Best Thread Capital Spreads

[sfbarr]

I have held an account with Capital for over a year now although most of my trades are with IG (I opened an account with IG long before my Capital account and prefer the interface). I have had problems on several occasions with Capital BUT the manner in which these were dealt with has impressed me. I've also noticed a marked improvement on the platform in the last few months.

As customer of Capital I appreciate this forum and in particular Simon's involvement. I'm not aware of any other SB company that has tried to have such an open relationship with its customers.

FXSScalper2 - I think Simon has answered your questions and based on the tone of your posts on this thread it would appear your problem is with Simon rather than his product. I would also say that someone else posted on this thread emphasising that each trader should chose a service provider that suits his/her strategy. If, as your username suggests, your strategy is scalping fx then I would suggest that the SB companies are probably not the best available provider.

 

[FXSCALPER2]

FXSCALPER2, I think Simon gave some good answers on some issues. It is up to us traders individually, to evaluate the truth of what he is saying. I must ask, do you trade with CS? Why I am asking you this is, because, you have a very set opinion on how things are while trading with CS. Some people might agree with you on this thread, I do not. Why you might ask; the answer is simply because, what you say does not reflect my personal experience while trading with them for over 2 years now. There are issues they need to correct, sure, but by far it does not reflect the dark picture you are painting.

I believe we, as traders should also take some personal responsibilities in our trading. There are SB companies that do a good job in certain areas, while others might be better suited to carry out a particular task. Also one has to restrain oneself from trading with SB companies when things are not safe, e.g, delay in execution, during news releases or when volatility goes through the roof. These could be occasions when one should be especially restrictive before taking too high a risk.

I look upon Simon's contribution on this thread as valuable. Even if one doesn't get all the answers to every question raised, there are still some interesting posts from his side.

I don't believe anything Simon says. I am a trader and I am not in the business of accepting explanations from bookies. He needs to sort out the rubbish execution, the delays, the control he takes away from people who trade with him. I was with a trainee this morning and the executions were abysmal. I don't care about your personal experiences. Simon is like a shop owner who sells you bad eggs and keeps on giving you reasons why he has to sell you bad eggs. I don't care if he sells nice potatos, I am buying my eggs elsewhere.

I hate all the shenanigans in this business, with signal sellers and crappy bookies. They are there to take your money and you are being silly defending them.

 

[gle101]

I don't believe anything Simon says. I am a trader and I am not in the business of accepting explanations from bookies. He needs to sort out the rubbish execution, the delays, the control he takes away from people who trade with him. I was with a trainee this morning and the executions were abysmal. I don't care about your personal experiences. Simon is like a shop owner who sells you bag eggs and keeps on giving you reasons why he has to sell you bad eggs. I don't care if he sells nice potatos, I am buying my eggs elsewhere.

I hate all the shenanigans in this business, with signal sellers and crappy bookies. They are there to take your money and you are being silly defending them.

You did not answer my question, do you trade live with CS?

 

[sfbarr]

"I don't care about your personal experiences".

FXSCALPER this is precisely my point, you don't care about other people's experiences especially if they don't agree with your own.

Anyway, on your hatred towards the signal sellers, bookies and Simon, don't hate the player, hate the game :cheesy:

 

[oiltanker]

my trades have been fine this morning.

there used to be a lot of emotion in my trading with all its pitfalls [shouting at the screen, over trading, second guessing, pre empting, winners into losers etc] until i read mark douglas trading the zone. i still do that stuff but less.

 

[zuke]

Your question is quite relevant. The answer probably is, that most of the traders are, despite CS' shortcomings, all things considered, satisfied with them. The basis of marketing is, if a company does not deliver a satisfactory product, clients will leave in droves and find something else that suits their needs better. The same simple marketing rules apply to the SB industry as well. If a company like Capitalspreads delivers a bad product altogether, a product which no one is satisfied with, they will watch their client base shrink, and the new clients arriving will not cover up for this loss. They will eventually be forced to close down the operation. Will the main share holders of Capitalspreads allow this to happen? Of course not. Capitalspreads have grown tremendously over the past two years and I am quite sure they are determined to keep their market share up to todays standard, and even grow more according to an organized marketing plan.

