Response to the FOS playing “Three Monkeys”
See No Evidence, Hear No Evidence, Know No Evidence
After Mr Xxxxxx’s “fortune telling” assessment which were full of assumptions and imaginations, I have been waiting for more than 7 months to get an Ombudsman to make fair assessment and decision which should have been based on facts and evidences provided by both sides of case. I am very disappointed to find another assessment which is almost the copy/paste version of Mr Xxxxxx’s opinions and assumptions. Worst is, it has taken FOS more than 7 months to copy and paste Mr Xxxxxx imaginative and comical opinions. Your assessment and this case turned into a comedy and I am almost laughing at some remarks in your assessment. Your department as a whole created this comedy.
I had hoped someone in FOS would eventually see the facts and at least use common sense to base the investigation and reach a fair decision, but I have given up now expecting a fair and impartial assessment from FOS. After seeing second episode of this comedy writing by Ombudsman, I have no confidence or trust left in FOS what so ever.
Your decision and assessment are ridicules, some parts laughable, impartial and intentionally or unintentionally bias to FIRM. So far FOS has acted like a defence lawyer for CMC rather than Ombudsman. I have given my reasons and evidence in my previous reply to FOS’s first set of assumptions written by Mr Xxxxxx. Now I will go through your decision sentence by sentence to show how ridiculous and impartial your opinions are.
Why I am doing this? Because, this case is now in the interest of the public and other investors. It will be extremely beneficial for other investors and traders to see, how taking a complaint to FOS is complete waste of time and useless, as FOS’s impartially, independence and expertise has been brought into question, to handle such financial cases. Please do not claim vice verse as I have seen enough facts and evidences in your assessment to prove that.
Ok. Let’s have a look at your assessment, Mr Ombudsman.
Page 1:
(Ombudsman says)
“Background to complaint
Mr Xxx issued a formal complaint to the firm on 8 May 2008 regarding the transfer of his fund.”
No Sir, I did not make a complaint on the transfer of funds. This might look a small mistake but it is very important to understand the basic merits of the case properly before you go into complicated parts. As far as I can see, you and Adjudicators don’t even understand what the case is about.
Nature of the complaint was the Firm created financial loss by wrongfully liquidating the positions on the basis that there were not enough funds for margin calls, but the funds were already in the Firm’s possession to meet the margin calls. Initial complaint in May was wrongful liquidation of the positions on the evening of 7th of May (a loss of over £50k for me and which was a nice profit for CMC), as necessary funds to hold the positions were actually still with CMC. The fact was, there was no transfer of funds and I was denied access to those funds as I was given wrong information by CMC. Non transferring of those funds within their control was the evidence to prove that Firm was in error and therefore the funds were with the Firm at all time which should have therefore been made available for use of the margin calls.
Now Sir, Do you agree with this fact or do you not? If you don’t agree then I have nothing to say to FOS in general, capability to understand basic nature of the complaint. If you do agree with me, then you have to change your assessment from the beginning, so you can conduct the investigation in the right manner.
Page 1
“The firm .......... .... ..Issued its initial response by e-mail on 8 may 2008, rejecting his (Mr Xxx) assertion that its error with the requested money transfer directly led to the liquidations.”
Yes, this was the evidence or argument provided by CMC to support their case. Was the firm right? According to you and adjudicators: No.
Page 3
Mr Ombudsman (R.Xxxxxx) says:
“I consider it reasonable to expect that most CHAPS payments would be completed and cleared by the next working day after implementation, and where circumstances allowed on the same occasions on the same they, if the instructions were provided first thing(as they were on 6 May 2008).”
Mr Ombudsman carries on:
“Whilst I have noted Mr Xxx arguments, I am not persuaded that the April liquidations would not have been executed if the transfer of funds had been completed in a prompt manner. It is evident that Mr Xxx made his formal transfer instruction at around 11am on 22 April 2008, which would have restricted the time available to complete the transfer and clear the funds on the same day. There is no evidence that the firm provided any assurance that Mr Xxx instruction would be completed and cleared on that day. It is evident that the market had moved against Mr Xxx open positions to such an extent that the liquidations began on the evening of 22 April 2008.”
You are WRONG. Sir, so were the adjudicators. You are wrong in many aspects, not just one. While Mr Ombudsman claims that he and Adjudicators role is not to undertake a ‘fishing expedition’ for the benefit of complainant. He and his collages of the Adjudicators do not have any problem going for a “fishing expedition” for the benefit of the Firm. What you and the adjudicators are doing here is blind “fishing expedition” for the benefit of the Firm.
I would urge you to carefully read Sir, as I will try to make a simple clear explanation to illustrate to you, the error in your thinking and interpretation of the facts. as I will make very simple and crystal clear explanation to show you, what you are saying is laughable.
CHAPS stands for ‘the Clearing House Automatic Payments System – usually referred to as ‘CHAPS’. (Quote 1)
“What is CHAPS?
CHAPS are a system used for high-value transactions, where money is transferred from one bank to another on the same day.”(Quote 2)
“Payments are made electronically and should start and finish on the same day. CHAPS opens for business at 6.00am each day and payments usually have to be started by 4.00pm. But there is a facility to make late payments, in certain circumstances, up to 5.00pm.” (Quote 3)
CHAPS is an electronic bank-to-bank same-day value payment..The main benefit of CHAPS is that it is fast, secure and efficient and the money is transferred the same day. (Qoute 4)
Can you see the difference between your and adjudicators opinions, and above quotes. Do you want to know where those quotes come from! Quote 1, 2,3 come from FOS (Institution, you and the adjudicators work and get paid) and quote 4 from Uk Banking Association. When you are making statement on a serisous matter, you and adjudicator should have done some reliable searches, from reliable sources. It would have taken you or adjudicator only few minutes to find the facts, about CHAPS. But case was with your department (FOS) for more than a year now and you and adjudicator have even failed obtaining simple fact in a very simple matter such as what the nature of CHAPS transfer is. Can you see how comical is the statement you and adjudicators making about CHAPS, and can you now see how illogical is to blame me that I have given Firm restricted time to do the funds transfer?
As to saying “that there is no evidence the Firm provided any assurances that my instruction would be completed and cleared on that day.” I am sorry sir, you and adjudicator may not understand the meaning of the CHAPS transfer request, but I and Firm perfectly knew that purpose of asking CHAPS, which is to ensure the transfer is carried on the same day so recipient can receive the funds on same day (even the next day would have been ok). The very financial tool that ensures that is CHAPS. It would been stupid of me to ask for assurances from the Firm whether the transaction would have been carried out on the same day, like asking for my bank to ensure if a Direct Debit had been paid, because very meaning of requesting CHAPS transfer carries that assurance.
For example, if you go to a grocery and ask for an Apple, you do not ask assurance to be provided that Apple will not be a Banana. In all times, I have followed the correct procedure in relation to my request of transfers and I have every right to expect the Firm to fulfill their responsibilities. It is not my job or responsibility to “police” the Firm whether they are doing their job properly or not.
