So ETX Want To Punish Anyone Who Doesn't Use His A/C At Least Once in 4 Months!

[peakoil]

Actually the real reason for this is rather more boring.

Many exchanges now charge 'per person' who looks at the data. Gone are the days of blanket permissions.

If a spread betting company has a client who is just looking at data and not trading then that client is actually costing the company money.

The Fees are not small either, I believe that the LSE has become very greedy indeed charging £4 per month per client (plus an annual fixed charge). So if you log in once a month you will cost a company using LSE data £4 . And the SB companies will be using data from a wide array of exchanges.

If that explained it all (and BTW I'm not strictly saying you're on the wrong path) then surely those who keep their accounts open, and do not even use their data feeds - i.e., they simply keep the account going for say some six months or even a year without doing anything whatsoever with their account - well surely (given your reasoning) such persons should be exempted from the penalty. Why? Because they've done nothing more than leave money idly sitting with them. Such persons are not taking advantage of the data feeds at all, yet are still penalised as if they were!

'Data scroungers/freeloaders', are (just as you say) another case altogether; and especially for a small player (such as ETX), as they just don't have the vast numbers of active clients, your point is perhaps fair enough.

OTOH *if* (as I've suggested) there are too many persons taking advantage of the data feeds lately and not actively trading, then surely more needs to be done to attract such persons to trade actively, as opposed to punishing all outright, and with the same brush.

 

[timetotrade simon]

I do not know all the answers but I am sure that ETX (and others) have done the maths on this and have concluded that the simple fact of interacting with the client is enough to trigger a regeneration of activity.

On top of this the companies have sales teams whose job it is to ring clients, find out problems, try to reactivate etc... These teams cost money to employ and they do not want their time wasted calling accounts that are dead and gone.

A client who is so p***d off by this action that they close their account was, in all probablity, not worth having anyway.

No doubt they will lose a few perfectly good clients but I am sure that they look at the numbers who log in per month compared to the number who are actually active and the difference is probably very large (at my last Spread Bet company it was over 4,000!). This (just for the LSE) is £16k a month and nearly £200k for the year.

 

[peakoil]

@timetotrade simon, just to clarify something - while you say "I am sure ...that the simple fact of interacting with the client is enough to trigger a regeneration of activity" I'm sorry but that is not the case at all. I actually did the boring act of reading their terms before writing on this thread. But there you go. Nonetheless, if it were so, then my argument would of course be loose. However, the facts (not my opinion) are, that ETX require at least one active trade in a four month period, and not just simply logging in to their client from time to time, as you may believe.

And please consider this: If someone, for instance, develops a gambling problem and needs, e.g., to take considerable time off, from spread betting, they would be penalised too.

I, and I trust others would too, believe that that is wrong.

 

[timetotrade simon]

All gaming companies have the 6 month break for people who think they might have a gambling problem.

I am sure that ETX would remove such a person from the 4 month charge. Or would reimburse such a client if they made such an error.

On your first point you have misunderstood my comment. I agree that the companies need people to trade (and definitely NOT just login and do nothing). I more meant that the interaction of the client being advised of an imminent charge or being phoned by the sales team to that effect might trigger a renewal of interest in the product.

It must be remembered that SB companies are there to make money for themselves. If you can make money from them .. then "well done!" .. but clients should never be under any illusion as to what the services are supplied for.

 

[peakoil]

All gaming companies have the 6 month break for people who think they might have a gambling problem.

I am sure that ETX would remove such a person from the 4 month charge. Or would reimburse such a client if they made such an error.

On your first point you have misunderstood my comment. I agree that the companies need people to trade (and definitely NOT just login and do nothing). I more meant that the interaction of the client being advised of an imminent charge or being phoned by the sales team to that effect might trigger a renewal of interest in the product.

It must be remembered that SB companies are there to make money for themselves. If you can make money from them .. then "well done!" .. but clients should never be under any illusion as to what the services are supplied for.

With all respect, it is suggested that it should be left to others to judge for themselves, given what was written above - the question of which of us has misunderstood the other.

 

[timetotrade simon]

Actually I happen to agree with you that charging a client whose account becomes inactive is probably a little OTT.. but restricting access to data is probably not unreasonable.
I would suggest that such a company should have the ability to allow a client access to his account (so that he/she could remove funds, look at historical trades etc etc) but not allow access to real time data.

i.e some form of semi-close .. which could be reactivated at a later date.