None of it removes market risk: structure changes what automation can reach, not what the market can do.
Enforcement
Checked in the path, not in the morning report.
A control that runs after the order has gone is a record, not a control. These run where the order is, and on the book as a whole.
In the order path
- Every ticket checked before it routes, and refused with a reason rather than silently
- Exposure aggregated across the account, not per position
- Margin controls that act at the moment of the order
- A drawdown guard that acts on the account, above whatever a strategy believes
Across the book
- A- and B-book routing decided per client, per instrument, per session
- Exposure monitored across the whole book with a hedging desk against it
- Margin calls predicted before they trigger rather than reported after
- Flow that behaves oddly surfaced as it happens
Controls in the order path
Pre-trade validation
Size, exposure, concentration and margin checked before an order is accepted.
Exposure limits
Per instrument, per asset class and aggregate, in lots or notional.
Loss and drawdown guards
Daily loss budgets and drawdown-from-high-water-mark limits, with a defined action on breach — stop opening, stop acting, or disarm automation entirely.
Protected capital
Declare a portion untouchable and set a profit floor that ratchets up as gains are banked. Automation cannot draw on either.
Kill switches
Close-all and halt-new-orders controls, scoped by account, desk or platform, with an audit record.
Refusal transparency
A refused order states which limit it breached and by how much. No silent rejections.
Audit trail
Every limit change, breach and override is recorded with actor, time and reason.
Trading leveraged products carries a high level of risk to capital. Technology can improve analysis and controls; it cannot remove market risk.
Bring your risk policy to the demo
The most useful demo is the one where we configure your actual limits and then try to break them together.