What you and adjudicator are saying in your statements above is not just wrong but also, by trying some how to put the blame on me, is just disgraceful. You and Adjudicators going beyond acting like Firm’s defense lawyer, and now, trying to create false facts by saying there is no evidence Firm provided assurance that transfer would have been done on same day.
Sir, was there any evidence the Firm would not complete the transfer on the same day? You do not accept the instruction for a CHAPS transfer if you don’t have the intention to complete the transaction on same day. How difficult is to understand this simple fact?
But, not understanding what is a Chaps transfer, is not the most important mistake made by The Ombudsman and the Adjudicators. The most important mistake goes far beyond that.
Let’s assume, for one second that Mr. Xxxxxx and Adjudicators are right to say that there was not enough time for the Firm to make the transfer on same day.
I will ask you a simple question, which you and adjudicators have been overlooking since the beginning of the case, it makes me wonder now, you and adjudicators are intentionally overlooking this most important fact: DID THE FIRM CARRY OUT THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS ON THE NEXT DAY? NO. DID THEY DO IT FOLLOWING DAY? NO. DID THEY EVER DO IT? ANSWER IS A BIG NO. Why not? You tell me, Mr. Xxxxxx and adjudicators, without going for a “fishing expedition” to find something in order to justify the Firm’s wrong doing. Which part of this simple fact, you and adjudicators DO NOT understand that there was no funds transfer process on the first day and on the second day and also following days. Why do you and the adjudicators keep going on and on and on about your second guesses, assumptions, imagination, fortune telling predictions, “fishing expeditions” whilst facts are simple and very clearly demonstrate no funds process done by the Firm. Read this again sir, THERE WAS NO TRANSFER OF FUNDS PROCESS. THEREFORE THE FUNDS WERE WITH THE FIRM. Essence of complaint was not the transfer of funds, BUT IT WAS THE WRONGFULL LIQUIDATION OF THE POSTION BY THE FIRM, WHILE THE FUNDS WERE WITH THE FIRM AT THE TIME OF THE LIQUIDATION. Their excuse was; there were no funds available. But, because there was no transfer, funds were with the Firm available at all times. This was the fact in April liquidations and in May liquidations. This simple fact overrides every other arguments such as if there was enough time or not for the transfer or what would have happened if the transfers were done on timely manner, etc.
If above explanation is too difficult to understand, I can make it a bit simpler for you and the Adjudicators. Meaning of fund transfer is sending money from one place to another. In other words, sending it from A to B. A is the CMC account and B is my bank account. Even the Firm had transferred the funds promptly as requested and arrived at the destination B; it had to come back to A again to fund the positions which were “liquidated prematurely”. But, THE FUNDS WERE ALREADY AT THE POINT OF A. Is this simple enough to understand, Sir?
Mr. Ombudsman carries on with the comedy and says:
“I note Mr. Xxx effort in supplying the firm with £12,000 margin from alternative sources and there is no evidence to suggest that he approached the firm to query the non –receipt of funds until the week after placing his transfer instructions.”
Mr. Ombudsman and also the adjudicator can’t stop their “fishing expedition” to find more so called evidence to put the blame on me.
I gave the instruction for the transfer, request was accepted and I was told transfer process initiated. From that point it is not my job to “police” the Firm that, if they are doing their job or not. I was chasing the money with my bank, as the money looked out of the CMC account. I blamed my bank for holding the money and not crediting the account. I had no reason to believe that Firm lost the money as they claim. I have explained this in details in my previous response to Mr. Xxxxxx. If you haven’t read that, I suggest, you please read the responses carefully before you attempt to make such a ridiculous statement,
Mr. Ombudsman. Are you saying that I had to check with the firm on the first day or the next day or the following day to find out if they did their job? Are you saying that I should have guessed, Firm was making an error? No Sir, You are wrong. I don’t have special power to guess or read minds or future telling skills like yourself and the adjudicators have. I base my action on trust and facts which were available at the time of the issue concerned. Instead of trying to put the blame on me, you should have pointed out the fact, that when I had made the query one week later where the money was, Firm had still not made any transfer of funds. Mr. Ombudsman, do you think more than a week wasn’t enough time for the Firm to carry out a CHAPS transaction?
Let’s assume for a second that you are right and it was me to blame because I didn’t “police” the Firm earlier, if they had done their job as they supposed to do. What do you think; the Firm’s answer would have been if I had asked. Let’s find out, but not “on the balance of probabilities” but based on facts and evidences produced by both sides. By the way Mr. Ombudsman and Adjudicators, you might very like to base your assessment “on the balance of probabilities”, I don’t use that method when enough facts and evidence is available to answer the question. This is also my right to expect the FOS use the facts rather than imaginations and assumptions.
Now, Mr. Ombudsman and Adjudicators read the conversation below regarding the transfer of £15k. But this time please read it carefully. Can you see how hard the Firm is trying to convince me that the transfer has been done? Under the normal circumstances, as I don’t have the special power or crystal ball like the Adjudicators and now the Ombudsman have, I would have had no reason not to believe the Firm and I would have still blamed my bank . But as my bank assured me that there was no funds had arrived and asked me to ask the firm to provide proof, I wasn’t going to give up easily and just believe what the firm was saying. After I insisted that they provide evidence and proof that they have sent the money, suddenly the Firm accepts, what they were saying was not the truth!
Apr 30, 2008 8:54:04 AM: CMC > the money has gone from our side, if you haven't received it this is an issue you need to raise with your bank sir.
Apr 30, 2008 8:54:40 AM : 1242227 > is there any referans number in your side
Apr 30, 2008 8:54:48 AM : CMC > One moment please
Apr 30, 2008 8:59:22 AM : CMC > Unfortunately our reference number will be no good for your bank.
Apr 30, 2008 8:59:56 AM : CMC > You will have to speak to the bank about this.
Apr 30, 2008 9:01:04 AM : 1242227 > what is the bank name you use
Apr 30, 2008 9:03:30 AM : CMC > Natwest
Apr 30, 2008 9:04:00 AM : 1242227 > my bank says there is nothing, can you find out swift transaction ID and my bank can check it
Apr 30, 2008 9:04:49 AM : 1242227 > i need some proof to show my bank
Apr 30, 2008 9:05:06 AM : 1242227 > it is called transaction or swift code
So, Mr. Ombudsman, instead of going for “fishing expedition” for the benefit of the Firm and trying to create false evidence such as if I should contact the firm and “police” the firm, you and the adjudicators should have looked at the facts provided in those conversation and question why the Firm was giving wrong information which was clearly a lie. You should have asked the Firm to provide details about what really happened and most importantly where were the Funds. I am sorry! I forgot, it is “not material” to determine where the funds were, for the Adjudicators and for the Ombudsman. What is material for you and the Adjudicators, is to find out if I had “policed” the firm or not, and make an imaginary speculation based on that.
