0007
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,377
- Likes
- 664
So right. But until someone takes a test case to judgement, the SB firms will continue to try it on.
Best Thread Capital Spreads
So right. But until someone takes a test case to judgement, the SB firms will continue to try it on.
0007
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,377
- Likes
- 664
Don't know. But if there were any judgement in SB Co's favour, I bet they'd tell the punter PDQ !
stevespray
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,289
- Likes
- 156
In my opinion it would be entirely foolish for any of the firms to let such a matter reach court - the risk of the court judgement going in favour of the client would make it far too risky. One successful case, from a clients perspective, would also set a dangerous blueprint which the watchdogs and ombudsmen would likely follow.
I know two compliance officers who have worked within spread betting. I have spoken with one over quite a lengthly period about all manner of spread betting matters. He said that generally they would always look to settle matters quickly if clients took complaints further. On settling the matter they never admit any liability with regard to the claim or complaint that you have made. Normally they just write a cover letter saying something along the lines of;
"After further consideration and in view of your status as a valued client we have, on this particular occasion, decided to grant you £x,xxx by way of a goodwill gesture which we hope will bring this misunderstanding to a close"
Steve.
Crap Buddist
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,458
- Likes
- 289
Hmm so Capital Spreads will be In Breach of contract, and fair game to be sued for compensation , fine for breach or non compliance ?
Well , any bookie will be . the point of contract being formed does seem crystal cut , providing they cant pull the tech error into it all the time. Lets face it online systems to me are more reliable or they should be than ever before, so it seems odd that a SB will state "Due to the nature of online systems" etc. Its like ,where they been for the last 20 years ? ...... 🙂 unless of course they nobble it to prevent dealing, to prevent losing cash. Then it makes sense to do it.... very bent though.
Mind you I would of thought any bookie would of spent a few quid asking legally, if we did this, are we clear, if we did that, can we do it, or where do we stand....
Well , any bookie will be . the point of contract being formed does seem crystal cut , providing they cant pull the tech error into it all the time. Lets face it online systems to me are more reliable or they should be than ever before, so it seems odd that a SB will state "Due to the nature of online systems" etc. Its like ,where they been for the last 20 years ? ...... 🙂 unless of course they nobble it to prevent dealing, to prevent losing cash. Then it makes sense to do it.... very bent though.
Mind you I would of thought any bookie would of spent a few quid asking legally, if we did this, are we clear, if we did that, can we do it, or where do we stand....
Last edited:
davecrom01
Member
- Messages
- 83
- Likes
- 3
Hi Steve,
I'm not mis-interpreting anything, i'm working off what I have been told by what is now 2 different people at the FSA. Namely, that CS are allowed to claim this damn thing called "palpable error", that the emails they send to confirm mean nothing (as part of the same error), and that it is not something the FSA consider to be unfair.
These are the terms I gave to the FSA, to ask if they are actually asking me to give up a right which is not theirs to remove:
"Confirmation by us of acceptance of any bet is subject to amendment or subsequent cancellation if in the sole opinion of London Capital Group the bet was placed at a materially incorrect price."
"Our acceptance of any bet will be evidenced by our confirmation of its terms to you either verbally or by ticket confirmation on your account Internet screen. Receipt of this ticket confirmation is not a binding contract on London Capital Group and may be subject to alteration and/or cancellation"
"In deciding whether an error is a Manifest Error, we may take into account any relevant information, including the state of any underlying market or event that is the subject matter of the bet at the time of the error."
and we may decide, at our absolute discretion, to cancel and void any bets placed with us"
---------------------------------------------------------
Each and every one of them is perfectly legal, and quite within their rights to enforce, and as the FSA guy said, they can call 1 pip away from the underlying price an error at their sole discretion. And only their desire to keep customers stops them - nothing illegal about it. This is what he meant by "in practice its no different to the gentlemans agreement".
