I feel robbed by etx capital and I don't know what to do. Any advice?

[highbury fx]

Hi, Based on your experience, would it be right for a spreadbetting firm to offload it's own risk prior to a clients?

why are you quoting a reply I gave you to a completely different question?

 

[igeurchfloss]

why are you quoting a reply I gave you to a completely different question?

Sorry for that. I pressed reply and didn't delete the quote....I've edited now

 

[gle101]

I don't think so. As I mentioned previously the t+c's of s/b firms are very specific but also general enough to cover any eventuality.

This business is quite simple in theory and the legal department of any s/b co will have little problem in pointing to a clause that offers them some protection from any client complaint.

Good s/b firms should be willing to compromise when the complaint is 50/50. Some do but we are seeing more of a culture appearing where the client is considered fodder and given little courtesy. The firms that are treating people that way will suffer when the current trend changes and clients demand service and respect again rather than no spread and 500:1 leverage and 100% deposit bonuses.

Yes the T&C might include most of the undesirable incidents, but that doesn't mean it will legally cover all scenarios. Also the T&C doesn't have juriesdiction over the MiFID financial directives. So if I was in Barry's case I would definitely go for it, as you also mention, this if I understood you correctly, close to half will get a court decision that will favor the compliant.

 

[highbury fx]

Yes the T&C might include most of the undesirable incidents, but that doesn't mean it will legally cover all scenarios. Also the T&C doesn't have juriesdiction over the MiFID financial directives. So if I was in Barry's case I would definitely go for it, as you also mention, this if I understood you correctly, close to half will get a court decision that will favor the compliant.

Hi gle

when I said 50/50 I meant that the client may have a complaint that is half right and half wrong. in instances like that the broker could compromise and agree a settlement with the client that shares the fault.

once a case against a s/b company escalates to the FOS then it isn't 50/50. The chances of the s/b company winning are far higher than that.

I agree that if a client thinks he has been wronged and he has not got the response he was hoping for from the compliance department of the s/b company that he should consider going to the FOS.

 

[gle101]

Hi gle

when I said 50/50 I meant that the client may have a complaint that is half right and half wrong. in instances like that the broker could compromise and agree a settlement with the client that shares the fault.

once a case against a s/b company escalates to the FOS then it isn't 50/50. The chances of the s/b company winning are far higher than that.

I agree that if a client thinks he has been wronged and he has not got the response he was hoping for from the compliance department of the s/b company that he should consider going to the FOS.

Hi highbury fx, OK, I misunderstood that part, do you have any real figures on how successful the complaints are if the case reaches FOS?

It is my firm standpoint that an external body should come in and oversee a major correction of a clients account funds, this if the amount of money exceeds a certain amount of money. It is very unethical as it is, that this sole right is with the SB or CFDs company only, to act and execute what ever they feel like according to their views on the correction. This way huge losses can result in bankruptcy and large winnings can be wiped out instantly, this only with a single keystroke, all this without the client having any say in the matter whatsoever before the act is carried out.

 

[highbury fx]

Hi highbury fx, OK, I misunderstood that part, do you have any real figures on how successful the complaints are if the case reaches FOS?

It is my firm standpoint that an external body should come in and oversee a major correction of a clients account funds, this if the amount of money exceeds a certain amount of money. It is very unethical as it is, that this sole right is with the SB or CFDs company only, to act and execute what ever they feel like according to their views on the correction. This way huge losses can result in bankruptcy and large winnings can be wiped out instantly, this only with a single keystroke, all this without the client having any say in the matter whatsoever before the act is carried out.

I guess in principle an unscrupulous business could do that.

s/b clients aren't dealing in to the underlying market (normally). They are dealing on a synthetic price that has been derived on the basis of the underlying. These 'made up' prices can be manipulated, they can be weighted in favour of the s/b firms position, they can slip stops at their discretion, in fact they can do all manor of things should they be that way inclined.

Most s/b companies whether they make their money from the client loss or whether they make their money from the A book commissions (STP) have a similar model at heart; they both need lots and lots and lots of clients to make their business work well. The firms that have lots of clients don't usually resort to unreasonable tactics as they have enough business to make some good money and continue to grow and attract more clients and continue to grow and make better money. The firms (in my experience) that resort to desperate measures (think worldspreads and cantor index with spread free trades) are the firms you really have to be careful of. these type of firms will not have the mass of clients they need to run a scalable business to scale and instead will need to wring every penny out of the clients they do have.

