IG Index huge GBPUSD slippage > > >

[tar]

She explained that to them already. The conversation just went round in circles. Apparently they have had quite a few complaints on this issue.

I don't run a spread betting firm but I can see this might be a 'financial decision' on the part of IG - If the firm didn’t have sufficient stops in the underlying market itself (or indeed no stops at all if they just run their book against the clients) then the more they can gap clients the more money they stand to make (or not lose). Obviously the greater the amount of money involved the more likely they are to ignore the contractual obligations of the Customer Agreement.

If they have to go back and retrospectively correct the errors (if compliance agrees with the complaint) then it’s obviously going to create a significant amount of work as well as handing back quite a lot of money.

Steve.

No no not by phone these issues cannot be solved by phone , everone call complain about their loss , send them email ( to the helpdesk )with the full explantion and the attached charts (tick chart ) they will study it and i guess they will pay back , if it doesnt work follow this complaints procedure , they have a full department for complaints

Complaints Information

 

[stevespray]

As I mentioned earlier the matter has already been passed to compliance.

 

[tar]

good luck !

 

[gle101]

Guys.

Why not open an account with a real broker trading in a regulated real market off of real prices that are the same for everyone.

That way you won't get this "slippage".

I mean these outfits can pretty much invent prices out of thin air as they go along, which will in most cases be in their benefit, not yours.

Not all traders are suited to trade DMA, it depends on many parameters, such as what kind of instrument, account deposit, margin and stakes you are trading.

 

[stevespray]

Also, if the correct agreement is followed between the spread betting firm and the clients then the client should technically be better off than direct access. In this instance the stop should be filled at the best price available based on the underlying.

 

[masnachu]

Haven't seen all the T&C's , but from the part you posted all it says is "seek to" , doesn't hold them to anything as far as I can see ?

Think it was around 18secs from price starting to break and the low for the move , I would have thought (hoped) it would have got filled earlier , but am I surprised (her and others no doubt) got filled on the low for the move ? nah.

Got to be worth a complaint though , you never know.

Any idea what time she went long ? (been long for a while or a little before 12.00 ?)

 

[Trader333]

Markus,

That way you won't get this "slippage".

I doubt that using DMA would have been any better in this case and I say that as someone who does use DMA.


Paul

 

[stevespray]

She had been long for a fair while I think - over an hour or so. The stop was placed at the same time the position was opened.

You're correct that the term does use the wording "seek to" and so far as I can see the word 'seek', in this context, means that they have to 'look in order to find' - the same meaning as the word 'seek' when children say 'Hide and Seek'. I disagree with your opinion that the term doesn't hold them to anything - the term specifies how they must calculate where a slipped stop order must be filled.

 

[gle101]

I repeat my question, What kind of execution date&time time stamp format do you get from IG?

 

[masnachu]

She had been long for a fair while I think - over an hour or so. The stop was placed at the same time the position was opened.

Was just asking because their min stop distances got stupid (as someone else highlighted to me at the time) sometime (10-15 mins??) prior to 12.00.

You're correct that the term does use the wording "seek to" and so far as I can see the word 'seek', in this context, means that they have to 'look in order to find' - the same meaning as the word 'seek' when children say 'Hide and Seek'. I disagree with your opinion that the term doesn't hold them to anything - the term specifies how they must calculate where a slipped stop order must be filled.

That's fair enough , I just took it to mean "we will attempt to".

 

[stevespray]

It does mean "we will attempt to" or words to that effect. If they had carried out their obligation then they would find the correct level.

 

[gle101]

Haven't seen all the T&C's , but from the part you posted all it says is "seek to" , doesn't hold them to anything as far as I can see ?

Think it was around 18secs from price starting to break and the low for the move , I would have thought (hoped) it would have got filled earlier , but am I surprised (her and others no doubt) got filled on the low for the move ? nah.

Got to be worth a complaint though , you never know.

Any idea what time she went long ? (been long for a while or a little before 12.00 ?)

Yes, 18 seconds is quite a long time during these cirumstances.

 

[stevespray]

Yes, 18 seconds is quite a long time during these cirumstances.

The time it takes them to execute your stop order appears irrelivent as term in question requires them to calculate the fill level retrospectively. To fullfill their obligation they would have to examine the time and sales (or tick chart) from the underlying market to establish the first available price after the moment in time that the stop was triggered. This is what the firm are failing to do.

 

[gle101]

The time it takes them to execute your stop order appears irrelivent as term in question requires them to calculate the fill level retrospectively. To fullfill their obligation they would have to examine the time and sales (or tick chart) from the underlying market to establish the first available price after the moment in time that the stop was triggered. This is what the firm are failing to do.