Mr. Adjudicators and you can carry on playing “There Monkeys”. “see no facts, hear no facts and know no facts”, but this does not change the truth and facts.
Comedy continues;
Ombudsman says:
“I am satisfied that Mr. Xxx’ request to transfer £15,000 from his CFD account to his overseas current account was a contributory factor to the liquidations taking place, and had he not issued his transfer instructions at that time, I see no reason why he would not have been in position to provide sufficient margin to maintain his open positions.”
Well done Sir, absolutely genius. Mr. Ombudsman is in a race for “fishing expedition” with the Adjudicators, now claims caught a big one, so he can put the blame on me. But he is absolutely RIGHT. Yes, if there was no transfer instruction from me, then there would not been any “error” by the firm, so there would not have been any complaint and we all would not have wasted our time reading this comedy. So, as the Ombudsman says, it is my fault I asked the firm to transfer the £15.000 and it was also my fault to ask the firm transfer £60,000 in May, too. YOU ARE RIGHT, SIR. IT IS ALL MR XXX’ FAULT IN FIRST PLACE, TO REQUEST THE TRANSFER OF HIS MONEY TO HIS BANK ACCOUNT! Why didn’t I think of that and why have Adjudicators and yourself taken over one year not able to see this “fact” from the beginning, so you and adjudicators would not wasted your time making assumption by looking at your crystals balls. And also, why didn’t the Firm think of that and summit it, as undisputable evidence in their argument, that it was my fault all along by requesting the transfer of funds. You and Adjudicator have found the simple evidence to conclude the case! Why are we arguing now? Case is solved; I am the guilt one as Ombudsman says!
BUT and it is a big BUT. There is one thing Mr. Ombudsman and Adjudicators forget, what they are saying is against every common sense, every common law. You have just undermined the foundation of the “City” in that we cannot expect any financial institution to carry out it’s professional obligations.
This is also a master piece of comedy which was created by Adjudicators and Ombudsman, which is now turning into a tragedy, as I wonder how those people managed to occupy positions in FOS. Before I go into explaining why, what the ombudsman says is not just absurd, but very dangerous for someone in his credentials, first I would like to help the ombudsman and adjudicators in their “fishing expedition” for the Firm, by going for fishing expedition against myself.
I (myself) am satisfied that Mr. Xxx’ decision to open the positions in his CFD account, which were liquidated in April and May, was a contributory factor to the liquidations taking place, and had he not opened or placed the trades in those liquidated positions in first place, then there would not have been any position to be liquidated by the Firm by “error”.
Well, it is correct, if there were no trades, then there would not be any wrongfully liquidated trades by the firm. Conclusion: I am the guilty one, according the logic used by the Ombudsman!
Another one:
I (myself) am satisfied that Mr. Xxx’ decision opening an account with Firm to trade was a contributory factor to the liquidations taking place, and had he not opened an account with the Firm at that time, I see no reason why the Firm would have liquidated trades.
If there was no account opened by Mr Xxx with the firm, then there would not have been an “error” by the firm and there would not have been any complaint. Again I am guilt, if we apply the logic MR Ombudsman uses.
How am I doing, Mr. Ombudsman in “fishing expedition” for the benefit of Firm? How about this one:
Let’s blame the dog and cat;
On the day which, disputed position opened, dog was barking, cat was screaming, and I was distressed by them so I have made a wrong decision, and opened the position which were liquidated later by the Firm in “error”.
Who is to blame here? Not me. You have to blame the Dog and Cat.
I can carry on these comical arguments forever. But I did not bring my case to FOS, so you could go for “fishing expedition” for the Firm and create such ridiculous, absurd arguments to justify the Firm’ wrong doings.
For example;
If a pedestrian walking on the street and gets crashed by maniac driver. Who do we blame? According the common law and simple common sense, maniac driver is to blame. But for Adjudicators and the Ombudsman’s logical (comical) understanding, we should blame the pedestrian, why? Because it is pedestrians fault that she/he went out the street. If she/he didn’t go out, walking on the street then there wouldn’t have been an accident, and she/he wouldn’t have got crashed by a maniac driver.
How about, a person gets shot by an armed maniac. Who do we blame? According to Ombudsman and Adjudicators, we should blame the person got shot dead. Why? Because, we can go for “fishing expedition” to find something that will put the blame on person got shot. Let’s try. Who killed person? Not the armed maniac, the maniac did not even touch the person, but the BULLET killed the person. So, we blame the bullet or blame the Gun. What was the person doing, by standing in front of a gun? According the logical (comical) assessment applied by the Ombudsman and adjudicator, we can say: standing in front of a gun was a “contributory factor” for the person getting shot and dead.
Can you see how laughable and also tragic that those type of arguments are coming from people working in the FOS. FOS stands for Financial Ombudsman Services, not for financial comedy services. There is no difference between, you and the adjudicators somehow trying to put the blame on me that my transfer request was a “contributory factor” for the liquidations and these examples given above. Liquidations occur if there is no fund available to fund the margins. FACT IS FUNDS WERE WITH CMC. Why wasn’t it available? Because CMC’ “error”, not because I requested transfer of funds.
Please answer these questions (at least this time):
Was it illegal or against the law requesting the transfer of funds?
Was there any error or wrong doings on my part in requesting the transfer of Funds?
Was it my fault the Firm did not carry out their responsibility?
Was it my fault the Firm failed to make funds available?
Was it my fault the Firm lied and mislead about where the funds were?
Will you and adjudicators answer these questions? I doubt it. Why? Because, I have never got answers from FOS, to any question I have asked.
Ombudsman continues:
“I should point out that the Financial Ombudsman Services is an independent complaint resolution service and does not regulate or “police” the financial services industry, which is the role of the Financial Services Authority (FSA). “
Yes Sir, it is also not my job to “police” the Firm whether Firm is doing their job or not. I don’t have to second guess where the money was or I don’t have a crystal ball so I can see if the Firm is lying, giving misleading information.
Ombudsman says:
“Our role as an arbitrator is to decide what we consider to be fair and reasonable outcome based upon the evidence brought by both parties in dispute”.
Yes, that is what, I would have expected from FOS. But what I see so far and what I have experienced from my dealings with the FOS, is nothing but intentional or unintentional (giving you benefit of doubt) BIAS to Firm, incompetence, laughable arguments and complete “fishing expedition” for the firm, fortune telling, crystal ball reading, imagination, disregarding every facts, probabilities and speculations.
Let’s carry on with comedy by the Ombudsman:
He says:
“That being so, my remit is to place Mr Xxx back into the position he would be in if the firm's error had not occurred. I consider that it was likely that Mr Xxx would have probably received the funds, had his transfer been conducted promptly, on 23 April 2008. But I have not seen any evidence from between 22 to 30 April 2008 which suggests to me that he sought to return the requested funds back to his CFD account with the firm. This suggests to me that Mr Xxx did not find these funds material to keeping the positions open in April.”
