TheBramble
Legendary member
- Messages
- 8,394
- Likes
- 1,170
jrisley said:
Maybe that's why they're giving you some leash...?
IG Index
- Thread starter stevespray
- Start date
- Watchers 10
Maybe that's why they're giving you some leash...?
adrianallen99
Established member
- Messages
- 630
- Likes
- 4
Probably true, when I had issues with IG I was 166% up on my capital, so they werent very helpful. The account had only been open a month.
I am just looking at spreadbetting..and looking at goldline as the provider of softwear £5000 for this system, and then reading this blackhole betting company...makes me think again..where is the fully legit handle... I like others, know we have to win and loose but if its loaded like this against us...will make me think long and hard
Hi Trader 187.
I don`t think it`s all as bad as it sounds. I feel sorry for these Guys and fully support them if they have been ripped off. I have not used IG so I don`t know but my experiences with City Index have only been good despite the spreads. I like tax free trading. Let me know what you think of Goldline as I was thinking of this myself. I get fed up sitting in front of the screen all day.
I don`t think it`s all as bad as it sounds. I feel sorry for these Guys and fully support them if they have been ripped off. I have not used IG so I don`t know but my experiences with City Index have only been good despite the spreads. I like tax free trading. Let me know what you think of Goldline as I was thinking of this myself. I get fed up sitting in front of the screen all day.
HI Stevespray
I had to contact the FSA over a mortgage problem. Wrote and spoke to them there attitude was "well the mortage brokers have to make a profit" I had no problem with that but in my case it was a clear rip off. I ended up going to court within half an hour I had proved my point and was awarded judgement. Why did the FSA not sort something so obvious and simple for me? The FSA is well known in the industry for being pretty useless this could be a reason why companies try it on. My advice would be dont wait to long for the FSA to act. If your sure your right take it to court. I suspect if you are right once you start court action a settlement will be forthcoming.
I had to contact the FSA over a mortgage problem. Wrote and spoke to them there attitude was "well the mortage brokers have to make a profit" I had no problem with that but in my case it was a clear rip off. I ended up going to court within half an hour I had proved my point and was awarded judgement. Why did the FSA not sort something so obvious and simple for me? The FSA is well known in the industry for being pretty useless this could be a reason why companies try it on. My advice would be dont wait to long for the FSA to act. If your sure your right take it to court. I suspect if you are right once you start court action a settlement will be forthcoming.
donaldduke
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,665
- Likes
- 260
I think the spread betting companies do not have to honour
their quotes.. They can back away if they want to.
However if they agree and take your order (either to open or
close) and you get filled they can only then break the order if the
price was obviously erroneous (which is always subject to debate).
I think that in the case quoted by above they
didnt aknowledge that his order to close had been filled...
Although not good i dont think they did anything wrong.
their quotes.. They can back away if they want to.
However if they agree and take your order (either to open or
close) and you get filled they can only then break the order if the
price was obviously erroneous (which is always subject to debate).
I think that in the case quoted by above they
didnt aknowledge that his order to close had been filled...
Although not good i dont think they did anything wrong.
Last edited:
donaldduke
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,665
- Likes
- 260
I found this in IG Indexes T&C
By turning it around they are saying you are making a offer
to them (not the other way around) and they can refuse your
offer. Only if has be accepted if the acknowledge your bet..
By turning it around they are saying you are making a offer
to them (not the other way around) and they can refuse your
offer. Only if has be accepted if the acknowledge your bet..
stevespray
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,289
- Likes
- 156
Donaldduke - There is, as far as I can see, no fixed rules on weather 'quotes' have to be honoured. It would appear to be down to each spreadbet company to determin the service they want to offer. In IG's case the T&C clearly state that submitted offers with be dealt with in a perticular manner. If the steps laid out are followed then the customer can not be ripped off. That is the basis of my arguement - they clearly have failed to follow the steps laid out and a dealer has acted incorrectly in refusing my instruction to close.
Of course, as I have pointed out before, IG make a clear claim in their advertising that "the price you see is the price you get" - there is only one reason to claim this and it is to make their platform appear to be better in some way that other companies platforms.
Steve.