If someone else wants to call them and gets a different answer, feel free to let me know.
I really appreciate your taking the time to try and help me, mate - but I think it's a no go.
Dave
I'm not mis-interpreting anything, i'm working off what I have been told by what is now 2 different people at the FSA. Namely, that CS are allowed to claim this damn thing called "palpable error", that the emails they send to confirm mean nothing (as part of the same error), and that it is not something the FSA consider to be unfair.
These are the terms I gave to the FSA, to ask if they are actually asking me to give up a right which is not theirs to remove:
"Confirmation by us of acceptance of any bet is subject to amendment or subsequent cancellation if in the sole opinion of London Capital Group the bet was placed at a materially incorrect price."
"Our acceptance of any bet will be evidenced by our confirmation of its terms to you either verbally or by ticket confirmation on your account Internet screen. Receipt of this ticket confirmation is not a binding contract on London Capital Group and may be subject to alteration and/or cancellation"
"In deciding whether an error is a Manifest Error, we may take into account any relevant information, including the state of any underlying market or event that is the subject matter of the bet at the time of the error."
and we may decide, at our absolute discretion, to cancel and void any bets placed with us"
---------------------------------------------------------
Each and every one of them is perfectly legal, and quite within their rights to enforce, and as the FSA guy said, they can call 1 pip away from the underlying price an error at their sole discretion. And only their desire to keep customers stops them - nothing illegal about it. This is what he meant by "in practice its no different to the gentlemans agreement".
If someone else wants to call them and gets a different answer, feel free to let me know.
I really appreciate your taking the time to try and help me, mate - but I think it's a no go.
Dave
Last edited:
Dave,
Essentially, the FSA are saying, and LC stating, that a binding contract cannot exist. So when/where can it exist?
This "Gentleman's Agreement" is a load of b.o.l.l.o.c.k.s - it is precisely why regulation and compliance was introduced many years ago to avoid ambiguities/potential disputes and provide a more solid foundation for operating.
Moreover, effectively the fx market is otc - there is no "definite" price, although there may be an expectation of a "reasonable" price. However, the current bid/ask is not concrete but any trade at an executed/accepted price is binding.
Grant.
Grant.
Essentially, the FSA are saying, and LC stating, that a binding contract cannot exist. So when/where can it exist?
This "Gentleman's Agreement" is a load of b.o.l.l.o.c.k.s - it is precisely why regulation and compliance was introduced many years ago to avoid ambiguities/potential disputes and provide a more solid foundation for operating.
Moreover, effectively the fx market is otc - there is no "definite" price, although there may be an expectation of a "reasonable" price. However, the current bid/ask is not concrete but any trade at an executed/accepted price is binding.
Grant.
Grant.
No contract exists?
Helpdesk: Hello, how may I help you?
Customer: I made a trade at lost quite a bit of money, so I realize now that it was on a, for me, very wrong prize... you might say palpably wrong. I would like to have my money back, please.
Helpdesk: Well, of course, kind Sir, right away!
Yeah, right...
Helpdesk: Hello, how may I help you?
Customer: I made a trade at lost quite a bit of money, so I realize now that it was on a, for me, very wrong prize... you might say palpably wrong. I would like to have my money back, please.
Helpdesk: Well, of course, kind Sir, right away!
Yeah, right...
Crap Buddist
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,458
- Likes
- 289
I thought SB couldn't claim their prices match an exchange price as that would mean one is trading the underlying and therefore liable to income tax. Hence bookies state our prices may not reflect the underlying .. hence its a bet on the underlying and weight of bookies punters bets may skew bookies quotes, so its not unreasonable to see a price quoted off or away from the underlying.
All of which could leave one thinking why bother with the sly underhand intent of a bookmaker? And the integrity of the price makes it nonsense to even bother wasting time with it .
When is a price not a price ?