There are many SB companies and new ones coming up on the horizon, who want to come in and claim a big slice of a growing market segment. I am sure Capitalspreads feel the pressure building up, and are gearing up for increased competition. Capitalspreads have some issues to clear up, this is certain, we have read about them on this thread recently. I am quite confident, they will do just that. Growing competition will be the main reason for this to happen. This, put together with a more regulated industry, will force the SB companies to perform well. I see also, in the near future, a merger of some of the SB companies, for the small ones will not be able to survive, unless they have a tremendously well functioning product to offer.

Some very good points. However, I think the main reason why people dont move is that thex continue to swallow the stat that is fed to them by CS that "over 80% lose money". This is a way of SB companies pushing the blame on their deliberately inept platform and dubious filling practices onto the client in order to absolve themselves of responsibility.

 

[FXSCALPER2]

Some very good points. However, I think the main reason why people dont move is that thex continue to swallow the stat that is fed to them by CS that "over 80% lose money". This is a way of SB companies pushing the blame on their deliberately inept platform and dubious filling practices onto the client in order to absolve themselves of responsibility.

Painfully obvious, isn't it?

 

[zuke]

Painfully obvious, isn't it?

One would have thought so. The infeence by Simon is always that people are "moaning" because they are part of the 80% who lose money. Of course, that is utter nonsense...I am a full time trader and I view losing trades simply as a cost of doing business. I left CS a while back so am not "bitter"..Im merely trying to help others by passing on my experiences.

 

[davecrom01]

Phantom positions.

For those who, like me, HAVE seen the mysterious trades suddenly appear in their open positions - and for Simon, who says it hasn't happened - I'd like to suggest one possibility without taking sides.

I saw this happen to a guy this morning. It happened when he manually closed a long position before his stop loss was hit. He then went for a cup of coffee and came back to see that his original stop loss had been hit very quickly, and had become a short position instead.

I do know that he got out of his original position by PLACING A SHORT TRADE, rather than by CLOSING from his open positions.

I'm not saying thats all there is to it, but it may help ring a bell with others.

Dave

 

[gle101]

For those who, like me, HAVE seen the mysterious trades suddenly appear in their open positions - and for Simon, who says it hasn't happened - I'd like to suggest one possibility without taking sides.

I saw this happen to a guy this morning. It happened when he manually closed a long position before his stop loss was hit. He then went for a cup of coffee and came back to see that his original stop loss had been hit very quickly, and had become a short position instead.

I do know that he got out of his original position by PLACING A SHORT TRADE, rather than by CLOSING from his open positions.

I'm not saying thats all there is to it, but it may help ring a bell with others.

Dave

Honestly Dave, this has never happened to me, and I have had hundreds of trades with CS over the years. I have seen positions not being visble, stop losses not executed and so on. But a phantom trade has not yet crossed my way. I must admit, that I usually close my positions with the "close position window". You are absolutely sure, he closed the position with the same number of units?

 

[davecrom01]

Honestly Dave, this has never happened to me, and I have had hundreds of trades with CS over the years. I have seen positions not being visble, stop losses not executed and so on. But a phantom trade has not yet crossed my way. I must admit, that I usually close my positions with the "close position window". You are absolutely sure, he closed the position with the same number of units?

--------------------------

He did. I only posted this for information purposes, rather than trying to have a dig at Capital Spreads. The reason being, is that if you used one of a number of direct access brokers and did the same thing, then what happened here would have happened the same way.

What I don't know, is if this is something new in the way CS are dealing, as I never used to close my trades that way. Like I say, just for information.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[adorozlondyn]

I'm stupid or what?

ok

Maybe i'm new but can any one tell me how this is possible:!::?::!::?:

platform CS
FT100 SPREAD 1 (SO 1.3 AND 2.3)
stake 3
win 2.10£ :?::?::?:

Slippage is 5% so 3*0.05 is 0.15£
and then 3-0.15 is 2.85£

any one:?::?:

thx adam

 

[ns1000]

ok

Maybe i'm new but can any one tell me how this is possible:!::?::!::?:

platform CS
FT100 SPREAD 1 (SO 1.3 AND 2.3)
stake 3
win 2.10£ :?::?::?:

Slippage is 5% so 3*0.05 is 0.15£
and then 3-0.15 is 2.85£

any one:?::?:

thx adam

It's difficult to understand what you mean. Not sure where the slippage comes into. What price did you open and close at - presumably they were 0.7 pts different, which would make yuor profit £2.10.

