fast trader7
Well-known member
- Messages
- 273
- Likes
- 3
Hello My friend,
Just take it easy. It was just a bit of fun.
Do you work for them? Easy mate. Chill
Worldspreads
- Thread starter Phil Mibbutz
- Start date
- Watchers 46
Hello My friend,
Just take it easy. It was just a bit of fun.
Do you work for them? Easy mate. Chill
B
Black Swan
neil
Legendary member
- Messages
- 5,169
- Likes
- 752
Really?..D'ya like dags?
I put you on notice that I will be making a complaint against you to the police under the Race Relations Act 1976
B
Black Swan
Oh...:whistling
fast trader7
Well-known member
- Messages
- 273
- Likes
- 3
Hello,
Just curious to know... Is there any background for this?
Why all of a sudden someone is angry with you?
Also police are facing funding cuts!!! They donot have time for this thread
Pazienza
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,334
- Likes
- 442
T0sser.
(I can't believe I'm actually defending Black Swan, but 1984 you are such a pillock that I really can't help it.)
B
Black Swan
Hello,
Just curious to know... Is there any background for this?
Why all of a sudden someone is angry with you?
Also police are facing funding cuts!!! They donot have time for this thread
I had to read that twice to establish it hadn't snook under the T2w swear filter..
I reckon they're mainly two faced c***ts too..
B
Black Swan
Are you suggesting that 1984 is a badly educated Pikey? That's shocking Neil, I expected better..shame on you..
ForexDoctor
Newbie
- Messages
- 1
- Likes
- 0
This is my first post here, sorry that it has to be a moan!
I’ve been trading with WS for a few weeks now having opened and funded a “Zero Spread Account”. At first everything was fine. That all changed when I started making reasonable whack on a weekly basis. Without any consultation I have been moved to what WS term as “Dealer Referral”. I phoned and spoke to their dealing desk. They explained that there was a requirement on their part to double check prices. I was reassured that price movements which occurred after my market order was placed on their system was not deemed a reason for trade rejection. At first this did seem to be the case. This has clearly changed drastically over the last week. Put simply, dealing staff are now largely rejecting any trades which drift of the price in their favour. This is the case even if the drift is 1.0 pip. However, trades which go further in my favour are ALWAYS executed WITHOUT THE IMPROVED PRICE BEING PASSED ON. I’m recording all trade attempts. At present I’ve had over sixty re-quotes against me without there being a single one in my favour – the odds of that happening are extreme if correct protocol is being followed by this company. Over the last week or so I’ve actually been held in a trade and given a re-quote when the price has not even moved – the price presented on screen after the trade refusal is actually the same as the price which the attempt to trade was originally made on and the trade refusal is just an attempt by dealing staff to hold clients in a position.
Now, in a previous life, I worked within a compliance department for a derivatives provider. As a result I’d like to think that I’m pretty clued up on the correct procedures relating to the execution of client’s orders. WS’s approach to order execution appears to breach a number of clearly laid out protocols. Mainly that price movements which favour the client are not being passed on during the execution process. Even a company which derives its own prices and makes its own instruments has an obligation of “Best execution” with regard to the markets which it deals in. WS conveniently overlook this obligation because it is financially beneficial for them to do so. Oversight of this regulation effectively turns a client’s market order into a free options trade for the firm, options which the clients are never paid for.
Secondly, after a number of phone calls I have established that WS actually make two separate checks of price when a client submits a market order. The first check is carried out by their computer system in the second or so after the order is submitted. This check makes sure that the price has not moved in the time it takes for a clients order to travel between the client computer and WS own system. This also protects the Co against a client who may have a price feed which is very slightly quicker that the Co. This all seems fair enough. If you submit a trade and the price has moved the dealing platform tells you within a couple of seconds that this has occurred and you can quickly re-submit your order.