Tell you what all those spikes knocking stops out on a bookies platform, if they are saying we match the underlying I would of thought a forensic accountant could audit the bookies price data and retro apply the priciple of palpable error (for the clients side) going back years then and reclaim lost monies due to non matching of exchange price or price feed price ?
what a load of ?@!#
All of which could leave one thinking why bother with the sly underhand intent of a bookmaker? And the integrity of the price makes it nonsense to even bother wasting time with it .
When is a price not a price ?
Tell you what all those spikes knocking stops out on a bookies platform, if they are saying we match the underlying I would of thought a forensic accountant could audit the bookies price data and retro apply the priciple of palpable error (for the clients side) going back years then and reclaim lost monies due to non matching of exchange price or price feed price ?
what a load of ?@!#
Crap Buddist
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,458
- Likes
- 289
Crap Buddist
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,458
- Likes
- 289
Tell you what I can see this advert popping up on the telly in the near future.
Have you been mis sold a spreadbet? 100,000 of bets have been mis sold due to "palpable error" which we can now claim back on the clients behalf ,with compo. No win no fee. Telephone Slaughter Hangem and Shot, Spreadbet Attorneys, today ! 🙂
Have you been mis sold a spreadbet? 100,000 of bets have been mis sold due to "palpable error" which we can now claim back on the clients behalf ,with compo. No win no fee. Telephone Slaughter Hangem and Shot, Spreadbet Attorneys, today ! 🙂
stevespray
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,289
- Likes
- 156
This “no real contract exists” and “it’s a gentleman’s agreement” stuff is utter nonsense although I see now what the FSA guy on the phone was angling at. He is perhaps trying to suggest that this apparent clause effectively creates that situation ‘synthetically’ since the firms “absolute discretion” on whether a fill was correct, or not, could mean absolutely anything. If this is genuinely the FSA’s view point on the subject then I would suggest that spread betting has just become a whole lot more risky. As the FSA guy points out; “any firm can call 1 pip an error!”
What I find laughable at the FSA is how one hand doesn’t know what the other hand is doing!
Take a look at this document....
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/undertaking_londoncap.pdf
Scroll down the table in the document to item 6. It comments on what it calls Terms 12.1 and 12.2; No read what is written in the next column.
“The terms attempt to exclude LCG Ltd’s liability for errors”
Now read the next three comments on how such a clause might breach a number of different legal protocols.
Now, having read all that, I would have to say that any term or condition which attempted to void or cancel any bet would fall into that category. Effectively, because spread bets are legally binding, any term or condition which attempted to exempt the firm from its contractual obligation would represent a clear imbalance in the contract. Any term or condition which leaves a client in a position of not knowing whether a bet is going to stand (after the firm have issued a contract note agreeing to contract) would create a massive imbalance.
Interestingly, according to the document, LCG agree to remedy the situation by doing the following;
“A manifest error
will now only be defined in
the definitions section and
listed as a reason for closing
a trade.”
The key words there are “closing a trade”. There is no mention of deleting a trade, voiding a trade or cancelling a trade!
So my point is this; How can the FSA send out a document which is clearly asking spread betting firms to stop trying to get around the laws of the land whilst, on the other hand, telling clients that they have, in the FSA’s eyes, absolutely no leg to stand on with regards to deals entered into with these firms?
I still absolutely stand by what I said before; If a matter came before a court a contract lawyer would have an absolute field-day!
Steve.
What I find laughable at the FSA is how one hand doesn’t know what the other hand is doing!
Take a look at this document....
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/undertaking_londoncap.pdf
Scroll down the table in the document to item 6. It comments on what it calls Terms 12.1 and 12.2; No read what is written in the next column.
“The terms attempt to exclude LCG Ltd’s liability for errors”
Now read the next three comments on how such a clause might breach a number of different legal protocols.