 

[knight_trader]

I haven't posted on here for a while as I try and steer clear of CS unless forced to do otherwise. Anyway on the point of phantom trades I spent a lot of time tracking this using logs, email evidence, screenshots, etc. It culminated in a half hour chat with one of the CS traders and numerous support staff.

In short they do have a technical issue which is recognized by their support team and traders, the issue is that their trading system does not implement a proper "locking" procedure when a trade is in process. For those here who are at all technical any system such as theirs should utilize a basic locking mechanism so that if a trade is being altered in some way (stop modified, closed by trading an equal and opposite amount, etc.) then nothing else should interact with it.

As people who have moved their stops as they are being hit have noticed the trade will close but at the new stop level, even if it hasn't been hit. Other such issues, such as the stop kicking in to close a trade that no longer exists and thus opening a new position, all stem from this same problem. This only occurs if you are attempting to trade/modify an order as it is in process so for the swing traders around it is unlikely you will ever see it.

How can I prove that CS are aware of this issue? Well because everytime it has happened with respect to the stop being moved at the last second the difference has been refunded, they are well aware of what occurs.

I did have a very interesting chat with their trader who explained that "in the underlying market there is no such locking and if you modify a stop as it gets executed you can have the same problem trading directly". He quickly shut up when I explained to him that I help put in the new SETS (TradElect) platform and knew exactly how the LSE locking mechanism worked.

Many people on here have the right idea, if you don't like it, get the hell out of dodge. I've had issues with every SB I have used and end up picking the one suiting the scenario. If you're trading binaries then IG are hard to beat (IMHO) and if you are swing trading then Capital work quite well, especially if you are short as you actually get paid a small amount to keep the trade running rather than IG who charge you long or short for overnight positions.

I've been day trading now for almost a year and you can make money on a regular basis. Anyone starting out just shop around and try out some platforms, there are plenty out there and each have their own advantages/disadvantages. As for CS, we are now at 393 pages of comments of which I would say most are negative. Simon, who was an active poster during the good times, has now all but disappeared from these boards. Newbies make up your own mind....the more experienced of us already have

 

[adorozlondyn]

ok let me try again
price to open 5568 and spread is 1 so when i go shot i got for 5569
then i closed at 5567 that is 1 point profit, so if i put 3£ i should give me 3£ not 2.10£ ?
i know the price moves by 0.5 point so if it moves against me 0.5 point i should get 1.5£.

i hope this will clarify my question how you can get 2.10£ from 1 point win on 3£ stake

 

[Phil Mibbutz]

I haven't posted on here for a while as I try and steer clear of CS unless forced to do otherwise. Anyway on the point of phantom trades I spent a lot of time tracking this using logs, email evidence, screenshots, etc. It culminated in a half hour chat with one of the CS traders and numerous support staff.

In short they do have a technical issue which is recognized by their support team and traders, the issue is that their trading system does not implement a proper "locking" procedure when a trade is in process. For those here who are at all technical any system such as theirs should utilize a basic locking mechanism so that if a trade is being altered in some way (stop modified, closed by trading an equal and opposite amount, etc.) then nothing else should interact with it.

As people who have moved their stops as they are being hit have noticed the trade will close but at the new stop level, even if it hasn't been hit. Other such issues, such as the stop kicking in to close a trade that no longer exists and thus opening a new position, all stem from this same problem. This only occurs if you are attempting to trade/modify an order as it is in process so for the swing traders around it is unlikely you will ever see it.

How can I prove that CS are aware of this issue? Well because everytime it has happened with respect to the stop being moved at the last second the difference has been refunded, they are well aware of what occurs.

I did have a very interesting chat with their trader who explained that "in the underlying market there is no such locking and if you modify a stop as it gets executed you can have the same problem trading directly". He quickly shut up when I explained to him that I help put in the new SETS (TradElect) platform and knew exactly how the LSE locking mechanism worked.

Many people on here have the right idea, if you don't like it, get the hell out of dodge. I've had issues with every SB I have used and end up picking the one suiting the scenario. If you're trading binaries then IG are hard to beat (IMHO) and if you are swing trading then Capital work quite well, especially if you are short as you actually get paid a small amount to keep the trade running rather than IG who charge you long or short for overnight positions.