Yes I agree, if the system fails to execute the stop at the right level (in accordance to the underlying), they have to correct it afterward. I have had a few cases when by complaining, the SB did correct a stop loss that did not execute at the right level. But you are in the hands of the SB, and if big money is at stake you might not get your way.

 

[donaldduke]

The IG T&C seem to split the Order handling into 2 parts, triggering and execution.

So the T&C allow for a reasonable delay between the two.

The 'first attainable price' clause is likely there for large orders that dont fill at one price at the time of execution, there probably is no retrospective aspect to it.

 

[virtuos0]

I was in an identical situation on that move, but my broker was Oanda. I didn't get slipped a single pip. Maybe I just got lucky.

 

[stevespray]

The IG T&C seem to split the Order handling into 2 parts, triggering and execution.

So the T&C allow for a reasonable delay between the two.

The 'first attainable price' clause is likely there for large orders that dont fill at one price at the time of execution, there probably is no retrospective aspect to it.

I can't argue with the first part of what you say re large orders but I'm not sure about the second part. If you read the term then it is retrospective - in establishing the level they fill you at they must check the historical record of the underlying - this can only be done retrospective and must apply to any stop which is not exectued in real time.

Steve.

 

[shadowninja]

You might be interested to hear of today's experience with IG. I am on non-GSL. I was long GBP/USD. After an initial climb at 1.30pm, it dropped like a stone (typical of news, really), paused for 2-3 seconds just above my stop. Watching on Alpari, it continued moving up and down in the usual volatile manner, so I was expecting to get stung like your friend. I was surprised that it took me out to the pip.

Conclusion: **** happens, accept it, move on, continue to trade your system.

(No, I don't say this in a smug look-at-me-I've-never-been-slipped manner. I've been slipped a couple of times on Alpari; I just shrug my shoulders, accept it, move on, they're not out to get me. But we are all talking about you.)

 

[stevespray]

You might be interested to hear of today's experience with IG. I am on non-GSL. I was long GBP/USD. After an initial climb at 1.30pm, it dropped like a stone (typical of news, really), paused for 2-3 seconds just above my stop. Watching on Alpari, it continued moving up and down in the usual volatile manner, so I was expecting to get stung like your friend. I was surprised that it took me out to the pip.

Conclusion: **** happens, accept it, move on, continue to trade your system.

(No, I don't say this in a smug look-at-me-I've-never-been-slipped manner. I've been slipped a couple of times on Alpari; I just shrug my shoulders, accept it, move on, they're not out to get me. But we are all talking about you.)

I’ll agree with you that it’s important that something like this doesn’t become the centre of your attention but I don’t see it quite the same way as you do.

Most important is the fact that your counterparty in the deals are also the people who decide how much ‘designer slippage’ to impose. It’s the most blatant case of ‘kids in charge of the cookie jar’ as you’ll come across in this game.
What do you feel would of happened if the stop would have been triggered, but instead of carrying on lower, the market bounced 100 pips by the time they came to fill the order? Would they still fill you at ‘the prevailing price at the moment the order was actually filled’ thus handing you a fat profit? I somehow doubt it and would love to speak to someone who claims that it has. Implicitly times must occur when this scenario is possible. So what happens? I’ll tell you – it’s quite likely that they’ll fill your order based on another set of rules. Why, because the different rule set will be more financially beneficial for a firm on that second particular occasion. Can you see how a client could be abused if a firm is allowed to switched between two sets of rules depending on how the market has reacted to data?

Secondly, what is the point of agreeing a contractual set of conditions with a particular firm if they feel that they can ignore certain parts of it just because it is financially viable to do so at certain times? Slippage is something we all have to live with and I accept that but when you’re trading against broker (rather than directly into the underlying) then you need to keep a close eye on things. Any firm which acts fairly is not going to mind you ringing up and questioning them on how they calculated the point that you slipped stop was filled at. It’s always important to remember that the bigger the slip the more the firm make. That money comes straight out of your account and straight into theirs!

Thirdly, and considering the final sentence of my second point, it makes perfect sense to keep your spread bet firm on their toes. Human nature will always make people ‘push the boundaries’ a little so, as clients, it’s a good idea to give a little push back some time. In the instance being discussed on this threat it would appear that a firm has become accustomed to filling slipped stops in a manner which is different to the manner agreed in the Client Agreement. This differing method clearly results in bigger losses for the clients and better profits for the counterparty. It seems to me that this is essentially why they would not sort this matter out with a simple phone call – there is more than just a few quid from one client riding on the outcome.

I conclude that if you do not challenge such unfair practices / potential breach of contract then a firm is likely to bend or ignore more and more of their contractual obligations. That’s not one firm in particular but all firms.


Steve.

 

[stetrader]

Im a bit of a newbie, but from what i heard, IG dont slip too much. Important lesson learned.