Now, having read all that, I would have to say that any term or condition which attempted to void or cancel any bet would fall into that category. Effectively, because spread bets are legally binding, any term or condition which attempted to exempt the firm from its contractual obligation would represent a clear imbalance in the contract. Any term or condition which leaves a client in a position of not knowing whether a bet is going to stand (after the firm have issued a contract note agreeing to contract) would create a massive imbalance.
Interestingly, according to the document, LCG agree to remedy the situation by doing the following;
“A manifest error
will now only be defined in
the definitions section and
listed as a reason for closing
a trade.”
The key words there are “closing a trade”. There is no mention of deleting a trade, voiding a trade or cancelling a trade!
So my point is this; How can the FSA send out a document which is clearly asking spread betting firms to stop trying to get around the laws of the land whilst, on the other hand, telling clients that they have, in the FSA’s eyes, absolutely no leg to stand on with regards to deals entered into with these firms?
I still absolutely stand by what I said before; If a matter came before a court a contract lawyer would have an absolute field-day!
Steve.
CB,
The only reason I can see for people using SB's is the low cost of entry. This discussion illustrates the flaw in this thinking. I would say, if you can't afford to trade via a broker, don't trade until you have saved enough for a brokerage account (plenty to learn for self-improvement in the interim).
Or perhaps someone can say where the advantage lies; and go give me the the old "tax-free" line - the advantages of market-prices compared to random prices and sharp practises is sufficient compensation.
Grant.
The only reason I can see for people using SB's is the low cost of entry. This discussion illustrates the flaw in this thinking. I would say, if you can't afford to trade via a broker, don't trade until you have saved enough for a brokerage account (plenty to learn for self-improvement in the interim).
Or perhaps someone can say where the advantage lies; and go give me the the old "tax-free" line - the advantages of market-prices compared to random prices and sharp practises is sufficient compensation.
Grant.
brutusdog
Guest
- Messages
- 759
- Likes
- 194
Grant,
my guess is the easy and speed that you can get a s/b account. i think with cs it takes all of 10 mins ...if that! pretty sure you cant rush to throw your hard earned away that quickly with dma. im sure the perceived tight spreads help lure the newbies in much like a dirty old pe****file (cant spell) offering kids sweets.
beware of accepting gifts from strangers....no free lunches.😕
cheers.
bd
aka. mr cynical!
capitalspreads
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,452
- Likes
- 79
So much misinformation written it is difficult to know where to start.
Our Price Error definition (and there is a very precise definition in our terms) works both ways. We cannot stop a client out on an incorrect print either (or if we do we must refund him) in the same way that a client cannot trade with us on an obvious price error and expect us to just wear it. If this were possible we (and every other financial institution) would be at the mercy of collusion between staff and clients who could create a multi million pound price error and then demand payment. This would be thrown out of court in any country on this planet.... otherwise every broker/bank/exchange etc etc would be at risk.
We must refer to underlying market prices before we quote. OTHERWISE we could just wait for a huge position to be built up then put a 'rogue' print through .. stop the client out and say "tough 'our quote' got there and therefore you are done". The client can also ask for evidence that the underlying market reached a level relating to the quote on our platform.
Smart aleck comments about how we do not quote the exact exchange price so how can we compare are frankly just stupid. It is called Spread Betting. Our price is a spread around the underlying market or a spread around the 'derived forward' or 'fair value' price of the underlying market. In any dispute we must be able to prove that the price we quoted reflected what was going in the real (underlying) market. If the client disputes this he must also provide proof that supports his side. This is hardly unreasonable
The only factual comment made here was the apparent response from the regulators who quite reasonably pointed out that our terms are quite clear and quite fair. And the regulators are there to ensure 'treating customers fairly' procedures are followed by all SBs.
Grantx
you want an example of how much cheaper SB is than direct access. Try the 0.5% stamp duty on equity prices plus commision paid to your broker. On a 400p FTSE 100 stock this would equate to an extra 2p on the spread for the stamp duty plus whatever your commission is paid, twice over, to your broker (in and out of the trade). CS only quotes 0.1% in total which is a total spread around the underlying price or just 0.4p on a 400p stock..