Stick to big firms. I don't think it matters where in Europe they're regulated so long as they have some kind of deposit protection from a recognised underwriter, but it does matter that they can prove they are a responsible business with a lot of clients.

You can easily give me plenty of examples of billion dollar firms that treat their clients like crap. well, yes and no.. it takes 2 to tango more often than not and just because someone bleats that so and so have ripped them off doesn't necessarily mean its true or correct. some of the judgements/fines that have been handed down to big firms over the years is just a correction of the way business was done for years. This industry is far more mature than it was 25 years ago (obviously) and what a s/b co could get away with in 2000 wont work now and they either had to adapt to become more retail friendly and less greedy or they went out of business.

The FCA do a great job at doing due diligence on applications to offer s/b services and they make it very hard and very expensive for new entrants. Once a new firm is regulated the checks are non stop. What we have to submit daily is astronomical. To have a new regulator isn't necessary. The last thing we need is more bureaucracy. Submitting 1,000 pages of more paper per day to a different regulator wont make our business any more trustworthy. Trustworthy directors and clients that aren't trying to pick you off or scam you is the way to make this business better.

 

[tokyojoe]

I guess in principle an unscrupulous business could do that.

s/b clients aren't dealing in to the underlying market (normally). They are dealing on a synthetic price that has been derived on the basis of the underlying. These 'made up' prices can be manipulated, they can be weighted in favour of the s/b firms position, they can slip stops at their discretion, in fact they can do all manor of things should they be that way inclined.

Most s/b companies whether they make their money from the client loss or whether they make their money from the A book commissions (STP) have a similar model at heart; they both need lots and lots and lots of clients to make their business work well. The firms that have lots of clients don't usually resort to unreasonable tactics as they have enough business to make some good money and continue to grow and attract more clients and continue to grow and make better money. The firms (in my experience) that resort to desperate measures (think worldspreads and cantor index with spread free trades) are the firms you really have to be careful of. these type of firms will not have the mass of clients they need to run a scalable business to scale and instead will need to wring every penny out of the clients they do have.

Stick to big firms. I don't think it matters where in Europe they're regulated so long as they have some kind of deposit protection from a recognised underwriter, but it does matter that they can prove they are a responsible business with a lot of clients.

You can easily give me plenty of examples of billion dollar firms that treat their clients like crap. well, yes and no.. it takes 2 to tango more often than not and just because someone bleats that so and so have ripped them off doesn't necessarily mean its true or correct. some of the judgements/fines that have been handed down to big firms over the years is just a correction of the way business was done for years. This industry is far more mature than it was 25 years ago (obviously) and what a s/b co could get away with in 2000 wont work now and they either had to adapt to become more retail friendly and less greedy or they went out of business.

The FCA do a great job at doing due diligence on applications to offer s/b services and they make it very hard and very expensive for new entrants. Once a new firm is regulated the checks are non stop. What we have to submit daily is astronomical. To have a new regulator isn't necessary. The last thing we need is more bureaucracy. Submitting 1,000 pages of more paper per day to a different regulator wont make our business any more trustworthy. Trustworthy directors and clients that aren't trying to pick you off or scam you is the way to make this business better.

Hi hfx, if my SB provider (IG) were actually trading with me (i.e mirroring my positions) they would make much more money out of me in the long run.
I spend half my time checking the dma price quotes compared to theirs & when it wanders off too far I stay out, because I am aware of the subsequent price manipulation.

If the SB's realised that not all retail guys are numptys & some of us have actually developed genuinely good trading skills, they might change their approach.

What is the use in churning over small beer accounts (& I obviously do not include the swiss debacle in this) to eventually have decent traders go elsewhere in the end, because they end up totally mistrusting the SB quotes.

My point is, if I thought the SB would mirror the decent traders, (I'm not talking about A book guys with large accounts), I'm talking about mirroring someone that shows their entry/exits are actually well planned, (they can obviously see this through a simple re run of the past trades), if the barrier of price manipulation were removed it would in the long run yield the SB more money in a win win situation over a much longer timeframe with guys who actually learn this as a skill, not just taking pot shots, but who have ebbed & flowed & become seasoned traders.

