wackypete2
Legendary member
- Messages
- 10,211
- Likes
- 2,058
Vasco da Banana
Established member
- Messages
- 699
- Likes
- 121
Vasco da Banana
Established member
- Messages
- 699
- Likes
- 121
Sorry, I misread the question.
I don't usually get four set ups every month so I get really peeved having to take some stupid little trades that I would not choose to take just to keep the charts.
This is a pathetic way to treat your clients.
This also takes no account of the size of the trade/s taken in the last month/quarter.
Last edited:
Lets leave the B.S at the door please.
Brent Crude will often trade at a daily ATR of 250 pips. So to enter a stop or trail a stop at a poultry 2 day stop, you are talking about 500 pips at the new minimum of £2 a pip, this is £1000 which would require you to have an account of at least £100,000. In order to trade at a modest 1%.
So...at 50p that would be 25k instead of 100k? is that the BS you mean? because it doesn't seem like BS to me. Does this kind of rudeness work for you, by the way?
@ Hogfish
I used the word "please" and I did not think I was to rude, but please accept my apology.
I am not sure why you have taken offence. When it comes to money and trading I believe it is very important to stay grounded especially in the adversity of SB co's, who are after as much of your money as possible, in this case by ensuring you do not have a large enough account to trade safely.
Do not forget they spend absolutely fortunes on client psychological profiling amongst many other tactics they use.
Also forum members’ attitude i.e.,” small fry”, shows little thought to the realities of trading at a sensible percentage. These attitudes displayed do not affect me in any way but it may affect the poster or the novice reader. So if my bluntness helps people think what they are doing, then good.
Sorry again for rubbing you up the wrong way.
Jason
I used the word "please" and I did not think I was to rude, but please accept my apology.
I am not sure why you have taken offence. When it comes to money and trading I believe it is very important to stay grounded especially in the adversity of SB co's, who are after as much of your money as possible, in this case by ensuring you do not have a large enough account to trade safely.
Do not forget they spend absolutely fortunes on client psychological profiling amongst many other tactics they use.
Also forum members’ attitude i.e.,” small fry”, shows little thought to the realities of trading at a sensible percentage. These attitudes displayed do not affect me in any way but it may affect the poster or the novice reader. So if my bluntness helps people think what they are doing, then good.
Sorry again for rubbing you up the wrong way.
Jason
Last edited:
tar
Legendary member
- Messages
- 10,443
- Likes
- 1,314
ok Jason thanks looks like I got the wrong idea, apologies in return. I spend a lot of time testing stuff on paper but it's no substitute for actually trading it. Often methods that look good on paper are a nightmare to trade. I live in hope that it may work the other way around one day, that something that looks fairly good on paper will actually turn out to be rather easier to trade that I expect. That was the value of the 50p forex minimum to me, sorry to see it go.
Vasco da Banana
Established member
- Messages
- 699
- Likes
- 121
Increased bet sizes are no good for those who scale in and out.
btw, Do these poultry stops have anything to do with the Three Ducks strat?
N
neil324
500 point, poultry? 
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,848
- Likes
- 4,028
I think IG management have got it wrong unless the fall in profits are due to increased membership placing small trades.
I would very much doubt cost of maintaining membership in this electronic age where IT systems scale up and down very easily, is the cause of fall in profits... Moreover, IT costs are more likely to be fixed for circuit lines and data feeds. Doubt they pay a license fee for every user.
Big question, is the marginal cost of extra membership greater than the marginal return from each player? I doubt it somehow.
How will changing the composition of traders increase profits? Will the bigger players suddenly start placing more bets/trades or bigger sizes?
One plausible idea that comes to mind; if they purge the bottom 25% of their traders and cut staffing & costs by a similar or greater 35% making the business more productive and focused on brokerage fees perhaps???
What message does this send out to aspiring traders? You are not worthy of our attention, run along somewhere else who will take your coins...
Alternatively, will IG attract bigger players from other SB companies?
Can Amazon increase sales by placing a restrictions on ordering minimum of 2 3 or 4 books or minimum purchase price by not selling anything under £5.
In general I think it is not a good change. Time will tell...
Great piece.
My thoughts were similar. Why cut out the low level guys. It must cost IG very little to have the 'smaller' traders tinkering about. Very low risk, minimal hedging, you'd of thought it'd all be automated pretty much. They have chosen to take a chainsaw through all of them.
The CEO probably thinks that customers will just migrate up to the new levels which are in most cases 100% increases (which means double the spread for him) so he's thinking, yup, this will boost my revenues. I actually think it's going to have the reverse effect. Some will migrate to the metatrader brokers and others will now trade solely on 'proper' brokers.
Plus, the 95% will go 'bust' twice as quick. Probably make them think twice about funding another account.