In anyones language that is a saving of something like 2p (0.5%) on every trade. Which is generally more that the total bid offer spread on our platform anyway.
I always love these stories of 'sharp practices' ...there is never, ever, a proven example of CS indulging in 'sharp practices' it is always stories of clients complaining that CS have not allowed the client himself to indulge in 'sharp practices'. Trying to get any financial institution to stand by a blatant price error is never going to get you anywhere.
Talk of 'somebody' taking an SB to court to win a case on a Price error is just ridiculous. You might as well walk into a Farrari forecourt, take the last zero off the price of the car on display, and then try to get them to sell it to you at the displayed price whilst at the same time threatening to take them to court if they do not comply.
I seem to remember an online store a few years ago offered a white good at something like £2.49 instead of £249.00. Thousands of people bought the product but the store just rejected all the deals even though the clients had already paid.
Simon
Our Price Error definition (and there is a very precise definition in our terms) works both ways. We cannot stop a client out on an incorrect print either (or if we do we must refund him) in the same way that a client cannot trade with us on an obvious price error and expect us to just wear it. If this were possible we (and every other financial institution) would be at the mercy of collusion between staff and clients who could create a multi million pound price error and then demand payment. This would be thrown out of court in any country on this planet.... otherwise every broker/bank/exchange etc etc would be at risk.
We must refer to underlying market prices before we quote. OTHERWISE we could just wait for a huge position to be built up then put a 'rogue' print through .. stop the client out and say "tough 'our quote' got there and therefore you are done". The client can also ask for evidence that the underlying market reached a level relating to the quote on our platform.
Smart aleck comments about how we do not quote the exact exchange price so how can we compare are frankly just stupid. It is called Spread Betting. Our price is a spread around the underlying market or a spread around the 'derived forward' or 'fair value' price of the underlying market. In any dispute we must be able to prove that the price we quoted reflected what was going in the real (underlying) market. If the client disputes this he must also provide proof that supports his side. This is hardly unreasonable
The only factual comment made here was the apparent response from the regulators who quite reasonably pointed out that our terms are quite clear and quite fair. And the regulators are there to ensure 'treating customers fairly' procedures are followed by all SBs.
Grantx
you want an example of how much cheaper SB is than direct access. Try the 0.5% stamp duty on equity prices plus commision paid to your broker. On a 400p FTSE 100 stock this would equate to an extra 2p on the spread for the stamp duty plus whatever your commission is paid, twice over, to your broker (in and out of the trade). CS only quotes 0.1% in total which is a total spread around the underlying price or just 0.4p on a 400p stock..
In anyones language that is a saving of something like 2p (0.5%) on every trade. Which is generally more that the total bid offer spread on our platform anyway.
I always love these stories of 'sharp practices' ...there is never, ever, a proven example of CS indulging in 'sharp practices' it is always stories of clients complaining that CS have not allowed the client himself to indulge in 'sharp practices'. Trying to get any financial institution to stand by a blatant price error is never going to get you anywhere.
Talk of 'somebody' taking an SB to court to win a case on a Price error is just ridiculous. You might as well walk into a Farrari forecourt, take the last zero off the price of the car on display, and then try to get them to sell it to you at the displayed price whilst at the same time threatening to take them to court if they do not comply.
I seem to remember an online store a few years ago offered a white good at something like £2.49 instead of £249.00. Thousands of people bought the product but the store just rejected all the deals even though the clients had already paid.