Of course, as I have pointed out before, IG make a clear claim in their advertising that "the price you see is the price you get" - there is only one reason to claim this and it is to make their platform appear to be better in some way that other companies platforms.
Steve.
donaldduke
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,665
- Likes
- 260
stevespray
The IG T&C are quite clear on this:
The IG T&C are quite clear on this:
Last edited:
stevespray
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,289
- Likes
- 156
Donald - Yes, thats term 5(3) I think. Let me draw your attention to some key points..
Firstly - the line which starts quotes displayed...the key bit is the line which says "via OTHER pages on our internet site"...other meaning pages not in the client area. The term is advising us that we cant really on prices outside of the client area - I got no problem with that.
The rest of 5(3) just deals with timing of refusals etc - the reasons for refusal are handled in 5(4) and 5(5). Read on to see what I mean.
Steve.
Firstly - the line which starts quotes displayed...the key bit is the line which says "via OTHER pages on our internet site"...other meaning pages not in the client area. The term is advising us that we cant really on prices outside of the client area - I got no problem with that.
The rest of 5(3) just deals with timing of refusals etc - the reasons for refusal are handled in 5(4) and 5(5). Read on to see what I mean.
Steve.
stevespray
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,289
- Likes
- 156
I gotta nip out, back at 9pm
steve.
steve.
donaldduke
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,665
- Likes
- 260
Stevespray,
Yes you are right about the 'other pages' bit.
However my reading of the rest is that they can refuse
any bet before they acknowledge it, and 5.5 lists cases
where they can break an already acknowledged bet if somehow
it slipped through..
I think your case would have been alot stronger if that had
acknowledged your close order and then came back a hour
or a day later and said they were cancelling your close order.
In that case i dont think they would do it, unless they had a
strong reason (ie the price quoted was way off).
I still think they were wrong to do what they did and hope
you win in your case against them.
Yes you are right about the 'other pages' bit.
However my reading of the rest is that they can refuse
any bet before they acknowledge it, and 5.5 lists cases
where they can break an already acknowledged bet if somehow
it slipped through..
I think your case would have been alot stronger if that had
acknowledged your close order and then came back a hour
or a day later and said they were cancelling your close order.
In that case i dont think they would do it, unless they had a
strong reason (ie the price quoted was way off).
I still think they were wrong to do what they did and hope
you win in your case against them.
Last edited:
rossored
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,103
- Likes
- 56
They will take and give whatever they want. I can remember one day mid last year (July I think) and I was short the Dow with IG (this is before I saw the light and moved to DA) from about 9130 I think... this was the same day some dimwit hit the "0" key too many times on order input on the exchange, and the market fell about 400 points in five minutes. I made a profit from the trade, but only from 9130 to 9080ish, as they declared everything after this "void" - even though it did actually happen.
You try and get away with that kind of thing with "proper" (ie DA) trading.... not a chance.
At the end of the day, the clue is in the words "spreadBET". How many poor bookies do you know?
You try and get away with that kind of thing with "proper" (ie DA) trading.... not a chance.
At the end of the day, the clue is in the words "spreadBET". How many poor bookies do you know?
tradesmart
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,286
- Likes
- 22
rossored - presumably they told the 'longs' with 400 point stops that got taken out, that it was "par for the course" and IG made a fortune out of it!!
or am I being cynical here?!
or am I being cynical here?!
stevespray
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,289
- Likes
- 156
Donald - Just got back in.....I'm not sure why you are reading the T&C in the manner you suggest. Let me post a few key sections.
Firstly and most key to this case....
"5(4) If any of the conditions set out in Term 5(5) are not satisfied at the time You offer to enter into or close a Bet we reserve the right not to accept your offer at the level quoted. If we have, nevertheless, already opened or closed a Bet prior to becoming aware of any breach of the conditions set out in 5(5) we may, at our absolute discretion, either treat such a bet as void from the outset or close it at our then prevailing price."
So as you see, in order to 'reserve the right' not to accept my offer they have to fail my offer under section 5(5). In my case they can't. As you correctly point, they also have the power to cancel a bet if they later find that they opened a bet in error.
This section is clearly the section which should resolve the matter in my case but IG choose to ignore this wording and call it not relevant which quite frankly is a disgrace in my opinion.