 

[gle101]

I guess in principle an unscrupulous business could do that.

s/b clients aren't dealing in to the underlying market (normally). They are dealing on a synthetic price that has been derived on the basis of the underlying. These 'made up' prices can be manipulated, they can be weighted in favour of the s/b firms position, they can slip stops at their discretion, in fact they can do all manor of things should they be that way inclined.

Most s/b companies whether they make their money from the client loss or whether they make their money from the A book commissions (STP) have a similar model at heart; they both need lots and lots and lots of clients to make their business work well. The firms that have lots of clients don't usually resort to unreasonable tactics as they have enough business to make some good money and continue to grow and attract more clients and continue to grow and make better money. The firms (in my experience) that resort to desperate measures (think worldspreads and cantor index with spread free trades) are the firms you really have to be careful of. these type of firms will not have the mass of clients they need to run a scalable business to scale and instead will need to wring every penny out of the clients they do have.

Stick to big firms. I don't think it matters where in Europe they're regulated so long as they have some kind of deposit protection from a recognised underwriter, but it does matter that they can prove they are a responsible business with a lot of clients.

You can easily give me plenty of examples of billion dollar firms that treat their clients like crap. well, yes and no.. it takes 2 to tango more often than not and just because someone bleats that so and so have ripped them off doesn't necessarily mean its true or correct. some of the judgements/fines that have been handed down to big firms over the years is just a correction of the way business was done for years. This industry is far more mature than it was 25 years ago (obviously) and what a s/b co could get away with in 2000 wont work now and they either had to adapt to become more retail friendly and less greedy or they went out of business.

The FCA do a great job at doing due diligence on applications to offer s/b services and they make it very hard and very expensive for new entrants. Once a new firm is regulated the checks are non stop. What we have to submit daily is astronomical. To have a new regulator isn't necessary. The last thing we need is more bureaucracy. Submitting 1,000 pages of more paper per day to a different regulator wont make our business any more trustworthy. Trustworthy directors and clients that aren't trying to pick you off or scam you is the way to make this business better.

Wow, that was a lot of propaganda in your post.🙂

You did not answer my question on the FOS? Either you don't know or you just decided to skip the question entirely. If you don't know the answer or don't like to answer please tell me so.

Hey come on highbury fx, be a little bit more thought creative and reflective on my suggestion. Well, I didn't expect that an overseeing body for major correction of positions would be greatly appreciated on your side. But the Swiss currency move has very clearly shown that something must be done in order to correct this "Wild West" behavior that some of the companies have been conducting in the involvement and aftermath of the Swiss currency incident. The SB and CFDs company doesn't own our funded money, I get the impression that your standpoint is as long as T&C stipulate it, any action to be taken by the company in order to secure asset from clients funds and make desirable corrections. This is far from the truth as the T&C have no jurisdiction over the MiFID financial directives.

Well as you are yourself saying, the fact that SB and CFDs are "synthetic" products based on the underlaying asset and can easily be manipulated, this proves that considerably regulation and overseeing is indeed needed. Over and over it has been shown that manipulation of the price feed and execution on an individual basis continues and the industry has not been able to self correct these misconducts. When the pice feed reaches the public platform it is not allowed according to the MiFID financial directives to set up back office parameters to restrict an individual client in receiving best execution (MiFID Best execution directive).

I guess more regulation is coming with MiFID II in 2016, so you better be prepared for more paperwork and transparency, we are in fact dealing with financial instruments and not a virtual asset. The FCA is not doing enough to oversee the following of the MiFID financial directives, but I guess it takes time to to adapt. The FCA and FOS will now pretty much have their hands full, dealing with complaints dropping in from clients not pleased with decision made by the companies regarding the Swiss currency move.

 

[highbury fx]

Wow, that was a lot of propaganda in your post.🙂

You did not answer my question on the FOS? Either you don't know or you just decided to skip the question entirely. If you don't know the answer or don't like to answer please tell me so.

Hey come on highbury fx, be a little bit more thought creative and reflective on my suggestion. Well, I didn't expect that an overseeing body for major correction of positions would be greatly appreciated on your side. But the Swiss currency move has very clearly shown that something must be done in order to correct this "Wild West" behavior that some of the companies have been conducting in the involvement and aftermath of the Swiss currency incident. The SB and CFDs company doesn't own our funded money, I get the impression that your standpoint is as long as T&C stipulate it, any action to be taken by the company in order to secure asset from clients funds and make desirable corrections. This is far from the truth as the T&C have no jurisdiction over the MiFID financial directives.

