ETX Capital

[Shakone]

Counter Violent, as one of the few who hasn't complained too much about slippage, could I respectfully request that folk take more care with that 95% statistic that's freely quoted, as if it were fact - that only 5% consistently win. I stand corrected if wrong, that is to say, unless there has been some recent factual evidence, which was released to back up that particular statistic.

In other words, & again with all respect, unless there is ever sound factual evidence that only 5% are consistent winners, can we please not continue to accept and quote such a statistic as if it were gospel?

OTOH, I can however find evidence that such a statistic is questionable ...to put it mildly.

For just one example, on Jan 9th Capital Spreads wrote in response to a question I posed: "there are no hard and fast rules and (you may be surprised to learn) some 65% of all trades taken by Capital Spreads are profitable for the clients." - which begs the question - just how have we arrived at the magic 95% statistic - *if* it's a valid one?

Yeah exactly! He should have said 99%, not 95% :whistling

 

[tar]

95% is not a fact , here is some numbers for you , although when it comes to consistency the numbers would be different but is it really 95% ?

 

[gle101]

I don't think it matters in the slightest what the numbers are for individual profitable closed positions. The 65% figure quoted could simply mean very small wins on average compared to larger losses on average on the other side of the scale.

So, if ETX are making money, then either their customers on the whole are nett losers, or ETX are hedging their winning clients, book risk, or more probably both.

All this talk of slippage is just small potatoes in the grand scheme of things.

Slippage is of course one small bit to take in consideration and can be very important for some traders. It all depends on your trading style, it might be very important for some short term traders and while for swing traders it might not be that important. If SB is the right place to be a short term trader is of course another matter up for debate.

 

[pboyles]

ETX are going to freak out on Monday morning when they see all this talk of fraud and dodgy dealings on their thread.

 

[gle101]

ETX are going to freak out on Monday morning when they see all this talk of fraud and dodgy dealings on their thread.

No I don't think so, these SB companies are quite hardened by this kind of talk and can take it. All SB have advantages and disadvantages, ETX has many advantages but slippage is one of the issue that they might have to look into. Traders are overall more sophisticated and well informed today and will spot these kind of tricks in a flash.

 

[counter_violent]

ETX are going to freak out on Monday morning when they see all this talk of fraud and dodgy dealings on their thread.

You can be sure they are not stupid and it will be quite clear to them and everyone reading, who is inflaming, posting misinformation, and doing the muck raking.

 

[counter_violent]

95% is not a fact , here is some numbers for you , although when it comes to consistency the numbers would be different but is it really 95% ?

This is the problem, although the data might suggest (taking the best figure) a 45% profitable 55% unprofitable 3 month snapshot. How many in the 45% category will be profitable in the next 3 month snapshot and the next and the next and so on.

The figure certainly isn't going to rise...but it could easily drop off dramatically.
Who really knows where those numbers could drop to !

 

[Vasco da Banana]

I don't think it matters in the slightest what the numbers are for individual profitable closed positions. The 65% figure quoted could simply mean very small wins on average compared to larger losses on average on the other side of the scale.

So, if ETX are making money, then either their customers on the whole are nett losers, or ETX are hedging their winning clients, book risk, or more probably both.

All this talk of slippage is just small potatoes in the grand scheme of things.

No matter how successful or unsuccessful the trader, how could anyone not care if they were unfairly being given designer slippage?

 

[pboyles]

You can be sure they are not stupid and it will be quite clear to them and everyone reading, who is inflaming, posting misinformation, and doing the muck raking.

What misinformation is that?

 

[tar]

This is the problem, although the data might suggest (taking the best figure) a 45% profitable 55% unprofitable 3 month snapshot. How many in the 45% category will be profitable in the next 3 month snapshot and the next and the next and so on.

The figure certainly isn't going to rise...but it could easily drop off dramatically.
Who really knows where those numbers could drop to !

Agree , could be = 95% ? or 85% or even 99% ? ... etc , but is it necessarily for a successful trader to be profitable every Q ? who said so ? hedge funds can have a bad Q or 2 or even a bad year or 2 , another point here some of those that didn't make it last Q -55% in your example- could be profitable but they may be in a temp DD and they may recover and become profitable again next Q or 2 ...

 

[pboyles]

No I don't think so, these SB companies are quite hardened by this kind of talk and can take it. All SB have advantages and disadvantages, ETX has many advantages but slippage is one of the issue that they might have to look into. Traders are overall more sophisticated and well informed today and will spot these kind of tricks in a flash.

And that's why T2W never has any problems with threats of legal action.

 

[counter_violent]

What misinformation is that?

The vast majority of your posts for starters.

Continually posting off topic FXCM related stuff in the ETX thread.

 

[pboyles]

The vast majority of your posts for starters.

Continually posting off topic FXCM related stuff in the ETX thread.

Actually it was very relevant to the asymetrical slippage discussion. It is proof that certain brokers have engaged in these activities and have been fined for doing so.

 

[barjon]

Actually it was very relevant to the asymetrical slippage discussion. It is proof that certain brokers have engaged in these activities and have been fined for doing so.

Whilst I accept that SB companies can get up to all sorts of things to the detriment of their customers if they have a mind to do so, it has been pointed out that they are not brokers but market makers. So to keep waxing on about what brokers did in placing the "at market" orders of their clients is not relevant.

 

[pboyles]

So why would ETX need to use the virtual dealer plugin?

 

[Vasco da Banana]

So why would ETX need to use the virtual dealer plugin?

Greed/profit maximumisation and the SB's need to provide ever-narrower spreads, theoretical or otherwise.

 

[barjon]

So why would ETX need to use the virtual dealer plugin?

Do they? Their basic platform isn't MT4?

 

[pboyles]

Do they? Their basic platform isn't MT4?

They do use it, they said so here, was it you or Timsk that expressed their concern at that particular admission, I don't remember but it was one of you.

 

[pboyles]

Though I'm sure they're using in in a totally honest way. I mean any company that sponsors Greg Secker couldn't possibly be involved in any dodgy dealings.

Press releases | ETX Capital

 

[Shakone]

Agree , could be = 95% ? or 85% or even 99% ? ... etc , but is it necessarily for a successful trader to be profitable every Q ? who said so ? hedge funds can have a bad Q or 2 or even a bad year or 2 , another point here some of those that didn't make it last Q -55% in your example- could be profitable but they may be in a temp DD and they may recover and become profitable again next Q or 2 ...

Very true. But the 45% figure for example relates to those who have already survived and are still trading.