I've been day trading now for almost a year and you can make money on a regular basis. Anyone starting out just shop around and try out some platforms, there are plenty out there and each have their own advantages/disadvantages. As for CS, we are now at 393 pages of comments of which I would say most are negative. Simon, who was an active poster during the good times, has now all but disappeared from these boards. Newbies make up your own mind....the more experienced of us already have

V. interesting. Have you tried WS - their platform seems to have a few glitches concerning stops that result in unintentional new positions being opened. Queries on the subject are just ignored!

 

[capitalspreads]

adorozlondyn

FTSE is quoted to 1 decimal place. Are u sure that you did not sell at say 5568.0 and then buy at 5567.3 (a difference of 0.7) which would give a p/l of £2.10.

check your deal tickets... if the price gap is indeed 1 full point then there is an error. This would be a new one on me as I cannot remember the system ever making a calculation error before. but there is always a first time.

80% number

I must admit it was a new one on me having the fact that I am honest enough to say to clients BEFORE they even open an account or start trading that they only have a one in five chance of being a winner being described as some sinister way of loading any blame elsewhere.

That kind of thinking has 'conspiracy theory' written all over it. Hanger 57. Moon landing. JFK assasination ..... obviously 'they' are hiding something from you.

Looking at other data out there we believe that CS client winner percentages is actually higher than other SB companies and is certainly higher than private client Direct Access futures/FX trading percentages.

knight trader

your comment would be fine if there was any actual dodge... this only affects clients trying to change stops at the very, very last second and only when the activation of the stop by our monitors and the requested amendment from the client 'cross' in the system. As we have the audit trail and we always refund when it occurs I cannot quite see how this is unfair. Our decision is usually the same. That the order was amended too late and the original level stands.

This stems from the fact that we do not activate most stops automatically as we like to ensure that the activation has not been caused by a temporary illiquidity causing a widening of the spread or some such event.

On exchanges there is no such buffer. If XYZ share is quoted at 450-452 and somebody buys all the 452's then imagine there is no further offer until, say, 460 then any stop (or new order) set between the price of 452 and 460 will just be activated and the order will either appear on the platform (if the order is at a fixed price) or (if it is a stop) will turn into a market order and buy at the first available price.

Frankly as a trader I would rather have the CS method which does at least have some leeway for the client rather than the brutal black/white of an electronic exchange system

Exchanges only ever have to quote a limited number of markets and take all the information from one source. The LSE platform as it has been mentioned here, even then, is constantly having performance issues (witness last Friday when the data supply was effectively down for the entire afternoon). A rather more serious issue than a small spread betting company having a 5 or 10 minute pricing issue. CS has to quote many thousands of prices sourced from across the globe from difference data suppliers merge them and place them in a simple and accurate fashion to our clients. I would like to point out that much bigger companies than us have far bigger robustness problems than CS. (especially recently)

Simon

 

[ns1000]

The LSE platform as it has been mentioned here, even then, is constantly having performance issues (witness last Friday when the data supply was effectively down for the entire afternoon). A rather more serious issue than a small spread betting company having a 5 or 10 minute pricing issue.
Simon

This is the point isn't it. If I traded with you, my exposure would be to you, not the LSE. What makes an issue serious for me is the inability to make money or mitigate my loss, not whether the LSE could let Merrills and Goldman's trade with each other.

That the LSE can't build a sufficiently robust system doesn't affect the seriousness of a SB platform.

 

[gle101]

This is the point isn't it. If I traded with you, my exposure would be to you, not the LSE. What makes an issue serious for me is the inability to make money or mitigate my loss, not whether the LSE could let Merrills and Goldman's trade with each other.

That the LSE can't build a sufficiently robust system doesn't affect the seriousness of a SB platform.

Well CS are depended on the quality of the different live feed coming through, I think that is what he meant. With all respect, your inability to make money does not stand and fall with CS platform issues. I am quite confident saying that, having more than 10 years of trading experience.

 

[ns1000]

If you're not trading shares, the LSE price feed is irrelevant.

While profitability may not depend on the platform entirely, you can't argue that it will have no effect. If I make less money (or lose more) because of it then it's a serious issue.