Well as you are yourself saying, the fact that SB and CFDs are "synthetic" products based on the underlaying asset and can easily be manipulated, this proves that considerably regulation and overseeing is indeed needed. Over and over it has been shown that manipulation of the price feed and execution on an individual basis continues and the industry has not been able to self correct these misconducts. When the pice feed reaches the public platform it is not allowed according to the MiFID financial directives to set up back office parameters to restrict an individual client in receiving best execution (MiFID Best execution directive).

I guess more regulation is coming with MiFID II in 2016, so you better be prepared for more paperwork and transparency, we are in fact dealing with financial instruments and not a virtual asset. The FCA is not doing enough to oversee the following of the MiFID financial directives, but I guess it takes time to to adapt. The FCA and FOS will now pretty much have their hands full, dealing with complaints dropping in from clients not pleased with decision made by the companies regarding the Swiss currency move.

hi

no propaganda at all. i'm not posting on behalf on any firm i'm just offering my opinion.

you make some good points and your opinion is your opinion but please don't try and tell me what mine is. you assume I use the t+c's to treat clients how I like, I don't need to defend myself against assumptions like that. you don't know anything about how I run my firm.

I've lost count the number of times I've said i'm not here to offer an opinion or view or speculate on scenarios. I post on here the facts as far as s/b firms operate and its up to you whether you believe it or not.

i'll get some fos numbers for you next week, it'll need some research from our compliance guys.

 

[highbury fx]

Hi hfx, if my SB provider (IG) were actually trading with me (i.e mirroring my positions) they would make much more money out of me in the long run.
I spend half my time checking the dma price quotes compared to theirs & when it wanders off too far I stay out, because I am aware of the subsequent price manipulation.

If the SB's realised that not all retail guys are numptys & some of us have actually developed genuinely good trading skills, they might change their approach.

What is the use in churning over small beer accounts (& I obviously do not include the swiss debacle in this) to eventually have decent traders go elsewhere in the end, because they end up totally mistrusting the SB quotes.

My point is, if I thought the SB would mirror the decent traders, (I'm not talking about A book guys with large accounts), I'm talking about mirroring someone that shows their entry/exits are actually well planned, (they can obviously see this through a simple re run of the past trades), if the barrier of price manipulation were removed it would in the long run yield the SB more money in a win win situation over a much longer timeframe with guys who actually learn this as a skill, not just taking pot shots, but who have ebbed & flowed & become seasoned traders.

hi Joe

When you take a trade from someone its important you know who you're dealing with and all spreadbet firms are very analytical about all of their clients. IG are no different and if you are a profitable trader IG would be aware of that.

s/b firms will move clients from the B book to the A book for 3 reasons:

1. the client is acting in a manner that has alerted the dealing desks attention
2. the client is dealing in such big size that he will breach the risk limits and need to be hedged to bring the firms limits back in to line
3. the client is a net winner and the s/b firm can't capture any loss from him so they capture small commissions each time he deals instead

IG may be hedging you but you may not be aware of it. if they're not hedging you its because theyre not bothered about your trading prowess, but that doesn't mean they don't instantly know to the penny what your lifetime pnl is.

If a client is making regular profits he will be hedged. Your point about s/b firms mirroring profitable traders is true to an extent. these profitable traders will be hedged a maximum of 100%, often only part hedged if the dealing desk is not totally convinced the trader is the real deal, but they wont be hedged more than 100%. in other words even if you're the best trader in the world and you sell £50 a point of USDJPY, the s/b firm will only sell £50 per point of USDJPY and not any more.

Dealing desks at s/b firms are not prop desks. they manage the exposure given to them by their clients and not their own personal sentiment.

no one thinks you're numptys. what we think is a lot of retail traders are very inexperienced and that gives us experienced guys an edge. when you factor in the spread advantage the dealing desk has then it becomes even harder for a noob to make money. tiger woods would kick my ass at golf but that doesn't mean i'm a numpty, it means he's better at that game than me.

A lot of our clients have disposable cash to speculate on because they are very successful in their own field - we don't think of these people as numptys at all, we think we're more experienced and with the spread we think that makes us a big favourite to win.

