UK Spreadbet firms to be investigated by the FCA

[southall]

They hedge their overall NET exposure. They are not going to start hedging each client's individual positions!

As for your figure of £4k average client funding, that's laughable. More likely less than a grand.

People refund blown account and come back for me. 4K sounds a bit low to me.

 

[Visaria]

Yeah, that is possible actually. Thought 4k was the initial amount.

 

[mlawson71]

It looks like the German regulator BaFin is mulling similar measures. They intend to limit
marketing, distribution of and trading in financial contracts for difference (CFDs) as a measure to protect retail investors. Contracts with an additional payments obligation, such as margin, will soon not be available to retail clients.

BaFin published a draft General Administrative Act concerning the issue. Once the rules are approved, they will come into effect within three months of that date.

 

[yiehom]

I see. Bookies can't re quote, freeze the platform, fill you at a price never traded in actuallity, widen the spreads...and I forget.

Now, 82% losers is a better statistic than the 95% we read all the time for futures/forex.

They really can't. UK bookies are pretty tightly and strictly regulated by the Gaming Commission, which took over from the former Gaming Board about a decade ago.

The licensing procedures are also a huge disincentive for them to try to circumvent regulatory processes and procedures, because they have to apply to Magistrates' Courts once a year to renew their gaming licence, and on those occasions any members of the public who have a "beef" about them get the opportunity to air it in detail, in court, in front of all the media. There have been a few instances of bookies getting into serious trouble this way, and it's something they don't dare take a chance on.

They're also fairly well self-regulated, with an independent arbitration council whose findings in individual cases are binding on them.

Many professional and semi-professional punters say they'd certainly far rather have an argument with a bookie than with a spreadbetting company, and I can see why, from some of the cases I read.

 

[Sig]

If they quoted anything they wanted, i would arb the crap out of them.

This surprisingly obvious concept seems to be something the conspiracy folks just can't grasp, even if you break it into examples.

 

[Xela]

This surprisingly obvious concept seems to be something the conspiracy folks just can't grasp, even if you break it into examples.

The conspiracy folk can't grasp anything that depends on logic/reason: that isn't allowed to "sully" their belief-patterns or thought-processes at all.

 

[CBC]

The #1 main thing that stopped me thinking about using IG was when I entered a trade it showed up as -$5000 in red on the demo account (spread).

So I thouht, why on earth would I do that when I can go the the futures contract and not pay that at all.

 

[Tim Smith]

Usually you are tagged with a color-code, you start by not being hedged and if you actually make p&l, you're hedged. They delta-hedge your trading. I haven't been involved with this crap for a year and a half now but I doubt it changed.

Yup, A/B book like I said. B-book are the 99%, the zero-sum game "have a go" loosers. A-Book are the 1%, those who have demonstrated consistent results, and so whose activities need to be properly hedged for risk management purposes.

If you're a good trader, it doesn't matter if you are A-book or B-book. You can "win" on both. Its just that on the B-book your winnings are paid for by the majority (all the loosers on the B-book), and on the A-book your winnings are paid for by the market.

The conspiracy folks are the ones who shout the loudest, but in reality are B-book loosers. The industry is heavily regulated, therefore it's pretty much guaranteed that the only person who can screw up a trade is the trader themselves, normally because of the typical B-Book looser trait of greed and gluttony (i.e. over-leveraging and thus amplifying the losses their poor trades).

 

[luisHK]

If they quoted anything they wanted, i would arb the crap out of them.

I have no experience with spreadbetting firms or typical forex/cfds providers (curious about them though, if they provide an interesting alternative for european stocks - so far for CFDs the offerings I found were less atractive than IB's) , and no reason to doubt you've been making money with the large UK firms or that they are mostly reliable, but reading the newsreports about Israeli spreadbetting firms, it doesn't seem they get arbed out for profit easily (or maybe a bunch of people do that, and obviously they don't feel the need to advertise their success ).
I suspect it works with firms who wouldn't lock you out of your account and funds, not so much with the most suspicious firms, for which requotes have been advertised. Easy to find out though if one is brave enough and fund an account with the latter ones. Also if the issue is a widening spread rather than a quote far from the market price, or a stop trigerred at a price that hasn't been touched, I don't see how this can be arbed.

 

[JSSPMK]

I've been with CMC Markets for a long time and my experience has been overall positive. I've also been a client of IG and City Index, also can't say anything negative about these two firms.