Yes, I see. That's a less honest approach, isn't it, than actually having the decency to say "You're too good for us and our shareholders don't like that"?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
is there an actual market for CFDs or are CFD firms just bucket shops?
- Thread starter cole_
- Start date
Yes, I see. That's a less honest approach, isn't it, than actually having the decency to say "You're too good for us and our shareholders don't like that"?
Yes, I see. That's a less honest approach, isn't it, than actually having the decency to say "You're too good for us and our shareholders don't like that"?
For a short term trader it makes a lot of difference.
But for a longer term trader, having to pay a bit more spread doesn't make much difference at all.
IG Index, in London, used to do this fairly regularly, Tom. They used to send out very polite letters saying, basically, "Sorry but you're just too good for us and it isn't in our shareholders' interest to accommodate such accounts indefinitely". In other words, they were totally open and honest about why they were doing it. (I'm talking about 4-5 years ago: I have no more recent information than that).
I'm really surprised. Never seen one of these.
Of course, the next step the disgruntled trader would likely take would be to apply to open an account at one of IG's competitors, and its hard to see that as a giving IG a business advantage or marks for reputation. I just wonder if they weren't doing this for a time because of some wider strategic reason, re-focusing the business or something, though its hard to think what exactly.
"The Cosmopolitan was rated as A-1 and did an enormous business..They took my trading all right, and I bought and sold stocks and made and lost money for months, but in the end it happened with them as usual. They didn't refuse my business point-blank, as the small concerns had. Oh, not because it wasn't sportsmanship, but because they knew it would give them a black eye to publish the news that they wouldn't take a fellow's business just because that fellow happened to make a little money. But they did the next worse thing that is, they made me put up a three-point margin and compelled me to pay a premium at first of a half point, then a point, and finally, a point and a half."
This is what i would expect someone like IG to do. If you were trading size, they should not refuse your business, instead put you on phone dealing and quote a premium to get in and get out. Enough to make it worth while to them.
This is what i would expect someone like IG to do. If you were trading size, they should not refuse your business, instead put you on phone dealing and quote a premium to get in and get out. Enough to make it worth while to them.
Seems right and seems reaonable southall. If I'm spending 10 quid with some business I'd expect to walk in and walk out job done no questions asked. But if I want them to order in £100k's worth of some stuff for me, I think every business would want to go into a little more detail to protect their liability.
What do they do with a very profitable trader? Can they kick him out like a casino? Or do they just suck it up because the rest will lose with them? If you swing trading the spread isn't a problem specially with this volatility...
Depending on the broker. It is not uncommon for forex brokers who also issue their Forex CFD's to accuse traders of cheating, and then withhold their profits and also close their account all because the trader was hugely profitable. The reason is simple and obvious. They trade against their clients without hedging their net risk so when the traders are profitable, the broker is losing money and since they operate a for-profit business, they can't afford to do that on a long term.
When you brokers who operate on a commission basis, then there is none of this conflict of interest because they make money regardless whether you profit or lose so they don't care if you are profitable.
Depending on the broker. It is not uncommon for forex brokers who also issue their Forex CFD's to accuse traders of cheating, and then withhold their profits and also close their account all because the trader was hugely profitable. The reason is simple and obvious. They trade against their clients without hedging their net risk so when the traders are profitable, the broker is losing money and since they operate a for-profit business, they can't afford to do that on a long term.
When you brokers who operate on a commission basis, then there is none of this conflict of interest because they make money regardless whether you profit or lose so they don't care if you are profitable.
Its very uncommon for UK-based spreadbetting firms (who are often referred to as the lowest form of financial life) to penalise profitable long-term spreadbetters.
However, the firms find it difficult and expensive to hedge against large short-term positions across their client base so they will often widen spreads to make these trades unprofitable. They may allegedly also occasionally suspend trading access across notable news events. They may accuse some very short-term traders of arbitraging price anomalies as this makes hedging difficult.
But the point is, these practices are carried on regardless of whether the traders concerned are profitable or not. Risk is till being incurred by the firms no matter whether the trades turn out well for the bulk of their clients or not. In brief, SB is a very stupid way to short-term trade.
What they are forbidden to do by the FCA is trade directly against a specific client or run a specific client's stops or give them personalised quotes to their disadvantage. Anyone suspecting these practices should contact the FCA.
Trust me I don't trust anyone , but Uk bookies are fairly safe , in fact one of the biggest crooks i found was a uk futures broker i used many years ago who ran my stop on the ftse ( floor trading days )which was later bust by the exchange , they then tried to charge me for "advice" claiming I had requested it , fortunately all calls had to be recorded. They went offshore shortly afterwards , I'm certain they indulged in all sorts of sharp practice , I was a little naive in those days , the stop they ran made them maybe a grand , but cost me 10 times that as the stop shouldn't and wouldn't have been hit for weeks , needless to say I've always been a little wary of using stops ever since .