Absolutely unbelievable Mr Ombudsman, do you and adjudicator really read what you are saying. Read your words again and think for one second.
“But I have not seen any evidence from between 22 to 30 April 2008 which suggests to me that he sought to return the requested funds back to his CFD account with the firm.”
I didn’t even know where the funds were. I was looking for the funds for over a week and even accusing my bank of holding the money. You are asking me or expecting me to provide some sort of evidence for something that I could not even know. Did you expect me to guess that funds were with CMC? Did you expect me look at my crystal ball like yourself and adjudicator to find out if the firm was not doing their job? If I knew the funds were with CMC all along, between 22 and 30 April, I would have asked the funds to be returned to account on the same day. But guess what Mr Ombudsman, I didn’t ask the firm to do that, because, I DID NOT AND NO WAY I COULD HAVE KNOWN THAT FUNDS WERE WITH THE FIRM. It was firm’s responsibility to inform me that the funds were with them all the time.
Sir, I DONT HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL. Instead of looking for assumptions and imaginatory evidence for the benefit of the firm, you should JUST look at the FACTs. Saying that, I would not have returned the funds in the account is just unbelievable and total RUBBISH. I have provided all the evidence, to show how important it was to have the funds available at that time to reverse the situation and recover the loss. By asking me produce some evidence for something which I had no knowledge of it, you and Adjudicators must be out of your mind.
“Turning to the situation in May, having carefully considered the information on file, I am in no doubt that the service received by Mr Xxx was not of a standard which he was entitled to expect, and that it caused him unnecessary distress and inconvenience. For this reason, I consider it is appropriate to direct the firm to make an appropriate award which satisfactorily reflects this.”
Despite all the “fishing expedition”, imaginations, disregarding facts, fortune telling, ridiculous arguments, laughable statements by the Adjudicators and Ombudsman, even they can’t reject the fact, that THE FIRM WAS IN ERROR. These are their words “premature liquidations” of the positions, “firm demonstrably in error” etc.
But, if the firm was in error by liquidating the positions and therefore creating the loss, what is the problem for Adjudicators and Ombudsman asking the firm to pay the loss (which was profit for the firm) that they created. Problem is the Adjudicators and Ombudsman like to play “Three Monkeys”, don’t want to see, hear or know the facts and evidences. They have started the investigation with assumptions and finish it with assumptions. How about the facts? As far as I can see from the arguments in their assessment, facts are irrelevant.
Let’s see, how absurd and ridiculous their conclusion is:
Ombudsman says:
“But I do not agree with the financial loss calculation provided by Mr Xxx in his complaint submissions, as I consider that it is highly unlikely, and I have seen no evidence to suggest, that Mr Xxx would have closed his open positions at the precise moment that the indices peaked.”
This is the reason: Ombudsman and Adjudicator can’t see any evidence that I would have closed the positions at the best available price!
Another one; which is same as above but in different words:
Whilst it is impossible to be certain what Mr Xxx' decisions would have been had his liquidated positions remained open, I have seen little evidence which suggests to me that he would have definitely held an equivalent exposure level until 19 May 2008, and then closed out his positions at the top of the market.
Adjudicators’ and Ombudsman can’t stop repeating the same so called reason over and over again, here is another one:
Indeed, Mr Xxx' trading before and after the liquidations does suggest he would have maintained a similar exposure level throughout the period, which would have been eroded by losses and enforced liquidations following the market falls after 19 May 2008.”
This must be really the big fish caught by the Ombudsman and Adjudicators to create some sort of false facts for the benefit of firm; they can’t stop telling how big the fish is:
They must really like these jokes:
“In summary, I have not seen sufficient evidence to persuade me that the liquidations caused Mr Xxx an actual financial loss, as any profits that might have been generated by that additional exposure preceding 19 May 2008 would have just as likely been lost in the days and weeks that followed.”
and Ombudsman finishes his joke with the same way they have started this comedy:
“But, on the balance of probabilities, I do not find that, CMC's actions caused Mr Xxx any financial loss.”
Underlined words are the key words to understand the comedy written by the Ombudsman and Adjudicators. What they are basically saying, is that financial loss created by the firm in April and May, would have been lost after 19th of May as the stock market went down. Therefore, Adjudicators and the Ombudsman are speculating that the loss created by the firm could have happened in the FUTURE. So for this reason, the Firm is not guilty for their so called “error”, (all the evidences show, that was not even an “error”, it was a deliberate lie and fraud because client loss is the profit for the Firm).
The Adjudicators and the Ombudsman not only just disregard the facts; now also disregard the common sense and basics of the common law. Crime and punishment must follow and be fit to each other. What happened after or changes in the circumstances after the incident of the crime cannot justify the crime and can’t be used against the victim’s disadvantage. Why? Because, victim will have no control over the circumstances after the crime. Otherwise, we have to change the basics of the law and pardon all the criminals for the reason that circumstances could change in the future which will justify the crime. Quite incredible!
I apologize if I am teaching you and the Adjudicator how to do your job. But what I have witnessed in this debacle is disgraceful for someone like yourself and the adjudicators who hold position in the FOS, coming out with very absurd statements, which refutes every common law and common sense. Your argument will become landmark evidence to be used by anyone in the financial industry to justify any wrong doings or any financial crime.
I am sorry to say that, but with a manner and method you and adjudicators have used in this case, you can’t even solve a dispute in a “sweet shop”, let alone solving a financial dispute case. I think the following statement sums up your incredulous thinking in a dispute about money!
“…….any profits………………… would have just as likely been lost in the days and weeks that followed.”
Before explaining in detail how ridiculous your statement is, I would like to point out that the money may or may not been lost, but it would not have been your or the adjudicators money. That would have been my money and no one except I should have the right to make a decision what to do with that money.
Should you choose to read further I would like to refresh your memory about the case.
What happened on the evening of 7th May and in the morning of 8th of May? The Firm chose to deny that funds were with the firm,(look at the transcript of the recorded conversation on the evening 7th of May) and in the morning of 8th May, the firm accepted that funds were with them. Do you dispute these facts, Mr Ombudsman?
If you and Adjudicators do not understand the events in words, please look at the graphical evidence below, (it was also provided to you).
Mr Ombudsman and your colleagues the Adjudicator, I am asking you simple question: Why don’t you agree with the loss calculations? On what evidence and facts are you disputing the loss calculation? So far you have produced no facts or evidence to support what you are saying. There are no figures or numbers provided to dispute the calculations. There are only opinions but no facts and explanation.
There are certain rules and regulation in trading market. One of them is executing trades “at best available market price at best time”. I don’t know, you or Adjudicator ever heard of this. Looking at the all the communication with FOS, I doubt that you or Adjudicators know this rule. Let me explain to you. When a client places an order, financial firm should execute the order at best available market price at best time. This means simply that firm cannot offer any price which is worse than available best price.