Simon
Last edited:
FXSCALPER2
Established member
- Messages
- 964
- Likes
- 281
The usual BS but at least you didn't tell is '80% lose' this time. Why donthca fix your stupid outfit so you don't have to deal with being dragged all over the place in public like this, eh?:cheesy::cheesy: You are too funny.
davecrom01
Member
- Messages
- 83
- Likes
- 3
I seem to remember an online store a few years ago offered a white good at something like £2.49 instead of £249.00. Thousands of people bought the product but the store just rejected all the deals even though the clients had already paid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Simon,
I think this was an example I gave to the FSA chap - because I remember it well. I think the thing is, that we all know (at least those of us at a certain age!) that back in the days of printed catalogue's there was always the "E&EO" clause to avoid this situation. However, in those good old days if a human got involved, and confirmed a price that was a misprint - it was surely then a contract to be honoured.
The automated office systems for online stores, where transaction processing is handled without human intervention, is the issue. Orders are accepted, invoices raised, GRN's printed, confirmations sent - all without intervention. And what that in effect seems to have done, is remove the contractual obligation to class those confirmations as contractual - as in effect they all stemmed from the same "E&EO", or palpable error.
I hope your comment about "sharp practice" wasn't aimed at me, I really do. I took the trade in good faith. You will see that the trade size I took was inline with my usual trading size. If it had been obvious to me that it was an error, I surely would have loaded up a £100 per pip trade. Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb, right?
As my emails to your Customer Service person will confirm, when told of the actual reason for the reversal (which took some time to clear up, as they don't like to be that precise now do they), I replied and said I understood why you have those T&C's, and that it seemed fair.
My main criticism of CS in this whole saga, is that when CS told me what the ACTUAL UNDERLYING price was at the time I traded on a lower number, I asked them as a gesture of goodwill to give me the profits from YOUR OWN UNDERLYING PRICE up to my exit point.
This was rejected too.
Dave
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Simon,
I think this was an example I gave to the FSA chap - because I remember it well. I think the thing is, that we all know (at least those of us at a certain age!) that back in the days of printed catalogue's there was always the "E&EO" clause to avoid this situation. However, in those good old days if a human got involved, and confirmed a price that was a misprint - it was surely then a contract to be honoured.
The automated office systems for online stores, where transaction processing is handled without human intervention, is the issue. Orders are accepted, invoices raised, GRN's printed, confirmations sent - all without intervention. And what that in effect seems to have done, is remove the contractual obligation to class those confirmations as contractual - as in effect they all stemmed from the same "E&EO", or palpable error.
I hope your comment about "sharp practice" wasn't aimed at me, I really do. I took the trade in good faith. You will see that the trade size I took was inline with my usual trading size. If it had been obvious to me that it was an error, I surely would have loaded up a £100 per pip trade. Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb, right?
As my emails to your Customer Service person will confirm, when told of the actual reason for the reversal (which took some time to clear up, as they don't like to be that precise now do they), I replied and said I understood why you have those T&C's, and that it seemed fair.
My main criticism of CS in this whole saga, is that when CS told me what the ACTUAL UNDERLYING price was at the time I traded on a lower number, I asked them as a gesture of goodwill to give me the profits from YOUR OWN UNDERLYING PRICE up to my exit point.
This was rejected too.
Dave
Crap Buddist
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,458
- Likes
- 289
Thats a start. Where can a client find the list of data feeds Capital spreads use for their products so they can retro actively apply a reconcilliation of stopped out trades that were due to palpable error and reclaim monies due to them. And how many years can they retro actively apply that , is it 3-5years going back time of claim?
I'm assuming Capital spreads would keep their mouths shut if they know an error, rather than retro amending errors automatically on their clients behalf ?
I bet a lot of clients didnt even know they could reclaim a stopped out trade providing they can reconcile it, so wheres the list of data you work off to allow reconcilliation to commence ?
so in short do capital spreads keep historic price histories, if so how far back do you go and who do clients contact to get this data at capital spreads to do a reconcilliation against your true prices?
Seems bonkers, but if theres any whiff of price intergity, then by its very being ,reconcilliation against actual true data must happen for every trade. man o man...
Lets call it the third umpire. Stewards enquiry for every single trade, lordy.
Last edited:
