Quote from Chood:
Scenario one, based on my first-hand experience with Saxo Bank: Send an entry order (to create a new open position) via the platform and receive confirmation of order. Check open order page of the platform. The order is there. The order is a limit order to buy major pair at __.50, and later that day the ask drops below the limit price, ie., breaches it, with plenty of room to spare (more than 20 pips). Oscillates up, then back again through the limit price, again with room to spare. That happened one more time for a total of three times in a 45 minute period, during a period of very good liquidity and NOT during or after news. The pair then moved back above and settled well above the buy order price. My order was not filled because, Saxo claimed, quotes for the pair streamed to the Saxo platform were "misfeeds." Three such misfed quotes, they claimed. Yet, the prices streamed to the platform were charted on Saxo's platform, and the charts were never corrected to erase the so-called "misfed" prices. Checked charts on Saxo's white label partners. Same story. Checked independent sources. Same story. The order would have cost Saxo money as the counterparty. That's why it wasn't filled. Plain and simple. That's what I call intervention against orders and positions. Certainly, no automatic execution. (In our account, only stop losses were ever filled instantly, and that's because Saxo made money on them.)
Scenario two, again based on what happened in our account. Limit order to sell major pair at __.625 and bid reaches and then breaches the limit price briefly before settling in other direction. Order not filled automatically, so I instantly asked the dealer via chat if the streamed quote was accurate. Because of the noise we made after the first set of order thefts, Saxo filled this order, which, as it should have, created a profitable position.
We closed the account shortly after these events, poorer but wiser.