 

[gle101]

hi

no propaganda at all. i'm not posting on behalf on any firm i'm just offering my opinion.

you make some good points and your opinion is your opinion but please don't try and tell me what mine is. you assume I use the t+c's to treat clients how I like, I don't need to defend myself against assumptions like that. you don't know anything about how I run my firm.

I've lost count the number of times I've said i'm not here to offer an opinion or view or speculate on scenarios. I post on here the facts as far as s/b firms operate and its up to you whether you believe it or not.

i'll get some fos numbers for you next week, it'll need some research from our compliance guys.

Hey highbury fx, where is your sense of humor?🙂

A lot of your postings are very good and I enjoy reading them, really good for the discussion, but sometimes as a representative of the "other side" you have tendency to lecture too much with a bias that is quite reveling. I don't assume anything, your posts tells it all and I am very much entitled to express that viewpoint.

Thanks for getting the addition information about the FOS, it will probably show an overwhelming result in favor of the broker.

 

[highbury fx]

Hey highbury fx, where is your sense of humor?🙂

A lot of your postings are very good and I enjoy reading them, really good for the discussion, but sometimes as a representative of the "other side" you have tendency to lecture too much with a bias that is quite reveling. I don't assume anything, your posts tells it all and I am very much entitled to express that viewpoint.

Thanks for getting the addition information about the FOS, it will probably show an overwhelming result in favor of the broker.

gle

fwiw I like reading your posts too. without a doubt you have a good understanding of this industry and you make some really valid points.

I don't represent the other side, they are able to represent themselves. I offer T2W the benefit of my experience and will correct assumptions made about the s/b industry that are incorrect.

if my bias is revealing I am pleased. I don't have anything to hide. Where you trade, what you trade, how often you trade, how successful you are.. none of that bothers me. but when someone asks a specific question I will try and answer it honestly and if that means I reveal too much then that is indeed the whole point of me being on here.

would it be better if I was coy and didn't reveal anything, would that make my posts more accurate?

I do think the FCA do a good job, and the FOS and CySEC come to that. I do think our industry needs a bit of an overall. I don't for example like the Israeli tech firms and their obsession with making affiliate referrals the be all and end all. I worry about inexperienced people losing all of their money by trading a high risk product and I worry that most money managers are awful and are only interested in widening the spread and making comms regardless of their performance. So long as my firm acts within the boundaries that we are allowed to and we ensure that all of our account applications are from people who agree they understand the risks in our statements then my conscience is clear. We're not their parents and we wont police them. We treat them as adults and assume they have made an informed decision when deciding to trade and where to trade.

The SNB mess was an exaggerated moment in time that puts some clarity on the 'worst case scenario'. Whether a particular firm acted badly and took advantage of the confusion needs to be looked at and should enough people make a complaint then an official government body will make the final decision about restitution should that be the case, but what happened with the SNB happens every day just not to the same extent. Where do we (re)-draw the line? if the market moves 20 points through a stop over NFP, slippage is accepted but apparently slippage isn't accepted if the market moves 1,000 points through a stop when a central bank changes policy.

cheers 😉

 

[gle101]

gle

fwiw I like reading your posts too. without a doubt you have a good understanding of this industry and you make some really valid points.

I don't represent the other side, they are able to represent themselves. I offer T2W the benefit of my experience and will correct assumptions made about the s/b industry that are incorrect.

if my bias is revealing I am pleased. I don't have anything to hide. Where you trade, what you trade, how often you trade, how successful you are.. none of that bothers me. but when someone asks a specific question I will try and answer it honestly and if that means I reveal too much then that is indeed the whole point of me being on here.

would it be better if I was coy and didn't reveal anything, would that make my posts more accurate?

I do think the FCA do a good job, and the FOS and CySEC come to that. I do think our industry needs a bit of an overall. I don't for example like the Israeli tech firms and their obsession with making affiliate referrals the be all and end all. I worry about inexperienced people losing all of their money by trading a high risk product and I worry that most money managers are awful and are only interested in widening the spread and making comms regardless of their performance. So long as my firm acts within the boundaries that we are allowed to and we ensure that all of our account applications are from people who agree they understand the risks in our statements then my conscience is clear. We're not their parents and we wont police them. We treat them as adults and assume they have made an informed decision when deciding to trade and where to trade.