If a firm makes a mistake in executing client’s trades or wrongly execute client’s position, it is the client’s right to ask the firm execute the trades at the best available prices. If they don’t do that, the client will suffer for the mistake made by the firm. If a client has no control whatsoever to execute the trades as the firm has not corrected their mistake or refused to correct their mistake, it is not the client’s fault the position were not executed at the best available price during the time of firm’ error.
Therefore the total loss calculation in April and May, was based on actual available market price for the instruments, and at the currency rates of the relevant instrument, during the time of “error” by the Firm. Which was £243,327.55.
If i had based my loss calculations on assumptions, imaginations, fortune telling statements, speculations as you and adjudicators based your assessment, then the loss calculation could have reached into the millions. But I used the facts, not assumptions.
CMC was giving every opportunity to correct their mistake and cancel the liquidation and make best market price available to execute the trades on the morning 8th of May. But they refused to do that. Why? Because they thought liquidation was valid and error was not instrumental for the liquidations. There was over £50k profit generated for CMC by their so called mistake and they want to keep it.
Below is the evidence provided by the Firm?
On 8 th of May, The Firm says:
“On Tuesday the 6th you made an express international transfer to your bank for 60,000 GBP. On Wednesday the 7th you went on Margin Call, and requested that those funds be returned to your CMC Markets CFD account to cover your balance. You were informed that the funds could not be moved by a member of staff here. You did not pay extra funds into your account, so four of your positions were liquidated.
On Thursday the 8th you enquired about the status of your International Transfer, and were informed that it had not been completed, and would take a further 1-2 days to complete. “
Do you, Mr Ombudsman and adjudicators; agree with any words or sentence or parts of this evidence produced by the firm? Looking at your assessments, even you and adjudicator don’t agree with the Firm. So, the Firm was wrong with the above statement.
The Firm was even lying and making up what they said or what they didn’t say at the time of initial conversation. Like the sentence “You were informed that the funds could not be moved by a member of staff here.” That was utter, complete lie. There was no such conversation took place between myself and the firm containing those words. Can they supply the tapes of this conversation?
What would have been right thing to do for the Firm on 8th of May? Facts were clear. “Error”, mistake, lie were clear. Who’s fault was clear. Loss (profit for CMC) was clear.
Please, Mr Ombudsman and Adjudicator do NOT ask me to provide evidence for the loss. Facts and evidences are compelling and clear. If you cannot see the evidence of financial loss on the 7 th and 8 th of May due to Firm’s fault, then I have to question your and the adjudicators integrity, impartiality, judgment to deal with this case. This case has not been brought to you, so you can decide whatever you like. You and adjudicator have to base your decision on FACTS and EVIDENCE provided by both sides. If you are saying you cannot see or read the transcripts of the conversation, trade details, charts, price of trades, I suggest you and adjudicators stop going for blind “fishing expedition” for the firm and OPEN your eyes.
Evidences are all over the place. One thing I cannot do is to create evidence for the evidence. What you are saying in your conclusion is so ridiculous that I can’t comprehend how you and adjudicators managed to get the positions in FOS. Even the Firm is not denying the financial loss I have suffered, but their argument is liquidation is legal and profit they have generated is JUST. If you and adjudicator don’t believe the loss calculations and evidences I have provided, then ask the firm, what was the loss for Mr Xxx has suffered in those “prematurely liquidated” position on 7th of May and also in April.
But it has been more than a year now the case has been with FOS, and adjudicators and you Mr Ombudsman are trying very hard to avoid seeing the facts. I can only explain this attitude, either you and adjudicator have no necessary knowledge to handle this case or you had no intention whatsoever from the beginning to reward my claim regardless of facts and evidences. In both cases, your and the adjudicator’s attitude can only be described by two words: “Professional Misconduct”.
What happened after the firm refused to correct their fault? I have contacted to FSA and FOS. FSA is pretty useless, can’t even regulate themselves, let alone regulating those financial companies. You want to see the proof, have a look at Northern Rook case.
FOS initially said, it won’t take more than a month to solve the dispute, but later on I was informed, that was misunderstanding on my part, and case can take forever. And I was told, I can’t take my case to FOS before I receive a final response by the Firm. So I went back to firm and asked for their final response.
After number of request from the firm, to issue their final response, finally I get the firm’s final response on 18/06/2008. That was their final response? Same as the RUBBISH provided on 8th of May. But it took 40 days for the firm to come up with same excuses. Firm was not in a rush.
Here is the firms’ final response:
“You were informed on Wednesday that the funds in transit could not be used to cover the margin in your account; therefore it was your responsibility to find alternative ways of covering the margin, or risk liquidation. You knew when you made the transfer that it could take up to two working days, therefore you knew the funds might not be in your account until Thursday. The fact that the funds were not transferred correctly was not a major contributing factor to your liquidation, since even if the funds had gone through correctly, you might well not have been able to use them to cover your margin.”
“On 6th May you made a request to transfer £60,000 from your CMC account to your personal account via an express international transfer. This method of transferring funds usually takes 1-2 days to process.
On 7th May you went on margin call and called CMC to stop the transfer from your CMC account to your personal account. Due to the transfer request being executed on the 6th May the funds had already been transferred out of your CMC account and were in transit to your personal account, and CMC were unable to stop the transfer process. The transfer takes 1-2 days to process therefore you needed to find an alternative way of funding your account to prevent liquidation.
On 8th May the chat transcript shows that you queried why your transfer of £60,000 had not been credited to your personal account. After investigation it was explained that your funds had been transferred from your CMC account but the process had not been completed properly. The process was completed and you were informed that the funds would reach your personal account in 1-2 days.
After reviewing all the information provided and my own investigation I am in full agreement that the liquidations that took place should stand. You did not fund your account after you had been told that the funds in transit could not be used.
Clause 7.5 of the Terms of Business clearly states that you must maintain on your account at all times sufficient cleared funds in order to meet the Margin Requirement, and failure to do so may result in us closing out your open positions without notice.
I have attached a copy of the Terms of Business for your reference:
(See attached file: TOB_CFD_100907.pdf)
The processing of the payment out of your account was a separate issue which I believe has now been rectified.
After investigating this matter, we regret to inform you that we will not be offering any redress on this occasion. We have acted fairly and reasonably in accordance with our Terms of Business by liquidating when you did not maintain sufficient cleared funds in order to meet your margin requirement.”
Their response not just full of laughable excuses but also in many places the firm is basically lying by making up the conversation I had with the firm. For example “You were informed on Wednesday that the funds in transit could not be used to cover the margin in your account” is just a lie. There is no conversation took place contains this sentence. The firm just made it up for their benefit.
