CMC Complaint & Ombudsmans Response

[Black Swan]

what about the clients who try to exploit holes in the SB's prices? I suppose this is an ok practice?

Good point. Burn them As an insider what's your (non commercial/personal ) view on TomTom's complaint?

 

[counter_violent]

I've often been re-quoted..slippage in my favour...usually when it's outside the spread...usually filled if inside the spread....seems fair enough to me !

I think there are a lot of people on this thread clearly dont have the foggiest notion of how to protect themselves (information etc) ...and how to handle themselves when in dispute.

 

[arabianights]

what about the clients who try to exploit holes in the SB's prices? I suppose this is an ok practice?

Unregulated market

 

[gooseman]

Good point. Burn them As an insider what's your (non commercial/personal ) view on TomTom's complaint?

i'm not an insider by any stretch but if you deal with these people in that size then you need tp have your own shop setup correctly first.

if he's doing 2k apoint that's 200 future equivalents. and you don't have recorded lines or an alternative broker in place then i find it hard to have sympathy.

saying that cmc are not blameless either-if you allow that much risk to be put on then you have to be able to unwind it. note if i try to sell 200 futures into a liquid index market i expect a few ticks slippage.....even more so these days.

 

[karl6666]

I've often been re-quoted..slippage in my favour...usually when it's outside the spread...usually filled if inside the spread....seems fair enough to me !

I think there are a lot of people on this thread clearly dont have the foggiest notion of how to protect themselves (information etc) ...and how to handle themselves when in dispute.

FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT

 

[stevespray]

The thing I find interesting is this....

If you read most of the firms T&Cs then you will see it stated that "the client is speculating directly against the level our instrument and not the level of the underlying market on which the instrument is based"... therefore the question has to be asked; can a firm reasonably decline a clients order on the basis that the underlying market would not support the clients order directly? Can it not be shown that if a firm refused such an order to close a position then it would be acting unfairly since, in its T&Cs, it has agreed in advance with its clients that speculation is purely based on 'the level of our intrument'? Given that agreement any refusal (to accept a clients instruction) would represent a situation where the firm is seeking to gain the 'best of both worlds'? ie Agreeing on the one hand about EXACTLY what the client is speculating on whilst, when the situation financially suits the firm, saying that a clients positions cannot be closed because the order cannot be placed into the underlying. Surely at best (and this is a frequently overlooked part of firms T&Cs) the firm must specify an NMS (nominal market size) upto which a quote will be valid. This allows the client to open and close positions in clips.

Steve.

 

[counter_violent]

FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT

Where

Responsibility starts with self...

 

[seguna]

Black Swan

Don't think you've understood my point but you're welcome to yours. I just think the SBs should be way more than 'glorified bookies' and no I don't see where I've supported them in my post. I've simply said what they ought to do when they operate fairly.

Yes I have been burned by SB companies malpractices, yet I do acknowledge there are a few reasonable firms out there. I'm not talking about money I've lost due to not being disciplined, moving stops, second guessing and all that. Those are MY errors and the best execution platforms in the world cannot account for those so I fully take responsibility.

I've simply said SB firms can and should do better, and if they don't, the psychology of a bear market environment with people's portfolios largely down, means they'll be less tolerant of malpractices.

When you say I'm painting too dark a picture, check out how many stock market 'frauds' will be exposed in 08, 09 and 2010. These same 'frauds', people were willing to live with as long as the beer flowed. All that has and will continue to change and we're going to see greater market regulation - hopefully for the better, but don't hold your breath. It's not me painting the picture, it's the market - I'm just making my observations.

 

[TomTom]

Specialist FSA Solicitors require £1059 inc vat to look at this plus £637 inc vat per hour.
Total costs to be in the £20k ball park.
Lets see how CMC find it when my legal beagals add to this sham.
This is going to cost CMC more than me before this is over
More details posted as things develop.

One more Important thing.
Case's similar to mine come up frequantly so I have been informed, but isnt if odd that they never get to a court hearing ?

 

[Black Swan]

Specialist FSA Solicitors require £1059 inc vat to look at this plus £637 inc vat per hour.
Total costs to be in the £20k ball park.
Lets see how CMC find it when my legal beagals add to this sham.
This is going to cost CMC more than me before this is over
More details posted as things develop.