However... (And this is the killer for WS so far as I am concerned) They then pass certain clients orders for a second price check! Given that price is a single value how can WS justify this second price check? If the price is correct when it passes the first check then how can it be wrong at the second check? This second check is known as “Dealer Referral”. This Dealer Referral appears to introduce a considerable delay to execution times when compared to conventional execution made using WS non referred method. Under the FSA’s Conduct of Business (CoB) the company in question needs to be able to show that any delay in execution is to the clients benefit – clearly the opposite is true here and the company, having checked the price once automatically, introduce a second price check with the intention of slowing execution with the further intention of gaining an advantage over the clients. Without the second price check the firm could not use hindsight to determine which trades to accept and which trades to reject.
Thirdly, the company’s attitude towards certain clients appears to be a breach of MiFID. WS appear to openly admit that they refer certain client’s trades via a dealer referral process and as such the admission appears to be an acknowledgement that they treat certain clients markedly different to other clients who clearly benefit from having their trades executed in a more timely manner.
Conner, with all due respect, your company seems to be taking a bit of a battering on here at the moment, any chance that you could address these points for us?
Cheers,
Doc.
I’ve been trading with WS for a few weeks now having opened and funded a “Zero Spread Account”. At first everything was fine. That all changed when I started making reasonable whack on a weekly basis. Without any consultation I have been moved to what WS term as “Dealer Referral”. I phoned and spoke to their dealing desk. They explained that there was a requirement on their part to double check prices. I was reassured that price movements which occurred after my market order was placed on their system was not deemed a reason for trade rejection. At first this did seem to be the case. This has clearly changed drastically over the last week. Put simply, dealing staff are now largely rejecting any trades which drift of the price in their favour. This is the case even if the drift is 1.0 pip. However, trades which go further in my favour are ALWAYS executed WITHOUT THE IMPROVED PRICE BEING PASSED ON. I’m recording all trade attempts. At present I’ve had over sixty re-quotes against me without there being a single one in my favour – the odds of that happening are extreme if correct protocol is being followed by this company. Over the last week or so I’ve actually been held in a trade and given a re-quote when the price has not even moved – the price presented on screen after the trade refusal is actually the same as the price which the attempt to trade was originally made on and the trade refusal is just an attempt by dealing staff to hold clients in a position.
Now, in a previous life, I worked within a compliance department for a derivatives provider. As a result I’d like to think that I’m pretty clued up on the correct procedures relating to the execution of client’s orders. WS’s approach to order execution appears to breach a number of clearly laid out protocols. Mainly that price movements which favour the client are not being passed on during the execution process. Even a company which derives its own prices and makes its own instruments has an obligation of “Best execution” with regard to the markets which it deals in. WS conveniently overlook this obligation because it is financially beneficial for them to do so. Oversight of this regulation effectively turns a client’s market order into a free options trade for the firm, options which the clients are never paid for.
Secondly, after a number of phone calls I have established that WS actually make two separate checks of price when a client submits a market order. The first check is carried out by their computer system in the second or so after the order is submitted. This check makes sure that the price has not moved in the time it takes for a clients order to travel between the client computer and WS own system. This also protects the Co against a client who may have a price feed which is very slightly quicker that the Co. This all seems fair enough. If you submit a trade and the price has moved the dealing platform tells you within a couple of seconds that this has occurred and you can quickly re-submit your order.
However... (And this is the killer for WS so far as I am concerned) They then pass certain clients orders for a second price check! Given that price is a single value how can WS justify this second price check? If the price is correct when it passes the first check then how can it be wrong at the second check? This second check is known as “Dealer Referral”. This Dealer Referral appears to introduce a considerable delay to execution times when compared to conventional execution made using WS non referred method. Under the FSA’s Conduct of Business (CoB) the company in question needs to be able to show that any delay in execution is to the clients benefit – clearly the opposite is true here and the company, having checked the price once automatically, introduce a second price check with the intention of slowing execution with the further intention of gaining an advantage over the clients. Without the second price check the firm could not use hindsight to determine which trades to accept and which trades to reject.
Thirdly, the company’s attitude towards certain clients appears to be a breach of MiFID. WS appear to openly admit that they refer certain client’s trades via a dealer referral process and as such the admission appears to be an acknowledgement that they treat certain clients markedly different to other clients who clearly benefit from having their trades executed in a more timely manner.
