Best Thread Capital Spreads

[gle101]

oh you are just saying its because of the rules

Yes exactly, otherwise the industry would run amok, like they did in the old times.

We must have a high standard for this industry, because they are dealing with our money and acting within the boundaries of the financial and gambling industry, and must therefore be regulated in reference to their activity. Boring could be, but nevertheless a necessity.

 

[chezlaw]

Yes exactly, otherwise the industry would run amok, like they did in the old times.

We must have a high standard for this industry, because they are dealing with our money and acting within the boundaries of the financial and gambling industry, and must therefore be regulated in reference to their activity. Boring could be, but nevertheless a necessity.

but the consequences of these rules suck. There's no point blaming the SB industry for doing stuff that sucks when all the options suck.

Instead of complainging about what SB firms do why not explain what they should do instead? and if the rules prevent a good scenario then why not criticise the rules?

 

[gle101]

but the consequences of these rules suck. There's no point blaming the SB industry for doing stuff that sucks when all the options suck.

Instead of complainging about what SB firms do why not explain what they should do instead? and if the rules prevent a good scenario then why not criticise the rules?

Are you the guardean angel of the industry? I thought I had that position.

 

[chezlaw]

Are you the guardean angel of the industry? I thought I had that position.

Definitly not this purely self-interest.

I spread bet and hope to make decent money doing it.

you?

 

[gle101]

Definitly not this purely self-interest.

I spread bet and hope to make decent money doing it.

you?

Same here, ha ha. But if you let the SB's run wild, you will definitely not make any money.

 

[chezlaw]

Same here, ha ha. But if you let the SB's run wild, you will definitely not make any money.

I agree they shouldn't be allowed to run wild. Don't think anyone is arguing they should.

But some things are certain: If the SB firms systematically lose money when I win then I won't be able to win much and if they've gone bust or raised their spread prohibitively because others are winning too much from them then I wont be able to win much.

So purely out of self-interest i argue that SB firms have to allowed to be profitable.

 

[gle101]

I agree they shouldn't be allowed to run wild. Don't think anyone is arguing they should.

But some things are certain: If the SB firms systematically lose money when I win then I won't be able to win much and if they've gone bust or raised their spread prohibitively because others are winning too much from them then I wont be able to win much.

So purely out of self-interest i argue that SB firms have to allowed to be profitable.

Yes, I have no problem with SB being profitable. They are entitled and should protect themselves, in order to be fully secured. But it must be within the boundaries of rules and regulations. As I see it, SB companies are unto themselves the biggest threat, this by not applying a healthy internal risk management strategy. I am in particular referring to giving excessive client credit, when it is quite clear, it should not be granted. I am not in this case referring to Capitalspreads in particular.

 

[chezlaw]

Yes, I have no problem with SB being profitable. They are entitled and should protect themselves, in order to be fully secured. But it must be within the boundaries of rules and regulations. As I see it, SB companies are unto themselves the biggest threat, this by not applying a healthy internal risk management strategy. I am in particular referring to giving excessive client credit, when it is quite clear, it should not be granted. I am not in this case referring to Capitalspreads in particular.

If the rules prevent them from turning down loss making business then they will go bust if the follow the rules. There's no risk management stratgy that can protect businesses that have to accept bad business.

 

[gle101]

If the rules prevent them from turning down loss making business then they will go bust if the follow the rules. There's no risk management stratgy that can protect businesses that have to accept bad business.

Then they shouldn't be in this business. SB survive today, not because they are playing a foul game. They survive because they have a lot of clients who appreciate using their service. I like to add, the unfair pratice makes up for a very small freqtion of the total service given.

 

[chezlaw]

Then they shouldn't be in this business. SB survive today because they are playing a foul game. They survive because they have a lot of clients who appreciate using their service.

That not in our self-interest. Far better the rules are modified to not be silly.

They survive because they play a bit fast and loose with the rules. That's not in our self-interest either.

I don't get why you just don't want the rules to be more sensible.

 

[gle101]

That not in our self-interest. Far better the rules are modified to not be silly.

They survive because they play a bit fast and loose with the rules. That's not in our self-interest either.

I don't get why you just don't want the rules to be more sensible.

Sorry, I hope you noticed the change in my post. It should read as follow.

'Then they shouldn't be in this business. SB survive today, not because they are playing a foul game. They survive because they have a lot of clients who appreciate using their service. I like to add, the unfair pratice makes up for a very small freqtion of the total service given.'

 

[chezlaw]

Sorry, I hope you noticed the change in my post. It should read as follow.

'Then they shouldn't be in this business. SB survive today, not because they are playing a foul game. They survive because they have a lot of clients who appreciate using their service. I like to add, the unfair pratice makes up for a very small freqtion of the total service given.'

Of course the unfair practices apply to a small proportion of their business - that's because its stops people who are beating them from beating them.

If they just let the people who are beating them, beat them then it will quickly grow until they go bust.

 

[gle101]

Of course the unfair practices apply to a small proportion of their business - that's because its stops people who are beating them from beating them.

If they just let the people who are beating them, beat them then it will quickly grow until they go bust.

Now you are just being plain silly.

 

[chezlaw]

Now you are just being plain silly.

oh right, so they stop preventing people beating them from wining and these people dont increase their bets and proliferate.

 

[gle101]

oh right, so they stop preventing people beating them from wining and these people dont increase their bets and proliferate.

I think it is better we let this matter rest for the moment, as it does not at the current state add any value to the discussion.

 

[chezlaw]

I think it is better we let this matter rest for the moment, as it does not at the current state add any value to the discussion.

I agree unless you care to actually address what the rules should be instead of what they are.

 

[gle101]

I agree unless you care to actually address what the rules should be instead of what they are.

Good.

 

[Jack Hughes]

Phew. Although there might be a few people who could genuinely benefit from 'latency', I wonder what would happen if all bets were automatically processed instantly, at the price shown when you clicked, as they could be (and should be, as SB providers always stress that it's their prices we're trading, not the real market)?

 

[tar]

SB firms will not go bust because of few clients making money this is not true , SB firms has an edge , 1- most traders lose ( Simon said 80% of CS clients lose ) , 2- SB firms buy lower sell higher ( spread ) , 3- SB firms can hedge the extra risk for example : there is 2000 Pound / point long FTSE and 2100 short Ftse , they can simply short 10 FTSE contracts . What they want more ? they will not go bust because of few clients making money , SB firms wants more money they r greedy thats it . Forget about the latency problems it is rare , they use it as an excuse only .

 

[chezlaw]

SB firms will not go bust because of few clients making money this is not true , SB firms has an edge , 1- most traders lose ( Simon said 80% of CS clients lose ) , 2- SB firms buy lower sell higher ( spread ) , 3- SB firms can hedge the extra risk for example : there is 2000 Pound / point long FTSE and 2100 short Ftse , they can simply short 10 FTSE contracts . What they want more ? they will not go bust because of few clients making money , SB firms wants more money they r greedy thats it . Forget about the latency problems it is rare , they use it as an excuse only .

Winners they can hedge against shouldn't be the issue. Its risk free profit, if some SB firm is stupid enough not to want risk-free profit then just go somewhere else.

The concern is winners who bet in a way that beats the SB firm out of money i.e profits that cannot be hedged against.

Losers come and go, winners proliferate and bet more. Each year the proportion of business the SB firm would take from these winners would grow remorselessly. There may be a bubble where new losers grow fatser than the winners but that's unsustainable. You might argue that commission from hedgable winners would outgrow the loses to unhedgable winners but its a tough case to make.