One more Important thing.
Case's similar to mine come up frequantly so I have been informed, but isnt if odd that they never get to a court hearing ?

Be v.careful bud, some of the best con artists/salesmen call themselves solicitors. I won a phyrric victory recently that would have cost me 15-20K if represented by the best of the best, (IP issues) did it myself, fairly simple process. Cost me a few stamps, calls and probably 200 hours of 'educashun'. CMC wont be ****ting themselves when they hear from your 600 quid an hour firm, believe me, they'll be having these kind of battles on a daily basis, goes with the territory. But keep us posted, fascinated

 

[A Dashing Blade]

I'll echo Black Swan's point, they'll either have their own in-house counsel or have a retainer arrangement with one of the big-boys (Freashfields, Bruckhous etc). Do nor assume you will outgun them (tbh, my first reaction to the rate you quoted for an SFA specialist was " . . . Is that all!. . . . ")

Notwithstanding this, prima fascia, I think you have a strong case and wish you all the best.

 

[seguna]

Big guns notwithstanding, it all comes down to evidence, who has broken the law and who can prove wrongdoing.

If CMC have broken the law and you and your team can prove it, whoever's representing CMC can't do squat. In fact if your argument is clear and backed up with evidence Tomtom, you'll find CMC's legal team will probably just advise them to settle with you out of court.

These big firms are like bullies. They have all these intimidating defences around them just to scare off the weak and uninformed. When pressed with strong, clear arguments whenever they are in breach, they've nothing at all to stand on.

I'm digressing somewhat but, as well as unfair bank and credit card charges being returned, now we're seeing credit cards, loans, car finance and even mortgages being cancelled when they were proven to be illegal!

Strong clear arguments, backed up with evidence. That's all you need Tomtom - don't let the hype fool you cos there's a lot of it!

 

[Black Swan]

Big guns notwithstanding, it all comes down to evidence, who has broken the law and who can prove wrongdoing.

Nope, it more often comes down to money in these situations, he who has the most usually wins. This is not; break the law, get legal aid, or some young gun lawyer jock wanting to make a name for themselves by getting justice for their client, this is the sharp end of commercial law, no Tom Cruise in a Tom Clancy novel gonna come to his rescue, they'll see TomTom as a billing opportunity, no more no less...
The very best outcome for TomTom would be out of court settlement (probably his objective) but they will not cave in IMHO. Never a good idea to lose twice on the same issue, again (IMHO) he should have simply licked his wounds and re-gained his losses and moved on, harsh, but such is life, at times.

 

[stevespray]

In many ways I kind of agree with Black Swan but there are also other perhaps more serious risks to consider from the firms perspective.


One of the main ones would be a court case which sets a president in some way shape or form. For example if a court made an example of a firm with regard to what is termed as ‘fair practice’.

In this case it relates to weather a client has any kind of right, implied in the T&Cs or otherwise, to open or close positions if the client is trying to do so within normal market hours;

Does the firm, acting fairly, have the right to tell the client that he cannot close his position, either in part or in full?

One imagines that any defence that the firm provides would hinge upon the firm’s opinion (the dealer at the time) that it was not ‘financially viable’ for the firm to allow the client to close out their profitable position at that particular moment in time – this would naturally raise a question in court – does the firm, in its capacity as market maker, have any given right or entitlement to ensure that it does make a profit from clients trading activities? Or, are the firm, like the client, merely speculating that they ‘should’ make money if they follow a certain trading or business model?

You could then use these answers to potentially attack the firm with a simple claim;

You feel that the firm uses its ability to control clients order flow to try and make the firm more money than would be the case if clients were able to open and close positions at the time they actually desired.

If the court upheld the client’s complaint that the firm was acting unfairly in refusing a client’s instruction on the grounds of financial viability then it more or less instantly becomes, in my opinion, a ‘landmark’ case in terms of spread betting. From then on there would be a ‘green light’ for other clients of any spread bet firm to make similar complaints if they felt hard done by. This would represent a huge risk for not only the firm in question but the industry as a whole since clients can effectively complain about things which occurred up to six years ago.

On that basis any firm is going to think long and hard about actually taking, or even allowing, a case like this to come into court. Any firm is going to shudder at the thought of its quoting and dealing practices being scrutinised, in a court of law, in such a finite manner. Add to that other potential breaches of regulations with regard to recorded conversations and the like and you have the potential of a real banana skin from the firms perspective.