But Mr Ombudsman and Adjudicators assessment shows clearly that CMC was wrong. “Premature liquidation” of the positions, firm demonstratably in error” etc. these are your words Sir. CMC was asked to correct their mistakes continuously in the following days and also was informed that it would be CMC’ risk if the price of the liquidated position moves in favour of me than I will ask the best available market price. That is the loss calculation is based. Best available market price to execute the wrongly liquidated positions. Price move against client in the following days is irrelevant. Firm should have corrected their error immediately in order to prevent any adverse condition for the client. You cannot make an error and then ask a client to pay for it.
Client’s right to ask best available price is a simple and logical rule.
Therefore Mr Ombudsman and adjudicators, your statement that when the market went down in the following days and weeks after 19th of May, money would have eroded have no relevance with the disputed trades and merits of the complaint.
Mr Ombudsman, let me tell you few simple facts about the market. May be you and adjudicators learn something. There are two directions in the stock market, one is up, one is down. That is the nature of the market. No one, including myself have control of market move.
What did you and adjudicators expect the market to do after 8th of May? Did you expected the market stay still and wait for the firm to issue their final response? Did you expect the entire stock markets close, so adjudicators and yourself can take the pleasure of time to make a decision about the case? May be, I could have asked LSE, Newyork Stock Exchange, Aussie Stock Exchange, German Stock Exchange, if they could stop the trading until the firm and FOS can decide about my case. I can tell you, not “on the balance of probabilities” but on the balance of facts, their answer would be very polite “**** off”. Why, Mr Ombudsman? Because, the request would be as ridiculous as your and adjudicators argument, that there is no financial loss because days and weeks later market went down. Even the firm does not make such ridiculous statement to defend itself in their final response. Why, Mr Ombudsman? Because, that will be beyond any comprehension and any logic. You can commit a error or crime in financial industry, then wait for the price change , when the price is changed in your favour, you can say fault and crime is not a fault and crime any more. For example, we should not blame Nick Leeson for bringing the Barings bank down. Why? Because, according the logic Mr Ombudsman and Adjudicators used, Nick Leeson was absolutely right buying those derivatives at that time. Look at the price of those derivatives now, He could have made billions.
Mr Adjudicator and Mr Ombudsman, you either don’t read what you are saying or you and adjudicator out of your mind, by rewriting the basics of the common law. You are simply telling all these financial thieves, they can commit error, lie, fraud; but make sure the conditions in the future change in their favor to justify their crime.
Why don’t you tell CMC to liquidate all their clients’ position and wait for the market change? With your logical (comical) assessment CMC can rob all their clients by making so called “errors”. If the clients complain and come to you for so called fair and impartial decision to solve the dispute, you and adjudicators can always say, “I am sorry market has gone up or down, you could have lost the money anyway, therefore there is no financial loss”. If you wait long enough market prices can change in any directions. Or shall I come to you, weeks or months or years later, when the prices goes above what it was during the firm’s error and ask you to instruct the firm to pay my money?
Can you or the adjudicator see, how stupid is your statement? So ridiculous your argument, even a primary school kid will laugh at this.
I will give you few examples, Mr Ombudsman and the Adjudicators to show how dangerous and tragic that those absurd arguments coming from someone calling himself an Ombudsman and Adjudicator.
One of the known and accepted fact in market is, over 90 percent traders lose their money. This is a fact. Why don’t you tell CMC to confiscate 90% of their clients money, because they will lose it in the future anyway? If those clients complain, CMC can always quote your ridiculous assessment in this case to support their action.
How about, saying to people who robbed and stolen money from Northern Rock Bank, (You should remember, that bank has gone bust and lost all the money.) Robbers should be released as there was no financial loss for Northern Rock bank because bank would have lost the money anyway. Or we can all commit a crime, steal money from any places and claim in the future that there is no damage done, because it could have happened in the future.
Or we can apply your so called logical (comical) assessment and new version of the law to other parts of the disputes. For example, let’s assume, whilst you and adjudicators walking on the street, passing nearby scaffolding, some construction workers make error or mistake or don’t take all the necessary precaution to protect the pedestrians passing by, suddenly metals and debris starts to fall on you and adjudicators, consequently you and adjudicators get arms and legs broken. What do you do Mr Ombudsman; do you sue the construction company for the damages? Yes you would. But, what happens few months later, you and adjudicators get involved in a terrible car accident and all of you lose your arms and legs. So, what happens now to your initial claim from Construction Company?
Insurance company for the construction company can have a look at the logic, you and adjudicators applied in my case with CMC and claim that you would have lost your arms and legs in the future accident anyway, so there is no damage or loss created by the construction company. You and Adjudicators have just changed the fundamentals of the law. But do not expect any medal from Law Society! Well-done Sir!
Can you see why I am calling your so called assessment is a comedy? But it is not even funny, what you and adjudicators has done, is just disgraceful for someone with the credential of an Ombudsman and Adjudicator, who had failed to comprehend even the simple facts and insisted on those ridiculous arguments and presented them as facts to justify CMC’ error (facts say it was a lie to keep the profit ).
Ombudsman says:
“And I have seen no evidence to suggest, that Mr Xxx would have closed his open positions at the precise moment that the indices peaked.”
Mr Ombudsman and Adjudicators, ask yourself the following questions:
Did I ask the firm on the morning of 8th of May to correct the error and execute the trade’s available best prices?
Was it my fault the firm refused the correct their error on 8th of May?
How could you possibly expect me to produce any evidence for something I have no control whatsoever?
Was it my fault that it took the firm over 40 days to issue a final response?
Was it my fault it took Adjudicators for months to issue their comical assessment?
Was it my fault it took you another 7 months to issue the second episode of the comedy produced by yourself?
Was it my fault the market moved?
Was it my fault you and adjudicator going for fishing expedition for the benefit of the firm and disregarding all the facts of the case?
Ombudsman carries on:
“It is clear from Mr Xxx' correspondence in response to and following the adjudicator's assessment that he has expanded on his original complaint to include allegations that the firm deliberately withheld his instructions from being dealt in the market or otherwise deliberately delayed or obstructed them, for the firm's own financial gain.”
You are wrong again, Sir, You can try to change the facts as long as you like, but facts stay same. It was Mr Xxxxxx, expanded the complaint so much that it was necessary to provide response to his imaginations and fortune telling assessment. This adjudicator has even extended his assessment to a point that he speculated that I was not “displeased” by the firm’s error. Can you imagine anyone would be pleased for being cheated, and subjected to massive financial loss? Who is Mr Xxxxxx? Is he an adjudicator or psychologist or a comedian? How could he possibly know, what I was feeling when I have learnt that funds were with CMC all along, while I was trying to protect the position and CMC actions had cost me a massive loss.
Another quote from Ombudsman:
“Mr Xxx has made allegations that are akin to systemic fraud on the part of the firm. It may well be that such allegations would be better dealt with by a court in any case. But for my part, I can find no corroboration for these allegations in the evidence that Mr Xxx has presented.”