Conner, with all due respect, your company seems to be taking a bit of a battering on here at the moment, any chance that you could address these points for us?
Cheers,
Doc.
<<Conner, with all due respect, your company seems to be taking a bit of a battering on here at the moment, any chance that you could address these points for us?>>
Very little chance, I suspect. This is clearly how some SBs operate and goes directly against MiFID, as you say, but the standard defence seems to be that they have no obligation to accept any trade. The customer, on the other hand, is always obliged to accept a trade that goes against them.
You could always video the evidence and send it to the FSA and/or FOS.
Very little chance, I suspect. This is clearly how some SBs operate and goes directly against MiFID, as you say, but the standard defence seems to be that they have no obligation to accept any trade. The customer, on the other hand, is always obliged to accept a trade that goes against them.
You could always video the evidence and send it to the FSA and/or FOS.
@ Forexdoctor:
I am using WS and am quite happy with them, especially compared to IG.
The platform is stable. I also get the occasional re-quotes, but as far as I am concerned, it never really harmed my trading. Usually the order is filled even with a positive slippage for me.
I think your problems occur, if you have a heavy scalping strategy and trade like 30+ round-lots a day. That's where they start to put you on referral.
I am trading mainly commodities in swing style, up to 20 round lots a day, maybe 1 or 2 referrals a day.
Also depends on your stake: I usually trade around 5-10 pounds stake, but if you split it up in 3 trades, you will never get referred (usually, under 5 pounds you don't get referred).
In my opinion WS is still miles better than others, because they don't stop fish with artificial quotes and vola (see: IG) and they don't apply you a slippage when stopped out (hear me, IG?). Also, there prices are not hyperactively changing to make traders nervous.
I would suggest as a scalper you are best off with IG, but then only apply worst case stops and always close manually, as else you will end up getting stop-fished or a odd-slippage will be "added". Swingers ;-) are best off with WS imo.
I am using WS and am quite happy with them, especially compared to IG.
The platform is stable. I also get the occasional re-quotes, but as far as I am concerned, it never really harmed my trading. Usually the order is filled even with a positive slippage for me.
I think your problems occur, if you have a heavy scalping strategy and trade like 30+ round-lots a day. That's where they start to put you on referral.
I am trading mainly commodities in swing style, up to 20 round lots a day, maybe 1 or 2 referrals a day.
Also depends on your stake: I usually trade around 5-10 pounds stake, but if you split it up in 3 trades, you will never get referred (usually, under 5 pounds you don't get referred).
In my opinion WS is still miles better than others, because they don't stop fish with artificial quotes and vola (see: IG) and they don't apply you a slippage when stopped out (hear me, IG?). Also, there prices are not hyperactively changing to make traders nervous.
I would suggest as a scalper you are best off with IG, but then only apply worst case stops and always close manually, as else you will end up getting stop-fished or a odd-slippage will be "added". Swingers ;-) are best off with WS imo.
stevespray
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,289
- Likes
- 156
Recently I've experienced similar issues which a few others have outlined over the last collection of posts. Yesterday I got five requotes back to back when the price didnt even move! Very strange indeed.
I wonder if different dealers do different things? Today I didnt have a single requote and on one occasion a trade which drifted 5.0 pips off the price was still executed 30 seconds after I placed the order.
The service today seemed very different to yesterday.
Steve.
I wonder if different dealers do different things? Today I didnt have a single requote and on one occasion a trade which drifted 5.0 pips off the price was still executed 30 seconds after I placed the order.
The service today seemed very different to yesterday.
Steve.
stevespray
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,289
- Likes
- 156
Worldspreads seem to be suffering with a fairly large outage, no way to log in, is everyone else experiencing the same?
Steve.
Steve.
They did for me if that helps.
Thanks
I really dont understand if your trading in any size, or certainly 20-30 r/t a day that you put up with any re-quotes, we all started with small accounts but then you have to step it up , which is what i did and joined ProSpreads, no re-quotes and they prefer scalpers as they have fixed spreads thats how they earn their money.