In my opinion, if this case is as tom has laid out (and obviously we’ve only heard one side of it) then I would expect that the firm would settle before any court date. Even if the firm feel that they have exercised their right to refuse trades they still have too much to lose if the case went against them.
On top of that the FSA would take a more than keen interest. Last time I spoke (off the record) to a guy from the FSA he said that they regarded Spread-betting and CFD’s as a very new industry. They are expecting problems and conflicts like Tom’s because the regulation for these products is still in its infancy. A case like Tom’s would highlight to the FSA areas which needed tighter regulation. Areas such as limiting the ability of the market maker to ‘back away’ on perfectly valid quotes. The last thing that the spread-betting firms would want is a directive which binds them to the prices that they quote (such is the case if you trade onto SETS at the LSE or onto the electronic exchanges like ARCA and ISLAND in the US). Sooner or later of course these regulations will exist – the firms would just prefer it to be later!


Steve.

 

[goldtip]

CMC Markets

Last year I mentioned that I had an outstanding dispute with CMC and have requested FOS deal with it.
The complaint was that CMC let me build up a large postion of over £2k per point on an index postion and when it come to take profits online trading was refered to telephone dealer. It was at this point problems started.
The dealer refused to accept my instructions to close this postion either at the full amount or smaller size's.
The responce from the FOS dose not believe that CMC would send a message to telephone dealer as they are an online execution only company.
Due to the fact that I have requested lots of information from CMC under Data Protection Act they then and never delived any information, the had taken money from me for that payment the FOS and Comissioners Office still have not taken any action against CMC. And this is a very sierouse offence, We dont stand a chance.
Any other traders ever had a message to phone dealer ? Please post now
Any other traders had a dispute with CMC ?
Any other traders have problems with CMC ?
The FOS has not upheld my complaint against CMC in my opinion because simply CMC are a big fish company and if they tell FOS what they have done is correct the FOS will believe them.
Clearly the person who was dealing with this case at FOS was out of his depth as lots of other relevent information was left out of his dessission.

For information I requested the FOS get records of my postions ofset into the market to show that CMC would not have an intrest in not letting me execute my orders as a substansial amount was gained in a short anount of time. I believe these trades we not hedged and some ones head was on the line if they were to pay out on this bet, hense no internet trades accepted & the need to phone dealer.FOS did not even request or recieve this reletive information.

The FOS even reports that CMC could not find any telephone calls from me, then states a time given by CMC when i called the dealing desk, FOS must have lossed the plot ?
Anyway this has gone on for a long time now and needs to be put behind me.

If you were to trade small or large and loose CMC will be ok with you, Trade large and generate healthy profits and they will crusiefy you.

Regards

Tom

Tom Tom

I had the same problem, I was up about £5k and the application would not allow me to close my trade and then froze until i was down about £3k, tried to call the desk nothing. I was going to let it slide but i think i will chase it up again perhaps go to a watchdog. Its out of order.

Goldtip

 

[gle101]

Tom Tom

I had the same problem, I was up about £5k and the application would not allow me to close my trade and then froze until i was down about £3k, tried to call the desk nothing. I was going to let it slide but i think i will chase it up again perhaps go to a watchdog. Its out of order.

Goldtip

Did the SB company knew in which way the market was headed? Probably not, as I said before, why don't you guys hedge the position if something goes terrible wrong? Don't you like to pay the extra spread for hedging, or what is the problem when such a simple solution would secure your profit. This is part of a normal risk management profile.

 

[gle101]

In many ways I kind of agree with Black Swan but there are also other perhaps more serious risks to consider from the firms perspective.


One of the main ones would be a court case which sets a president in some way shape or form. For example if a court made an example of a firm with regard to what is termed as ‘fair practice’.

In this case it relates to weather a client has any kind of right, implied in the T&Cs or otherwise, to open or close positions if the client is trying to do so within normal market hours;

Does the firm, acting fairly, have the right to tell the client that he cannot close his position, either in part or in full?