It will be dealt with in the courts. But, Mr Ombudsman, as if you hadn’t done enough “fishing expedition” for the benefit of the firm in relation to complaint, now you go for “future” fishing expedition for the benefit of the firm by saying:
“I can find no corroboration for these allegations in the evidence that Mr Xxx has presented.”
Laughable and absolute utter RUBBISH. Let me take one of the allegation and show you what an evidence is, Mr Ombudsman.
This firm (CMC) is trading against their client. It means, client loss is CMC’s profit, therefore CMC has reason to make the trading conditions difficult and will benefit if the client lose money. That was the case in April liquidations and also in May liquidations. If they disclosed the correct information, that funds were with the firm, then loss wouldn’t have occurred for my part. But my loss was the profit for CMC.
CMC denies, they are trading against their clients. (Look at the online communications and phone conversation I had with CMC).
But CMC was lying all the times. Do I have the evidence to proof that? Yes, Sir. I have sent the evidence to you. What was it? It was the words, written by CMC’s own solicitor presented in a document filed in a High Court Case (all the detailed info regarding the name, case number were sent to you, Mr Ombudsman). Read the paragraph below:
"In the event of a client's trade with CMC being a successful trade it is CMC who pays the profit to the client and thereby suffers the loss. Conversely, an unsuccessful trade by the client would result in a profit for CMC. ..."
Mr Xxxxxx also refuted my claim that CMC is trading against their client and told me that if I can prove this, he might reconsider his assessment. (Check the telephone conversation I had with Mr Xxxxxx). Shortly after that, Mr Xxxxxx transferred to another department. Before he disappeared, he said he would respond to my letter after consideration. But he or anyone else never bothered to reply to my letter.
So, Mr. Ombudsman, I can understand that you don’t take my word for evidence but how can you refute the evidence produced by the Firm’s own solicitor? Do you think CMC’s solicitor is lying to High Court? Can there possible be better evidence then this, to prove CMC was continuously and deliberately lying to their clients.
Mr Ombudsman, evidence I have provided for my allegation is undisputable, is beyond any doubt. Evidence produced by the CMC’s representative in a written document which was filed in High Court.
If you are disputing this as evidence, I suggest you and adjudicators to find a dictionary and read what the meaning of evidence is. There is nothing wrong with the evidence, problem is your and adjudicators capability to understand the evidence.
Adjudicators and now yourself can carry on playing “Three Monkeys”, see no evidence……., but truth and facts will not change.
Below are some of the reviews and comments published on web sites by CMC’s clients. Read them carefully. Do I recommend those people to take their case to FOS? After my experience with FOS? Absolutely, NO, Sir. It is complete waste of time and money, to take any dispute to FOS, as long as you and the Adjudicators continue base your assessments on a crystal ball, assumptions and “fishing expeditions”. I suggest you and adjudicators look at the dictionary to understand what Adjudicator and Ombudsman are.
Date of Post: 2008-06-24
Review: Above all who posted HERE TO DATE I worked for them. Put it this way..their entire operation is not hedged which means they trade directly against you the investor whever you live. Owner went from 10000 pound in 1989 to 1 billion + today, how? hint it aint the commission your paying
--------------
“Barry In London
“I'm replying partly to previous reviews hinting that the bad reviews for CMC must be those commenting on CMC outside the UK... NO! CMC in the UK must be close to the worst broker on the planet. I feel fairly convinced that the good reviews are either from those related to the company, new users, users who are not winning, those who use no stops or extremely wide stops, or those using a type of long term trading style which CMC finds it harder to manipulate all odds against you.
I actually thought CMC were ok when I first used them. Good software, regular statements, etc, but try & consistently win with these people... to say they manipulate prices & trade against their clients is an understatement. In comparison to other "bad" brokers that I would score 3/10, CMC would come -9/10 (that's a minus nine in case you missed it). My attitude to this broker verges on hatred & anyone places their money after thousands of bad reviews on this broker must be an imbecile.
Worst broker in the world? I really couldn't say but they're my main contender.”
2009-05-19
Review: Just got put on MANUAL EXECUTION with CMC as was making good profits. When i called them - they deny that MANUAL execution even exists with them- what a joke !!
My market orders take anywhere btw 5-20 secs to get executed on EVERY SINGLE trade now. HOW is this not manual execution? When i called them up--all kind of excuses from where the sun dont shine
i have skillfully withdrawn all my money.
STAY AWAY FROM THIS BUCKET SHOP. YOU MAKE MONEY THEY PUT YOU ON MANUAL PATHETIC EVERLASTING EXECUTION
2009-01-16
Review: 1 star. Sadly, most of the negative reviews here seem to be accurate (I've had a live account with CMC Markets (was CMC Group) for 5 or 6 years). Rather than 'rant', let me give specifics:
(a) The sales pitch (I went to one of their seminars prior to opening an account) was exactly that - a SALES pitch, from somebody who clearly had never used their platform. I was given misleading advice as to their platform and services.
(b) Customer service from their DEALERS is absolutely shocking. A response to a question I once had (via platform chat facility): " u can do what u likes ". I queried an order they had failed to execute - 5 min wait, response "the dealer has left the conversation". I've experienced delays > 2 hours trying to get through to them!
(c) Trade execution: It varies, but is usually Slow and sloppy. Ever hear of the term SLIPPAGE? Market orders are commonly filled a number of pips / points - AGAINST YOU - away from THEIR OWN quoted price. Limit (entry / exit) orders may not be filled until the market has moved well past your price. I've caught them at this several times (actually FAILING to execute a closing (profitable) trade even though the price had gone well past my exit) - EVERYTHING I do I press PRINT SCREEN, then paste into a word document and keep as a record (why is this necessary?????). In fairness, every time I have complained to their customer service, they have rectified my account / honoured the trades. But I've had to 'PROVE' I've been RIPPED OFF by their dealers.
(d) GSLO (Guaranteed Stop Loss Order). They allow you to BUY (i.e. the cost is debited from your account) a guaranteed stop order on some CFD's. Why wasn't my GSLO executed? "What GSLO". (The one I PAID for. Here is the order number...) What happened? "Ah, somebody in the London office must have deleted it". Again, they honoured the GSLO price - after I complained. LUCKY I had a RECORD of having purchased the GSLO!!
If you are unfortunate enough to have made the mistake of opening an account with these sharks, WATCH them carefully, and KEEP A RECORD (yeah, screen copies etc) of what happens. If you ever have a trade open while you're NOT watching (logged off), best of luck!
I'm disappointed that they consistently display (and get away with!!) such atrocious behaviour. It is NOT typical of Australian businesses - but they're setting a bad example for any offshore customers.
Date of Post: 2009-01-11
Review: Absolute scam. There system is that of a bucket shop / boiler room. I cannot say enough about how bad this company is.