Section 5(5) then goes on to list every possible reason IG could find to reject my order if it was in someway incorrect. Look through it, it covers everything. The key term on price validity is in 5(5)(d) where is states that my offer to open or close the bet must be given while the price is still valid. Again this section is key as it talks about the importance of the price being correct at the time I submit it - not at some point later when they have left my trade waiting for a period of time.
You will, if you read the whole of secton 5, see that it contains a complete operating proceedure which IG agree to undertake when excepting clients offers/instructions. It lays out what valid quotes are, which prices can be relied upon and which can not, it then lists all reasons why instructions can be rejected. The key part for rejecting due to 'invalid price' states that the validity is based on the market AT THE TIME THE INSTRUCTION IS GIVEN.
This is also supported by their advertising which states "the price you see is the price you get" - I would suggest that they wouldnt be able to advertise in that manner if they were at liberty to simply reject customers bets regardless - It blatently wouldnt be providing the service they are advertising.
Steve.
Firstly and most key to this case....
"5(4) If any of the conditions set out in Term 5(5) are not satisfied at the time You offer to enter into or close a Bet we reserve the right not to accept your offer at the level quoted. If we have, nevertheless, already opened or closed a Bet prior to becoming aware of any breach of the conditions set out in 5(5) we may, at our absolute discretion, either treat such a bet as void from the outset or close it at our then prevailing price."
So as you see, in order to 'reserve the right' not to accept my offer they have to fail my offer under section 5(5). In my case they can't. As you correctly point, they also have the power to cancel a bet if they later find that they opened a bet in error.
This section is clearly the section which should resolve the matter in my case but IG choose to ignore this wording and call it not relevant which quite frankly is a disgrace in my opinion.
Section 5(5) then goes on to list every possible reason IG could find to reject my order if it was in someway incorrect. Look through it, it covers everything. The key term on price validity is in 5(5)(d) where is states that my offer to open or close the bet must be given while the price is still valid. Again this section is key as it talks about the importance of the price being correct at the time I submit it - not at some point later when they have left my trade waiting for a period of time.
You will, if you read the whole of secton 5, see that it contains a complete operating proceedure which IG agree to undertake when excepting clients offers/instructions. It lays out what valid quotes are, which prices can be relied upon and which can not, it then lists all reasons why instructions can be rejected. The key part for rejecting due to 'invalid price' states that the validity is based on the market AT THE TIME THE INSTRUCTION IS GIVEN.
This is also supported by their advertising which states "the price you see is the price you get" - I would suggest that they wouldnt be able to advertise in that manner if they were at liberty to simply reject customers bets regardless - It blatently wouldnt be providing the service they are advertising.
Steve.
TheBramble
Legendary member
- Messages
- 8,394
- Likes
- 1,170
tradesmart said:rossored - presumably they told the 'longs' with 400 point stops that got taken out, that it was "par for the course" and IG made a fortune out of it!!
or am I being cynical here?!
That would be a VERY interesting question to put to IG (and the FSA...)
stevespray
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,289
- Likes
- 156
Rosso & Bramble....
Tell me if I'm mistaken but wasnt the wrongly input order placed in the e-mini S&P500 futures market ? I remember the exchange busting all trades past a certain price but if my memory serves me correctly no such 'busting' of trades were made in the Dow Futures market. The movement in the dow futures market was based purely on a knee-jerk of what was happening in the S&P's.
On the grounds that the Dow market didnt bust any trades I would suggest that the spreadbet company was on thin ice if it decided that it was going to bust Dow trades made in the 'spike' period. At some point the spreadbet company has to realise that such action in the markets is always a possibility and therefore is "a nature of the business". They would most likely claim a 'force majure' event on this occasion but it is possible for us to counter-claim that these events do, from time to time, occur and are infact a factor which any person or company running a parallel market needs to take into consideration. Obviously from our point of view 'hindsight market making' is not exceptable.
Steve.
Tell me if I'm mistaken but wasnt the wrongly input order placed in the e-mini S&P500 futures market ? I remember the exchange busting all trades past a certain price but if my memory serves me correctly no such 'busting' of trades were made in the Dow Futures market. The movement in the dow futures market was based purely on a knee-jerk of what was happening in the S&P's.