One imagines that any defence that the firm provides would hinge upon the firm’s opinion (the dealer at the time) that it was not ‘financially viable’ for the firm to allow the client to close out their profitable position at that particular moment in time – this would naturally raise a question in court – does the firm, in its capacity as market maker, have any given right or entitlement to ensure that it does make a profit from clients trading activities? Or, are the firm, like the client, merely speculating that they ‘should’ make money if they follow a certain trading or business model?

You could then use these answers to potentially attack the firm with a simple claim;

You feel that the firm uses its ability to control clients order flow to try and make the firm more money than would be the case if clients were able to open and close positions at the time they actually desired.

If the court upheld the client’s complaint that the firm was acting unfairly in refusing a client’s instruction on the grounds of financial viability then it more or less instantly becomes, in my opinion, a ‘landmark’ case in terms of spread betting. From then on there would be a ‘green light’ for other clients of any spread bet firm to make similar complaints if they felt hard done by. This would represent a huge risk for not only the firm in question but the industry as a whole since clients can effectively complain about things which occurred up to six years ago.

On that basis any firm is going to think long and hard about actually taking, or even allowing, a case like this to come into court. Any firm is going to shudder at the thought of its quoting and dealing practices being scrutinised, in a court of law, in such a finite manner. Add to that other potential breaches of regulations with regard to recorded conversations and the like and you have the potential of a real banana skin from the firms perspective.

In my opinion, if this case is as tom has laid out (and obviously we’ve only heard one side of it) then I would expect that the firm would settle before any court date. Even if the firm feel that they have exercised their right to refuse trades they still have too much to lose if the case went against them.
On top of that the FSA would take a more than keen interest. Last time I spoke (off the record) to a guy from the FSA he said that they regarded Spread-betting and CFD’s as a very new industry. They are expecting problems and conflicts like Tom’s because the regulation for these products is still in its infancy. A case like Tom’s would highlight to the FSA areas which needed tighter regulation. Areas such as limiting the ability of the market maker to ‘back away’ on perfectly valid quotes. The last thing that the spread-betting firms would want is a directive which binds them to the prices that they quote (such is the case if you trade onto SETS at the LSE or onto the electronic exchanges like ARCA and ISLAND in the US). Sooner or later of course these regulations will exist – the firms would just prefer it to be later!


Steve.

After the EU implemented the MiFID financial directives,I think it is much easier to get hold of records, to support your case.

 

[karl6666]

agree

Nope, it more often comes down to money in these situations, he who has the most usually wins. This is not; break the law, get legal aid, or some young gun lawyer jock wanting to make a name for themselves by getting justice for their client, this is the sharp end of commercial law, no Tom Cruise in a Tom Clancy novel gonna come to his rescue, they'll see TomTom as a billing opportunity, no more no less...
The very best outcome for TomTom would be out of court settlement (probably his objective) but they will not cave in IMHO. Never a good idea to lose twice on the same issue, again (IMHO) he should have simply licked his wounds and re-gained his losses and moved on, harsh, but such is life, at times.

I think CMC T&Cs will cover every nook and cranny to cover there own ****. I know its internet 'betting', but they will state, 'sometimes phone dealing will be necessary'
and offer that facility, they will also state there is a take profit facility, the only thing they are falling down on is that there lack of phone records, as I stated in an earlier post if the deal had gone the other direction and CMC had cocked up and tom tom bagged 80K by mistake,

You can gaurentee CMC would have every last detail recorded on the phone and even his screen time recorded some where............

Karl

 

[Claudia123]

CMC got in house legal experts dealing with this nonsense every day of the week. If there was a 'remote' chance of you winning they would settle out of court for peanuts. They dont want bad publicity and if I were you i'd be very very careful coz next thing you get a very expensive libel case on ya hands. Cut ya loss move on call it experience before it costs a lot more. They can mess with you for years, adjournments requesting this and that, till ya run out of money and they wont even notice it.

 

[karl6666]

modelling

CMC got in house legal experts dealing with this nonsense every day of the week. If there was a 'remote' chance of you winning they would settle out of court for peanuts. They dont want bad publicity and if I were you i'd be very very careful coz next thing you get a very expensive libel case on ya hands. Cut ya loss move on call it experience before it costs a lot more. They can mess with you for years, adjournments requesting this and that, till ya run out of money and they wont even notice it.

We cant all be millionaire models like you claudia

:whistling