The SNB mess was an exaggerated moment in time that puts some clarity on the 'worst case scenario'. Whether a particular firm acted badly and took advantage of the confusion needs to be looked at and should enough people make a complaint then an official government body will make the final decision about restitution should that be the case, but what happened with the SNB happens every day just not to the same extent. Where do we (re)-draw the line? if the market moves 20 points through a stop over NFP, slippage is accepted but apparently slippage isn't accepted if the market moves 1,000 points through a stop when a central bank changes policy.

cheers 😉

Thank you all the same, but I still think you work for the industry.🙂 No harm in that, I found it great that you are around.

A lot of "social" posting during working hours, are you sure your company allows it.😉

 

[highbury fx]

Thank you all the same, but I still think you work for the industry.🙂 No harm in that, I found it great that you are around.

A lot of "social" posting during working hours, are you sure your company allows it.😉

lol.. I do work for the industry, I've been upfront about that, but in the context of me posting on t2w I don't represent anyone other than myself.

my boss is pretty cool, he doesn't mind too much 😉

 

[gle101]

lol.. I do work for the industry, I've been upfront about that, but in the context of me posting on t2w I don't represent anyone other than myself.

my boss is pretty cool, he doesn't mind too much 😉

Yes your boss must be something, most of us would have been fired for doing what you do.🙂

 

[igeurchfloss]

@ GLE1 - Highbury FX is C-level....he is the boss! I think it's a privilege having someone like him on a forum like this. We get a real view from the other side of the fence and that is always very valuable.
@highbury - Thanks!

 

[gle101]

@ GLE1 - Highbury FX is C-level....he is the boss! I think it's a privilege having someone like him on a forum like this. We get a real view from the other side of the fence and that is always very valuable.
@highbury - Thanks!

I thought that C-level is a lower rank of employee.🙂

 

[timsk]

@ GLE1 - Highbury FX is C-level....he is the boss! I think it's a privilege having someone like him on a forum like this. We get a real view from the other side of the fence and that is always very valuable.
@highbury - Thanks!

Seconded!
It's really good to have your input highbury fx - thanks for your contributions.
Tim.

 

[tokyojoe]

hi Joe

When you take a trade from someone its important you know who you're dealing with and all spreadbet firms are very analytical about all of their clients. IG are no different and if you are a profitable trader IG would be aware of that.

s/b firms will move clients from the B book to the A book for 3 reasons:

1. the client is acting in a manner that has alerted the dealing desks attention
2. the client is dealing in such big size that he will breach the risk limits and need to be hedged to bring the firms limits back in to line
3. the client is a net winner and the s/b firm can't capture any loss from him so they capture small commissions each time he deals instead

IG may be hedging you but you may not be aware of it. if they're not hedging you its because theyre not bothered about your trading prowess, but that doesn't mean they don't instantly know to the penny what your lifetime pnl is.

If a client is making regular profits he will be hedged. Your point about s/b firms mirroring profitable traders is true to an extent. these profitable traders will be hedged a maximum of 100%, often only part hedged if the dealing desk is not totally convinced the trader is the real deal, but they wont be hedged more than 100%. in other words even if you're the best trader in the world and you sell £50 a point of USDJPY, the s/b firm will only sell £50 per point of USDJPY and not any more.

Dealing desks at s/b firms are not prop desks. they manage the exposure given to them by their clients and not their own personal sentiment.

no one thinks you're numptys. what we think is a lot of retail traders are very inexperienced and that gives us experienced guys an edge. when you factor in the spread advantage the dealing desk has then it becomes even harder for a noob to make money. tiger woods would kick my ass at golf but that doesn't mean i'm a numpty, it means he's better at that game than me.

A lot of our clients have disposable cash to speculate on because they are very successful in their own field - we don't think of these people as numptys at all, we think we're more experienced and with the spread we think that makes us a big favourite to win.

Hi Hfx, I just wanted to say thank you for your reply (are you sure you did not write "the other side" thread 😉)

I just wanted to put another perspective out there, maybe the idea has been done or suggested many times to you, maybe other guys have had very similar thoughts.

Anyway point 3 has got me thinking.

Thanks again, have a good weekend.

 

[highbury fx]

@ GLE1 - Highbury FX is C-level....he is the boss! I think it's a privilege having someone like him on a forum like this. We get a real view from the other side of the fence and that is always very valuable.
@highbury - Thanks!

thank you.