Best Thread Capital Spreads

[FXSCALPER2]

With all due respect blacktrader, you are talking bol!ocks:cheesy:. I am not 'bitter and twisted', whatever that means. You have trust me on this. You can come along to my lobby at Vyew.com - - Free Anytime Collaboration and Live Conferencing and see for yourself. I just hate bookies increasing the risk for people simply because they can't fix some very basic issues. It is pointless to attack the messenger. Look at the message. Come and have fun with us, we like to have successful traders in there. You will find I am a very chilled fellow.

 

[davecrom01]

davecrom.. I noticed that the CS FX charts did look a bit odd first thing this morning . Did you trade on one of the strange prices in the small hours? If so then 'move on' as what else would you expect.
------------------------
I dont know mate, I dont use their charts. I got an alarm, I woke up and placed the trade. Then I set my stop, then I went back to sleep. When I got my next alarm I woke up, was in profit, and closed it. I traded the price as offered. I've been rejected for trading "when the price moves more than the spread" many times, but this time the dealer filled me, and confirmed it via email.

 

[Crap Buddist]

once when I traded at a silly price, (i knew it was the wrong price but 'I had a go' ,you never know they might have missed it!), they rang me up and politely informed me that they were reversing the trade.

Who supplies the price ? who also says the price may not reflect the underlying? Its ****ing orange juice time .. ping, pow, troof..!!

 

[davecrom01]

Reversed trade

OK, an update as promised. I have been told that CS reserve the right to reverse-out any trade that they feel is from an unfair price. Here is the quote from the email:

"Due to the nature of online trading systems and the potential unreliability of market price feeds London Capital Group Ltd may in its absolute discretion remove or delete bets and any associated bets (i.e. any bets closing subsequently deleted bets) which have been made over the Online Trading Platform which in the opinion of London Capital Group Ltd do not reflect the actual market prices at the time of the placement of the relevant bet."

So, even though they accepted the trade, sent me an email saying they trade was accepted, and then 2 hours later let me close the trade - again sending me an email - it seems the price I went long on 2 hours previously did not "reflect the actual market price at the time".

I'm asking them for confirmation as to whether this is their view of events - and a fair statement for me to make. Will keep you posted.

 

[Trader333]

Due to the nature of online trading systems and the potential unreliability of market price feeds London Capital Group Ltd may in its absolute discretion remove or delete bets and any associated bets (i.e. any bets closing subsequently deleted bets) which have been made over the Online Trading Platform which in the opinion of London Capital Group Ltd do not reflect the actual market prices at the time of the placement of the relevant bet."

This statement really is a "Catch All" approach to maximise profit to CS in any circumstance they see fit. We constantly hear that prices given are not actual market prices and as such if you were to argue that you got a worse than market price on opening or closing a position they will argue that their prices do not reflect the market. If you get a better than market price then they will argue that the price did not reflect the actual market and reverse your position.

I am curious to hear of even a single case where someone has opened a position at better than market price that then went into loss and where CS then said they were reversing the position and giving the lost money back.

If you want to use SB companies then stick with IG as at least you get the price shown on screen and I have not heard of any case where they contact you later and take your profit off you.


Paul

 

[zuke]

This statement really is a "Catch All" approach to maximise profit to CS in any circumstance they see fit. We constantly hear that prices given are not actual market prices and as such if you were to argue that you got a worse than market price on opening or closing a position they will argue that their prices do not reflect the market. If you get a better than market price then they will argue that the price did not reflect the actual market and reverse your position.

I am curious to hear of even a single case where someone has opened a position at better than market price that then went into loss and where CS then said they were reversing the position and giving the lost money back.

If you want to use SB companies then stick with IG as at least you get the price shown on screen and I have not heard of any case where they contact you later and take your profit off you.


Paul

Spot on Paul. IG is by far the best platform and fairest out there imo (now that FB has closed). Spreads are wider (but I dont care as I dont scalp) but what's the point in "tight spreads" when the trades can be rejected, reversed, made phantom and ridiculously slipped AT WILL?

 

[ceydababy]

Spot on Paul. IG is by far the best platform and fairest out there imo (now that FB has closed). Spreads are wider (but I dont care as I dont scalp) but what's the point in "tight spreads" when the trades can be rejected, reversed, made phantom and ridiculously slipped AT WILL?

Must say IG are very good. Not a single problem with them since switching. Spreads are wider on some instruments. But for the most part they are there or there abouts.

 

[stevespray]

OK, an update as promised. I have been told that CS reserve the right to reverse-out any trade that they feel is from an unfair price. Here is the quote from the email:

"Due to the nature of online trading systems and the potential unreliability of market price feeds London Capital Group Ltd may in its absolute discretion remove or delete bets and any associated bets (i.e. any bets closing subsequently deleted bets) which have been made over the Online Trading Platform which in the opinion of London Capital Group Ltd do not reflect the actual market prices at the time of the placement of the relevant bet."