On the grounds that the Dow market didnt bust any trades I would suggest that the spreadbet company was on thin ice if it decided that it was going to bust Dow trades made in the 'spike' period. At some point the spreadbet company has to realise that such action in the markets is always a possibility and therefore is "a nature of the business". They would most likely claim a 'force majure' event on this occasion but it is possible for us to counter-claim that these events do, from time to time, occur and are infact a factor which any person or company running a parallel market needs to take into consideration. Obviously from our point of view 'hindsight market making' is not exceptable.
Steve.
stevespray
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,289
- Likes
- 156
Just found this from the Advertising Standards Authority. Looks like clear evidence that IG Index advertise services they clearly are not providing............
IG Index
Friars House
157-168 Blackfriars Road
London
SE1 8EZ
Date: 15th October 2003
Media: Insert
Sector: Financial
Industry Complaint From: London
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complaint:
CMC Group objected to a press insert advertising an online trading system. Text stated "The best in on-line dealing The world leaders in spread betting are proud to announce the fastest, most advanced and most reliable on-line trading system available."
The complainant challenged the claims:
1. "... fastest ... on-line trading system available ..."
2. "... most advanced ... on-line trading system available ..."
3. "... most reliable ... on-line trading system available ...".
Codes Section: 3.1, 7.1, 19.1, 19.2 (Ed 10)
Adjudication:
1. Complaint upheld
The advertisers said they had looked at four financial markets: the S&P 500, the Dax, the Dow Jones and the Nasdaq-100. The advertisers compared their online trading platform with systems provided by two of their competitors. The advertisers monitored each system during the same three-minute interval and counted the number of price changes, or 'ticks', observed. The advertisers said their system had published the greatest number of 'ticks' in all four products. The advertisers also asserted their site was the fastest based on other criteria: fastest for clients to log on to either as first-time or as returning users, and fastest for opening or closing trades. The advertisers compared their own and four competitors' online trading systems; they provided figures that showed the length of time taken to open and close a £20 bet on the daily Dow on all five systems. The advertisers' figures showed their system was, on average, over four seconds faster than the nearest rival. The Authority took expert advice. It understood that the benchmark for measuring an online trading system's speed was how fast trades were executed and confirmed, not how frequently 'ticks' were updated. The Authority understood that, though the advertisers had provided evidence to show their platform was faster for the dealing process, the advertisers had not carried out the daily Dow trades at the same time. The deal the advertisers carried out on their own platform was transacted before the US market had opened. The Authority understood that online trading platforms had to deal with significantly higher activity while the US market was open. That highlighted that the test conditions were not uniform for all platforms. The Authority understood there were many other providers of online trading platforms than the spread betting and CFD providers mentioned in the advertisers' evidence. Those other system providers, with whom the advertisers did not compare their system, ranged from global investment banks, to data and dealing system vendors. The Authority therefore considered that the advertisers' evidence was limited in scope and concluded that the advertisers had not substantiated the claim to be the "... fastest ... on-line trading system available ...". It advised the advertisers not to repeat the claim unless they held documentary evidence that supported it.
2. Complaint upheld
The advertisers said their online trading platform was the most advanced because their system offered a range of features, not all of which were available on their competitors' platforms. They maintained those features included: live prices updated in virtual real-time with an improvement providing valuations of customers' open positions; free access to a news service; fundamental and technical analysis with graphics; a browser-based interface; fully automated dealing; electronic transfer of funds using a debit card and support for both Sun and Microsoft Java Virtual Machines. The Authority took expert advice. It understood the advertisers' claim was based on assertions that their system provided 'unique' features which, in fact, were offered by many other firms, including competitors within the spread betting and CFD fraternity. The Authority understood the advertisers' evidence had not compared their system with software belonging to the many other companies, apart from spread betters and CFD providers, who possessed online trading systems. The Authority concluded that the advertisers had not substantiated the claim to be the "... most advanced ... on-line trading system available ..." and asked the advertisers not to repeat the claim unless they held documentary evidence that supported it.
