Best Thread Capital Spreads

[gle101]

Nash you make some very big claims and throw some big words around but I'm still struggling to see what your problem is, other than the fact that this lot have decided not to take your business any more. From the tone of your writing I can hardly blame them, but that's a separate matter. I don't see what law is being broken. I asume you agreed to some trading terms and account acceptance details when you opened your account. Maybe next time you should read it. As many people keep saying, if you are looking to steal ticks all day then go DMA and see how long you can keep swimming with the sharks. If you choose not to do that, then I think you have to respect the house rules of the SB firm you are using.

Moan moan moan moan moan.

There are rules for SB to follow, the EU MiFID financial directives clearly points this out. You cannot manipulate individual client accounts to suit you own means. As I understand it the MiFID directives also override a user agreement, if this violate the MiFID Financial directives and the rules set up by the financial authorities.

 

[nash02]

Nash you make some very big claims and throw some big words around but I'm still struggling to see what your problem is, other than the fact that this lot have decided not to take your business any more. From the tone of your writing I can hardly blame them, but that's a separate matter. I don't see what law is being broken. I asume you agreed to some trading terms and account acceptance details when you opened your account. Maybe next time you should read it. As many people keep saying, if you are looking to steal ticks all day then go DMA and see how long you can keep swimming with the sharks. If you choose not to do that, then I think you have to respect the house rules of the SB firm you are using.

Moan moan moan moan moan.

I copy and paste what I have written before

"I'm not a scalper, I put my trades in and I hedge them well (I hedge every single trade), so well that I consistently beat the SB."

Simon and others would like to stereotype me as a ****** who sits by the PC stealing ticks - ...... far far from it. I have a full time job as an MD with enough workload to have a full time secretary.

I have absolutely no problems with broker refusing my business - they are well within their rights to do. There is a difference between SB refusing to serve a customer (which is legal) and SB altering the odds to 'a specific' customer (which is illegal). Its nothing to do with a broker's terms and conditions - its the LAW . I've actually read the whole MiFID document.


PS: I have a DMA account too.

 

[Phil Mibbutz]

Nash you make some very big claims and throw some big words around but I'm still struggling to see what your problem is, other than the fact that this lot have decided not to take your business any more. From the tone of your writing I can hardly blame them, but that's a separate matter. I don't see what law is being broken. I asume you agreed to some trading terms and account acceptance details when you opened your account. Maybe next time you should read it. As many people keep saying, if you are looking to steal ticks all day then go DMA and see how long you can keep swimming with the sharks. If you choose not to do that, then I think you have to respect the house rules of the SB firm you are using.

Moan moan moan moan moan.

Strange response. Anyone would think you worked for a spreadbet co. Nash made 'his problem' perfectly clear. The point is that refusing to take bets is acceptable, moving the goalposts later and treating clients differently based on whether they are likely to win is not.

 

[Jon41]

Phil, I wish I worked for a SB, they must be earning a few quid. I have certainly contributed to their coffers. Anyway I'll try and clarify what I'm trying to establish though. My understanding of Nash's posts is that CS are offering him a different price to what they are offering other clients, when they are requoting prices. The problem I have with this statement is that I don't think CS actually offer requotes. You either get filled or you don't. No alternatives. At least that's my experience and so I don't understand the implication that Nash is making, how are the goalposts being moved? Of course I could be totally wrong about this so please correct me if they do offer requotes but it's just not something I've personally seen with CS.

 

[gle101]

Phil, I wish I worked for a SB, they must be earning a few quid. I have certainly contributed to their coffers. Anyway I'll try and clarify what I'm trying to establish though. My understanding of Nash's posts is that CS are offering him a different price to what they are offering other clients, when they are requoting prices. The problem I have with this statement is that I don't think CS actually offer requotes. You either get filled or you don't. No alternatives. At least that's my experience and so I don't understand the implication that Nash is making, how are the goalposts being moved? Of course I could be totally wrong about this so please correct me if they do offer requotes but it's just not something I've personally seen with CS.

I did not read Nash's posts as he was actually directly re-quoted. It is well known that CS do not re-quote. What they do is give you a "price no longer valid" message. You will be offered a new price (not a direct re-quote), you try to buy on that price and you get a new "price no longer valid" message followed by a new price quote, and so forth. Actually you will by this action by them, not get into the trade at all. Maybe Nash can shed some light on this matter.

 

[PipStar]

Phil, I wish I worked for a SB, they must be earning a few quid. I have certainly contributed to their coffers. Anyway I'll try and clarify what I'm trying to establish though. My understanding of Nash's posts is that CS are offering him a different price to what they are offering other clients, when they are requoting prices. The problem I have with this statement is that I don't think CS actually offer requotes. You either get filled or you don't. No alternatives. At least that's my experience and so I don't understand the implication that Nash is making, how are the goalposts being moved? Of course I could be totally wrong about this so please correct me if they do offer requotes but it's just not something I've personally seen with CS.