So, even though they accepted the trade, sent me an email saying they trade was accepted, and then 2 hours later let me close the trade - again sending me an email - it seems the price I went long on 2 hours previously did not "reflect the actual market price at the time".

I'm asking them for confirmation as to whether this is their view of events - and a fair statement for me to make. Will keep you posted.

Dave - Not trying to take sides here but this sounds like nonsense. If you have your contract notes for both sides of the trades then I would suggest that all any firm could do is contact you and ask, rather politely, if you would consider allowing them to reverse the trades. Sure, many of the firms harp on about their right to cancel trades but all they can really do is ask you. They certainly cannot just go into your account via their back office and materially alter contract details without your approval. Under the terms of section 412 of the Financial Services & Markets Act all spread bets entered into are legally enforcable by either party. The key wording there is "entered into". If you feel that the trades are valid then it is your right to enforce the contract notes - there is nothing any firm can do to stop you doing that. They may reel of various terms and conditions but the fact is that they cannot place (or interpret) any term or condition in their T&C's which contradict what is written (or the implied rights given) under the terms of the Financial Services & Markets Act of 2000.

This passage taken from the T&C of another leading spread betting firm;

"Nothing in this Agreement will exclude or restrict any duty or liability owed by us
to you under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (the “Act”) or the FSA Rules
and if there is any conflict between this Agreement and the FSA Rules, the FSA Rules
will prevail."

This, from a legal perspective, is applicable to ALL spread betting firms as the Financial Services & Markets Act of 2000 prevails over Customer Agreements.
Therefore, if a firm were to specify that they had the right cancel trades (for whatever reason) then they would clearly be seeking to "exclude or restrict" some of their "duty or liability" since the Act clearly states that all bets entered into are legally enforceable.

As I said before, they have very little room for manoeuvre. Contractually speaking the issue revolves around the point in time when the contract was formed. Effectively the moment a contract is formed it becomes enforceable by both parties. The firms are in a weak position because there doesn’t seem to be any facility, under the various rules, for these kinds of ‘errors’ or ‘disputes’. This seems to make it a fairly simple case of ‘Caveat Emptor’; Let the buyer beware! In this case the seller or provider (ie the spread betting co) should be equally aware as the law appears to state that ‘all spread bets are legally enforceable by EITHER party’. In this case the firm buys and sells contracts in its own derivative products.

I would suggest therefore that the ball is in your court. Rather than letting the firm suggest to you what is going to happen you could in fact tell them what is going to happen. (ie you are going to enforce the bet or let them off.) If push then came to shove the firm would argue that the prices were wrong and you would argue that the prices were correct – the two arguments would obviously conflict and hence the dispute would have to be resolved through due legal process which would bring in your legal right to enforce your contract notes. In the meantime I would insist that the disputed funds be returned to your account (since they are, until the dispute is settled, your funds) pending the outcome of a ‘dispute settling’ process.

Steve.

 

[grantx]

Steve,

Couldn't add Reputation - need to give elsewhere, apparently. So this in lieu:

Excellent post - informed and clear.

Grant.

 

[0007]

Dave - Not trying to take sides here but this sounds like nonsense. If you have your contract notes for both sides of the trades then I would suggest that all any firm could do is contact you and ask, rather politely, if you would consider allowing them to reverse the trades. Sure, many of the firms harp on about their right to cancel trades but all they can really do is ask you. They certainly cannot just go into your account via their back office and materially alter contract details without your approval. Under the terms of section 412 of the Financial Services & Markets Act all spread bets entered into are legally enforcable by either party. The key wording there is "entered into". If you feel that the trades are valid then it is your right to enforce the contract notes - there is nothing any firm can do to stop you doing that. They may reel of various terms and conditions but the fact is that they cannot place (or interpret) any term or condition in their T&C's which contradict what is written (or the implied rights given) under the terms of the Financial Services & Markets Act of 2000.

This passage taken from the T&C of another leading spread betting firm;

"Nothing in this Agreement will exclude or restrict any duty or liability owed by us
to you under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (the “Act”) or the FSA Rules
and if there is any conflict between this Agreement and the FSA Rules, the FSA Rules
will prevail."

This, from a legal perspective, is applicable to ALL spread betting firms as the Financial Services & Markets Act of 2000 prevails over Customer Agreements.
Therefore, if a firm were to specify that they had the right cancel trades (for whatever reason) then they would clearly be seeking to "exclude or restrict" some of their "duty or liability" since the Act clearly states that all bets entered into are legally enforceable.

As I said before, they have very little room for manoeuvre. Contractually speaking the issue revolves around the point in time when the contract was formed. Effectively the moment a contract is formed it becomes enforceable by both parties. The firms are in a weak position because there doesn’t seem to be any facility, under the various rules, for these kinds of ‘errors’ or ‘disputes’. This seems to make it a fairly simple case of ‘Caveat Emptor’; Let the buyer beware! In this case the seller or provider (ie the spread betting co) should be equally aware as the law appears to state that ‘all spread bets are legally enforceable by EITHER party’. In this case the firm buys and sells contracts in its own derivative products.

I would suggest therefore that the ball is in your court. Rather than letting the firm suggest to you what is going to happen you could in fact tell them what is going to happen. (ie you are going to enforce the bet or let them off.) If push then came to shove the firm would argue that the prices were wrong and you would argue that the prices were correct – the two arguments would obviously conflict and hence the dispute would have to be resolved through due legal process which would bring in your legal right to enforce your contract notes. In the meantime I would insist that the disputed funds be returned to your account (since they are, until the dispute is settled, your funds) pending the outcome of a ‘dispute settling’ process.

Steve.

This business with CS just seems to get worse. Steve makes valid points & it would be interesting to see a legal challenge.

So come on Simon - what's the CS view?

 

[davecrom01]

Reversal

Steve,

Thanks for a full and informative post... I'll try to clarify in light of an email from them, and see if it still applies. Here is a direct quote from the email I was sent:

"The trade that was reversed was Buy of £XX USD/JPY at 01.42 am this morning. At this time, the market was actually at 99.74, and so this was an incorrect price of 99.24 that was traded on. This means that the trade does not stand as a valid trade and so the profit that you made on this incorrect price (£XXXX) was reversed. Receipt of an email confirmation is not a guarantee that a trade stands – it is stated in our terms and conditions that we can reverse a trade at our absolute discretion as you can find stated below taken from https://www.capitalspreads.com/generic/faqs2.shtml"

So there we go. I can also confirm to you that yes, they took the money out of my account several hours after the trade was closed. Yes they did it without my permission. I have replied to them and will see how it goes...

Thanks again for your input, and I hope you will stick around for the following subsequent discussions.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[laptop1]

I have traded with most spreadbet firms, well tried lol, untill they closed me down or make it imposible to trade with them. They're just like the bucket shops back in the 1920s

I say this you guys, close your accounts and trade with a real broker. Don't put up with it.

 

[tar]

Steve,

Thanks for a full and informative post... I'll try to clarify in light of an email from them, and see if it still applies. Here is a direct quote from the email I was sent:

"The trade that was reversed was Buy of £XX USD/JPY at 01.42 am this morning. At this time, the market was actually at 99.74, and so this was an incorrect price of 99.24 that was traded on. This means that the trade does not stand as a valid trade and so the profit that you made on this incorrect price (£XXXX) was reversed. Receipt of an email confirmation is not a guarantee that a trade stands – it is stated in our terms and conditions that we can reverse a trade at our absolute discretion as you can find stated below taken from https://www.capitalspreads.com/generic/faqs2.shtml"

So there we go. I can also confirm to you that yes, they took the money out of my account several hours after the trade was closed. Yes they did it without my permission. I have replied to them and will see how it goes...

Thanks again for your input, and I hope you will stick around for the following subsequent discussions.

Cheers,
Dave

They r right the price was 99.74 not 99.24 !!! All exchanges reverse trades

 

[stevespray]

Steve,

Thanks for a full and informative post... I'll try to clarify in light of an email from them, and see if it still applies. Here is a direct quote from the email I was sent:

"The trade that was reversed was Buy of £XX USD/JPY at 01.42 am this morning. At this time, the market was actually at 99.74, and so this was an incorrect price of 99.24 that was traded on. This means that the trade does not stand as a valid trade and so the profit that you made on this incorrect price (£XXXX) was reversed. Receipt of an email confirmation is not a guarantee that a trade stands – it is stated in our terms and conditions that we can reverse a trade at our absolute discretion as you can find stated below taken from https://www.capitalspreads.com/generic/faqs2.shtml"

So there we go. I can also confirm to you that yes, they took the money out of my account several hours after the trade was closed. Yes they did it without my permission. I have replied to them and will see how it goes...

Thanks again for your input, and I hope you will stick around for the following subsequent discussions.

Cheers,
Dave

Dave - Based on your post I had a quick look at a couple of charts and have to say that what the firm is claiming appears correct with regard to the prices. In the time leading into your trade the USDJPY appears to have rallied quite sharply and, based on the CS charts, it appears CS were slow to follow the move up. I'm no expert on Dollar / Yen but my understanding is that there is no central market place for these types of exchange. Instead there are just quotes fed through various banks computers into various electronic exchanges. On that basis most of the 'Retail Forex' dealers have to design and impliement some kind of fancy software to create their own instrument and price. Obviously if they would have fed their own prices into a real market computer system then people would have bought as much as they could at the level they were quoting since the consensus was that prices were moving higher.