They seem to be in bed with ASIC (Australian financial regulatory body) to get away with what they do. The Aussie money magazines give them glowing reviews as well. All I can assure you is that they scam on stops, not executing limit orders, re-quotes, numerous other scams and they hate profitable traders.
I know of 4 other traders personally that have used CMC and all have had the same experience as I, not one of these traders use CMC any longer.
As to the positive reviews on here, all I can say is that must be representatives of CMC Markets. Either that or they are so green on trading they have no idea and should not be commenting.
2008-12-31
Review: I received my $472.94 two days ago from CMC Market
2008-12-09 1 Star I had money $472.94 left in a/c , in the end of aug 2008 I faxed the withraw form to thier office, until today, I still haven't received their check, call the Office more than 7 time, they said the check sent out, after 2 months said will send out another check , I was waiting another month,until today Dec/10/2008 still haven't received the check, e-mail to them, no reply at all.
Andy, UK
Rating: No Rating
Date of Post: 2008-12-28
Review: CMC Markets are a bunch of thieving crooks, this market is hard enough without these bandits making it harder.
I have been trading with these bandits for about 10 weeks in which time I have increased my account X 24.
My complaint about these bandits are listed below.
1) Take a trade and the spread has changed on cable upto 29 pips, befor you are able to place a stop.
2) Always steal money from you when you close a trade.
3) Steal money again, it the time it takes to open and close Market Maker, with no trades rolling.
4) Stop hunt you.
5) On a OCO trade, all other brokers made the target +5, but CMC missed by 2 pips.
6) Customer service is excellent when you sign up, but don't bother to answer your queries, when you are making money, and when they do you may aswell talk to a brick wall.
So if you want to avoid the latter, don't deal with these, HIGHWAY MEN.
Andy
Power Trader, USA FL
Rating:
Date of Post: 2008-08-22
Review: All negative comments are true, I would touch these guys with a 10 feet poll. No execution, they roll you over at different prices charge you interest and never credit you correctly. They have closed the operation in US. and you will never get the $100 bonus they promised you.
2008-07-16
Review: It is a scam. Demo and real trading with CMC have got a huge differance. Requotes are all the time, even if the price stays for 15 seconds. For example, I wanted to sell at .6098, price moved to better .6102 and they offered the price to sell at .6010 and it takes about 10 secs to enter to the market. Pending orders don't work properly as well. They will fill your order only if the price moved about 15-20 pips further. Fast execution, tight spreads and (100$ bonus) are lie advertisement to attract new customers because old ones become less and less. So no way to earn money with CMC.
2008-04-06
Review: Dont use these crooks they are stealing money. That trade platform is rigged big time. If you want to give money away give it to the homeless not these low down and dirty *******s.
2008-03-27
Review: Traded with CMCuk last year. They stink with a capital S. When you are profitable they are not happy and look for ways to scam and steal from you. I hit a BUY button on a USD/SEK trade once and got filled on the SELL side. (I dont even take alcohol) Happened a few more times I called customer services so many times they ask you to send log files that dont exist. All other trades are now re-quotes news times or NOT!
2007-11-22
Review: Most of the tricks that these spiv's do has been recorded already.
I have experienced the following:
Stops hunted:
The spikes always seem to be around 18:00 hours GMT.
Requotes:
Always once my equity or close to margin.
At one time after having seen the price drop 10 ticks below my limit order (on a shorted position) when I called to ask why I had not been filled, the answer was : Their were not enough buyers on the other side ( absolute sh**) when I mentioned that I could forward both the limit order I placed and their own chart of where the price when their reply was:
CHARTS ARE ONLY AN INDICATION OF PRICE !
These guys are making serious money, manipulating the market. The FSA is a tiger without teeth, why else Northern Rock?
I used to have the CME realtime quotes for the FX beside the CMCE price quotes and would see the variation of the spreads between the two.
Any one on this site what that extols the virtues of CMC Markets are in their pay.
THEY ARE AS CLOSE TO A LEGALISED "CRIME" RACKET AS A COMPANY CAN BE. DO NOT GIVE THEM YOUR MONEY
2007-09-02
Review: In my experience with this 'bucket shop' market maker I have been subject to price manipulation both on stops and targets - as it suits them to line their pockets!
I would not personally, in any way recommend them.
Stay well clear - Scam rating!
2007-05-23
Review: I'm obviously not the only one who is disgusted by the way CMC operate. I currently have 3 accounts with 3 different brokers and CMC are by far the worst I have ever used. The main problem being multiple requotes even during quiet periods. It's bad enough getting requotes whilst entering a trade which could cause you to miss your entry but when you get them when trying to exit a profitable trade, which results in losing 10-15 pips or more, is just unacceptable. The helpdesk are no help and not interested. The excuses they give are pathetic. I have compared CMC's price movement to one of my other brokers with a live feed and CMC definitely lag so you are not getting the true price because they are "market makers", unless it's moving against you and then it moves very quick! I also trade CFD's like the ASX200 and that is unbelievable! The price gaps and jumps around and then you get periods where there is no data at all for 10-15 minutes! When you contact the helpdesk you get the village idiot! I don't think they're a scam ... just crap, and I can't bring myself to give them even 1 star. My advice to anyone and everyone is stay well away from these cowboys!
Mr Ombudsman, I can go on forever, how bad this firm is. I implore you and FSA to do the job you are paid to do, instead of backing this firm for their errors, lies etc, this firm will think twice next time when it commits so called “errors” in order to make financial gains.
AND
Mr Ombudsman concludes his decision as follow:
“on the balance of probabilities,I do not find that, CMC's actions caused Mr Xxx any financial loss.
Congratulations Mr Ombudsman. After all the clear and undisputable evidences and facts, you have chosen to base even your last sentence, once again on “probabilities”. You don’t just let this firm get away with so called error, but you have rewarded this firm with my money for making the so called “error”.
Mr Ombudsman and Adjudicator, if you think this firm will get away with this, you are mistaken. Yes it will go to court and be published for the public and investors to witness which may also harm anybody associated with this debacle.
If the court finds the firm guilty for the error and financial loss created, then that will also prove that you and adjudicators are wrong. Therefore you and adjudicators must face claims and “Professional Misconduct” charges, as you and adjudicator warned many times to base your assessment on facts and evidences, but consistently refused that, without giving any valid explanation.
You can accept your mistakes and get it right or you can carry on with your comedy. But I will hold FOS in general and you and the adjudicators (Mr Xxxxxx, Mr xxxxxx, and Mr Xxxxx) in particular, are responsible for further financial and other damages caused by your action which can only be described as “Professional Misconduct”.
Conclusion:
I reject your decision as I consider you and the adjudicator’s assessment and most of the arguments regarding the conclusion are non impartial, ridiculous, clearly bias to the firm and not based on facts and evidence provided by both sides. I demand you and adjudicators to do what you are supposed to do, instead of acting like firm’ defense lawyer, act like an Adjudicator and Ombudsman.
Yours Sincerely