Nash has mentioned requotes surely in error instead of 'price no longer valid' message'
Irrespective of this, according to him, 2 accounts placing the same trades at same time - his account on dealer confirm gets 'price no longer valid' whereas his friend's new account is filled because it is on automatic execution.

I am not surprised by this scenario because I have seen it myself live seperately on other accounts not related to Nash.

 

[Black Swan]

Profitable traders are the spawn of the Devil, of that there can be no argument.

as if by withcraft this thread finally goes onto page 666...

 

[ZEPPO]

as if by withcraft this thread finally goes onto page 666...

Spoookyyy!

 

[nash02]

I did not read Nash's posts as he was actually directly re-quoted. It is well known that CS do not re-quote. What they do is give you a "price no longer valid" message. You will be offered a new price (not a direct re-quote), you try to buy on that price and you get a new "price no longer valid" message followed by a new price quote, and so forth. Actually you will by this action by them, not get into the trade at all. Maybe Nash can shed some light on this matter.

You are correct

The company in question is not Capital Spreads. I have no experience of dealing with Capital Spreads. I posted this issue to initiate discussion with Simon representing the industry (not just CS)

 

[nash02]

Nash has mentioned requotes surely in error instead of 'price no longer valid' message'
Irrespective of this, according to him, 2 accounts placing the same trades at same time - his account on dealer confirm gets 'price no longer valid' whereas his friend's new account is filled because it is on automatic execution.

I am not surprised by this scenario because I have seen it myself live seperately on other accounts not related to Nash.

Pipstar,

It was requote if the market moved against the SB. No requote if the market moved against me

But that is not all - even accepting the requoted price put me back into the same cycle where they would come up with another requote (on the requoted price) if the market moves against the SB. I would get indefinite requotes on requotes - Its a joke of a service from a regulated entity. I have seen it with CMC too.

Personally I found it frustrating to get out of losing position and the SB just wont let you.

 

[gle101]

You are correct

The company in question is not Capital Spreads. I have no experience of dealing with Capital Spreads. I posted this issue to initiate discussion with Simon representing the industry (not just CS)

I think if you address a serious issue like this personally to Simon on the CS thread we (I at least) regard it as a problem with Capitalspreads. Now you are saying it has nothing to do with CS. This is not very good forum practice. However, I did dislike Simon's reply and therefore made an answer to that. My post would have been less harsh if I had known the real facts. In order for us to take you seriously, you must make it very clear when posting on such a serious issue and with such severe allegations, that too, on a dedicated thread, that it is not connected with Capitalspreads per se.

 

[arabianights]

I guess you're both right; gle it was there in his precise words but a skim read, nash, would have given the incorrect impression of this being CS related.

So let's kiss and make up gents

 

[gle101]

I guess you're both right; gle it was there in his precise words but a skim read, nash, would have given the incorrect impression of this being CS related.

So let's kiss and make up gents

There is no hard feelings arabianights. At least, what came out from this issue is, it made an interesting discussion.
I also think Simon believed it was addressed to his company.

 

[nash02]

There is no hard feelings arabianights. At least, what came out from this issue is, it made an interesting discussion.
I also think Simon believed it was addressed to his company.

My apologies

I have never mentioned Capitalspreads (or even CS) being the culprit.

However, looking back and reading my posts again - and reading contextually to the thread, I agree I would have easily misled members to believe that CS was responsible.

I stand by the core of the debate but my apologies for not clarifying that it had nothing to do with Capitalspreads.

 

[arabianights]

I said kiss, not exchange bodily fluids like that

 

[gle101]

My apologies

I have never mentioned Capitalspreads (or even CS) being the culprit.

However, looking back and reading my posts again - and reading contextually to the thread, I agree I would have easily misled members to believe that CS was responsible.

I stand by the core of the debate but my apologies for not clarifying that it had nothing to do with Capitalspreads.

Thanks, no problem, you posted a subject which led to an interesting discussion.

Being a Swede, I tend to take these things a little bit too serious at times.

 

[Phil Mibbutz]

Funny how Simon assumed it was about CS and posted a response that made his company seem guilty.

 

[Black Swan]

Funny how Simon assumed it was about CS and posted a response that made his company seem guilty.

perfectly steered back on thread...

 

[nash02]

One question - unrelated to the previous discussion

Is there a DMA broker providing non-currency spreadbets apart from Prospreads?

Cheers

 

[PipStar]

Funny how Simon assumed it was about CS and posted a response that made his company seem guilty.

No wonder because the same thing happens at Capital Spreads. Take out the word 'requote' and slot in 'Sorry, the price has changed' and the story fits perfectly.