3. Complaint upheld
The advertisers said their system was highly stable with a low incidence of downtime, system crashes and failures. They believed other systems were less reliable than their own, but they admitted that their supporting evidence was largely anecdotal and subjective. The Authority concluded that the advertisers had not substantiated the claim to be the "... most reliable ... on-line trading system available ..." and asked the advertisers not to repeat the claim unless they held documentary evidence that supported it.
....................................................................................................
Steve.
IG Index
Friars House
157-168 Blackfriars Road
London
SE1 8EZ
Date: 15th October 2003
Media: Insert
Sector: Financial
Industry Complaint From: London
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complaint:
CMC Group objected to a press insert advertising an online trading system. Text stated "The best in on-line dealing The world leaders in spread betting are proud to announce the fastest, most advanced and most reliable on-line trading system available."
The complainant challenged the claims:
1. "... fastest ... on-line trading system available ..."
2. "... most advanced ... on-line trading system available ..."
3. "... most reliable ... on-line trading system available ...".
Codes Section: 3.1, 7.1, 19.1, 19.2 (Ed 10)
Adjudication:
1. Complaint upheld
The advertisers said they had looked at four financial markets: the S&P 500, the Dax, the Dow Jones and the Nasdaq-100. The advertisers compared their online trading platform with systems provided by two of their competitors. The advertisers monitored each system during the same three-minute interval and counted the number of price changes, or 'ticks', observed. The advertisers said their system had published the greatest number of 'ticks' in all four products. The advertisers also asserted their site was the fastest based on other criteria: fastest for clients to log on to either as first-time or as returning users, and fastest for opening or closing trades. The advertisers compared their own and four competitors' online trading systems; they provided figures that showed the length of time taken to open and close a £20 bet on the daily Dow on all five systems. The advertisers' figures showed their system was, on average, over four seconds faster than the nearest rival. The Authority took expert advice. It understood that the benchmark for measuring an online trading system's speed was how fast trades were executed and confirmed, not how frequently 'ticks' were updated. The Authority understood that, though the advertisers had provided evidence to show their platform was faster for the dealing process, the advertisers had not carried out the daily Dow trades at the same time. The deal the advertisers carried out on their own platform was transacted before the US market had opened. The Authority understood that online trading platforms had to deal with significantly higher activity while the US market was open. That highlighted that the test conditions were not uniform for all platforms. The Authority understood there were many other providers of online trading platforms than the spread betting and CFD providers mentioned in the advertisers' evidence. Those other system providers, with whom the advertisers did not compare their system, ranged from global investment banks, to data and dealing system vendors. The Authority therefore considered that the advertisers' evidence was limited in scope and concluded that the advertisers had not substantiated the claim to be the "... fastest ... on-line trading system available ...". It advised the advertisers not to repeat the claim unless they held documentary evidence that supported it.
2. Complaint upheld
The advertisers said their online trading platform was the most advanced because their system offered a range of features, not all of which were available on their competitors' platforms. They maintained those features included: live prices updated in virtual real-time with an improvement providing valuations of customers' open positions; free access to a news service; fundamental and technical analysis with graphics; a browser-based interface; fully automated dealing; electronic transfer of funds using a debit card and support for both Sun and Microsoft Java Virtual Machines. The Authority took expert advice. It understood the advertisers' claim was based on assertions that their system provided 'unique' features which, in fact, were offered by many other firms, including competitors within the spread betting and CFD fraternity. The Authority understood the advertisers' evidence had not compared their system with software belonging to the many other companies, apart from spread betters and CFD providers, who possessed online trading systems. The Authority concluded that the advertisers had not substantiated the claim to be the "... most advanced ... on-line trading system available ..." and asked the advertisers not to repeat the claim unless they held documentary evidence that supported it.
3. Complaint upheld
The advertisers said their system was highly stable with a low incidence of downtime, system crashes and failures. They believed other systems were less reliable than their own, but they admitted that their supporting evidence was largely anecdotal and subjective. The Authority concluded that the advertisers had not substantiated the claim to be the "... most reliable ... on-line trading system available ..." and asked the advertisers not to repeat the claim unless they held documentary evidence that supported it.
....................................................................................................
Steve.