Very Profitable Position Force Liquidated After 999% House Maintenance Margin Met

craigr1 said:
Then the broker increased the margin requirement by 780% using the excuse that it was highly concentrated, even though it was less concentrated than when the position was approved and established.
More...

I looked at your screenshots.

How could the position have been any less concentrated when it was "approved and established"? I see a short strangle (assuming the redacted symbols match). You are slightly less short on the 24th, but that doesn't have anything to do with concentration.
 
Why did you blank out the contract specification which does not contain any personal information?

craigr1 said:
You're preaching to the choir. As proof, see attached with positions and account information removed. As can be seen from the last price compared to the positions themselves, both positions moved in my favor. What would I gain from posting this if it were untrue?
This was an extremely large position and I wanted to ensure I had the math correct. I screen printed the house margin requirements after Etrade threatened an increase because as far as I and others I've spoken to along with Etrade's own agreements and the SEC it's unprecedented to increase the house margin requirements when a position has moved profitably for the customer.
I understand the disbelief, however I posted this with the hope that the community may be able to assist.
More...
 
I just don't want a community of traders to know what my positions are.
Good question. I think Etrade would have used that excuse rather than using highly concentrated if I exceeded the position limit.
Moving past the positions and Etrade's rationale, I'm still hopeful for insight and assistance with regard to journalists, attorneys and legal citations.
 
InfoTech said:
I looked at your screenshots.

How could the position have been any less concentrated when it was "approved and established"? I see a short strangle (assuming the redacted symbols match). You are slightly less short on the 24th, but that doesn't have anything to do with concentration.
More...

It's not a short strangle, you can ignore the top position. I apologize for the confusion. Though it's profitable, it's not what Etrade seemed to care about and I was told it didn't matter if I liquidated it, though I was thanked for the offer. The position became less concentrated due to its performance becoming increasingly less valuable to the options purchaser and therefore deteriorating in price. As the seller, that means that it represents a significantly lesser percentage of my portfolio than before. <http://www.finra.org/investors/concentrate-concentration-risk>
 
Robert Morse said:
You should know that your option agreement most likely gives them the right to do this.
You should also know that the SEC investigated customers and FINRA investigates Broker Dealers.

No attorney will take this case as you laid it out.

Sorry..Bob
More...

Bob, I understand your perspective as someone who works for a broker, however the SEC is already investigating and awaiting Etrade's response. Per the second principle of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, "companies that sell and trade securities (brokers, dealers and exchanges) must treat all investors fairly and honestly." <http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/112.asp>
Again, I understand your confidence regarding an attorney you may be right. The one considering it is probably the foremost in these matters. Maybe you know more than him, the expert!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top