So, basicly the firm dont seem to be spinning you a yarn here. Having said that they shouldnt of taken the money without agreeing with you first that the trades were going to be reversed - You may not have agreed to the reversal and their actions are rather presumptuous in nature.

Their statement that "Receipt of an email confirmation is not a guarantee that a trade stands" is, to my mind, unture. In law a contract is enforceable from the moment that it is formed. The law makes it clear that this is also true of spread betting. The pivotal factor, as I mentioned in my early post, is establishing when the contract is actually formed. It seems reasonable that an emailed 'conformation' in conjuction with a trade conformation issued by the online platform constitutes a contract from a legal perspective. In their reply to you the firm have created their own oxymoron; they've used the words "email conformation" and then followed it up with a sentence which attempts to imply that the 'conformation' isn't actually a conformation - that cannot be considered acceptable. As others have pointed out, given the business which we are dealing with, clients are entitled to know when a contract exists and when one doesnt.

Steve.

 

[oiltanker]

hi simon

any chance of some option spreads eg ftse 100 and a couple of currencies?

will the new platform have user defined stops and limits on entry like ig?

thanks

 

[davecrom01]

Their statement that "Receipt of an email confirmation is not a guarantee that a trade stands" is, to my mind, unture. In law a contract is enforceable from the moment that it is formed. The law makes it clear that this is also true of spread betting. The pivotal factor, as I mentioned in my early post, is establishing when the contract is actually formed. It seems reasonable that an emailed 'conformation' in conjuction with a trade conformation issued by the online platform constitutes a contract from a legal perspective.
-----------------

Hi Steve, one again than you for your insight.

Yes, it seems the price was significantly higher than the price they let me in and confirmed at.

Alas their email confirmation, indeed any confirmation including human confirmation, holds no water in legal terms in relation to spread betting companies. They are able, and I can kind of see why, to claim what is called "palpable error", and reverse the trade without reference to me. In short, no contract ever exists - in just the same way that any bookie can choose not to honour any bet for any reason if they chose not to do so.

I am however approaching CS with a compromise - namely, that if the market was actually at 99.74 when I went long, then I should be due at least the different between 99.74 and my exit above that figure.

I think, in light of what I know, that should be considered a fair compromise.

I'll keep you posted.

p.s To those who keep posting saying "move on, just move on, why stay"... can I just say that there are private and specific reasons why I maintain a CS account. I am fully aware that I can move to other brokers, and I thank you for your reccommendations.

 

[ns1000]

Your 'compromise' sounds reasonable. I don't subscribe to the 'they must stand by their price, whatever it is' argument, but in the event of manifest error, they should offer you the choice of dealing at the correct price, or scrapping the trade. In the event that you're trying to close off a position and they're displaying a manifestly wrong price, you have to be able to trade in the knowledge that you can close and be corrected later.

There is obviously a difference between a price several orders of magnitude wrong, and a couple of pips. I believe the standard definition is that is a reasonable and frequent user of the market should spot an error it's manifest. In the case of $/Y - 50 pips is borderline imho. 99.74 is very different to 9974, but not so different from 99.24. Frankly, they would be chancing their arm trying to prove it's manifest in court, but maybe they'd succeed. Certainly don't give up the profit you would have made had you entered at the correct price

 

[davecrom01]

Hi NSS,

Aye, I think its a fair compromise. After all, if I had KNOWN i wasnt really in at 99.24, I would have carried on trying to get long at 29, 34, 39 etc until I got in.

Dave

 

[davecrom01]

Well so much for compromise in asking for the 10 "genuine" pips from the "real price" to my exit.

"Thank you for your email. Unfortunately there is nothing further that we can do in relation to this trade. As you entered the trade on an incorrect price the associated profit/loss has been reversed and we are unable to do anything further on this matter."

Along with the chap from the FSA, I thought the compromise was a good offer. However I have no legal grounds for any challenge, and so that's the end of it.

Thanks for everyone's input.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[ns1000]

I think you do actually have grounds to challenge it. Presumably they are voiding the trade in accordance with terms 9.2 of their rules, that it is a manifest error. What exactly is their definition of manifest? They state that they will act 'reasonably and in good faith'. They have not done so. If the price was wrong, they can adjust it to the correct price rather than wait and see if you make a profit and then take it away. Bookie's stance should be reasonable and proportionate. This is not.

Specifically, they have the right to amend the terms of the bet if they choose. This includes the price. They don't have the right to amend any subsequent bets (i.e the closing trade, although you would probably prefer this voided too!).

I'm afraid this re-inforces the impression more cyncial posters have put forward. Would be interesting to here what CS apologists think.