Absolutely, when it comes to crime it is.
Sorry, that we joke on your behalf, but one has to see it from the humorous side as well.
Just read a bit through this thread - it's a long one.
What a horrible loss - I feel sorry for the guy (irrelevant of over leverage, no stops etc.)
One thing I don't understand - they usually close position when the required margin is exceeded.
Are they obliged in any way to do so?
If they are not, I don't think there is much the guy can do.
What a horrible loss - I feel sorry for the guy (irrelevant of over leverage, no stops etc.)
One thing I don't understand - they usually close position when the required margin is exceeded.
Are they obliged in any way to do so?
If they are not, I don't think there is much the guy can do.
They are obliged to close the position in the sense they have to act "in the client's best interest". Letting a position run causing a huge loss, with no margin or credit to cover the position is definitely not in the client's best interest.
"Sorry, that we joke on your behalf, but one has to see it from the humorous side as well" - not at all, i'm not hearing anything that IG's lawyers won't be saying in court so bring it on, the more you pick holes in my defence the better prepared i will be - i'm trying to do as much of the grunt work as possible rather than paying my lawyer 250/ph for the privilige!
"How come, you cannot have a larger loss at the time they actually close the position. They don't know in which way the market is heading. He did not have margin requirements or credit to secure a position up to 92k in loss. No one would blame the SB if they closed his position, even if the market turned around at that point. In fact they should have done just that, closed his position when his credit limit no longer had any bearing" - that's the way i see it. even if they missed my credit limit actually being breached, they should have caught it sooner than i did at almost 8pm that evening. whether the market reverses or not is irrelevant, my credit limit had been breached. and there is clear precedent that IG do close customers' positions due to credit / margin issues, so why didn't they in this case?
do you think if i can prove that my credit limit was breached several times, that would be useful? i.e. i went into profit and loss several times before going into a huge loss, so they had several opportunities to close me out and they didn't? i really need the ftse and IG moves on the day, tick by tick...
"How come, you cannot have a larger loss at the time they actually close the position. They don't know in which way the market is heading. He did not have margin requirements or credit to secure a position up to 92k in loss. No one would blame the SB if they closed his position, even if the market turned around at that point. In fact they should have done just that, closed his position when his credit limit no longer had any bearing" - that's the way i see it. even if they missed my credit limit actually being breached, they should have caught it sooner than i did at almost 8pm that evening. whether the market reverses or not is irrelevant, my credit limit had been breached. and there is clear precedent that IG do close customers' positions due to credit / margin issues, so why didn't they in this case?
do you think if i can prove that my credit limit was breached several times, that would be useful? i.e. i went into profit and loss several times before going into a huge loss, so they had several opportunities to close me out and they didn't? i really need the ftse and IG moves on the day, tick by tick...
You're presupposing that they had an obligation to close you out. If they did, then showing how they could have done that without you incurring the loss will help, but the real dispute is over whether the responsibility to close a position before it goes into any loss lies with you or them. Whoever wins that battle wins the war.
Jack Hughes
Established member
- Messages
- 623
- Likes
- 25
Just realised that if mr_put hadn't closed he'd now be about a quarter of a million quid in profit.
In the knowledge that stock market indices always rise eventually, It therefore seems obvious that we should all take advantage of IG's unlimited credit facility and go long on everything at £200 per point. The worst that could happen is that we might die before we get rich.
Thinking about it, the FTSE should hit 6500 by the end of the year, so mr_p's best chance of squaring things with IG would be to open another long now.
In the knowledge that stock market indices always rise eventually, It therefore seems obvious that we should all take advantage of IG's unlimited credit facility and go long on everything at £200 per point. The worst that could happen is that we might die before we get rich.
Thinking about it, the FTSE should hit 6500 by the end of the year, so mr_p's best chance of squaring things with IG would be to open another long now.
If mr_put had 5k+12.5k=17.5 credit, beyond this point, and at the most a few thousand more, is where I feel that they should have started to act with a margin call and quickly followed by closing the position.
Why do you think he had only a few thousand? Post #288 MP says he told IG he had property, shares and some cash. Even if your belief that IG was obligated to close the position (an interpretation of legislation I don't share), you've got to assume 'property' means more than £100k of assets. He might not have wanted to lose 100k, but that doesn't mean he could pay. In fact, MP has never said he can't afford it, just that he doesn't think he should have to pay.
I have not read the whole thread, so I have missed out on this fact. I did brought it up in one of my post earlier, that this could play a part, if he when signing up said he had capital and asset. Anyway it is clear he was not granted 92k credit. He was granted much less and a margin call should come in connection with breaching the credit limit. So when should they decide to close the position do you think, 20k, £200k or 300k? Or is this floating according to his financial status given when signing the user agreement? What is the norm in a case like this?
I did have a look at post #288, and I fully agree with his post. You should not lose your home on a bet that has a credit limit. What is the use of a credit limit anyway, if not to protect the company and the trader. I understand if a huge gap is causing the main loss, but as I understand this is not the case. However, the 5k he is bringing up all the time, as his credit limit seems to be too low in reference to the the open positions of a total of £200.
"the 5k he is bringing up all the time, as his credit limit seems to be too low in reference to the the open positions of a total of £200" - 5k is 50 points at £200 per point. not a lot. but that, along with the deposit limit sums up IG's risk management policy for them and you.
they "risk assessed" the ftse at 80:1, so £200 per point x 80 = 16k, when my deposit limit was 20k. they also said don't exceed margin requirements. i stayed within both these parameters. they are the professionals, not me - was 80:1 a sensible risk assessment for the ftse at the time? i don't think so, and within days of my losses they raised it to 200:1. is 5k a sensible credit limit when putting on bets which can exceed the limit within 50 points? i don't think so, and that's why i am now in this predicament. IG are the professionals here, not me, who should bear the most responsibility for all this? people on here have said that i was foolish for not monitoring my positions and that this situation is covered within the T&Cs. i was a naive investor at the time (i've learnt alot in the last 18 months though!), and smokers in the US are taking the tobacco companies to the cleaners even though their packets say "smoking kills" - this could be a test case for spreadbetting.
they "risk assessed" the ftse at 80:1, so £200 per point x 80 = 16k, when my deposit limit was 20k. they also said don't exceed margin requirements. i stayed within both these parameters. they are the professionals, not me - was 80:1 a sensible risk assessment for the ftse at the time? i don't think so, and within days of my losses they raised it to 200:1. is 5k a sensible credit limit when putting on bets which can exceed the limit within 50 points? i don't think so, and that's why i am now in this predicament. IG are the professionals here, not me, who should bear the most responsibility for all this? people on here have said that i was foolish for not monitoring my positions and that this situation is covered within the T&Cs. i was a naive investor at the time (i've learnt alot in the last 18 months though!), and smokers in the US are taking the tobacco companies to the cleaners even though their packets say "smoking kills" - this could be a test case for spreadbetting.
tar
Legendary member
- Messages
- 10,443
- Likes
- 1,314
LOL ofcourse it is their fault they took a very risky bet for u ! seems to me u didnt learn that much !
"LOL ofcourse it is their fault they took a very risky bet for u ! seems to me u didnt learn that much !" - that was then, this is now. i certainly wouldn't do what i did again, but back then, they shouldn't have allowed me, or anyone else to get into that position - they failed in basic risk management duty of care to me.
tar
Legendary member
- Messages
- 10,443
- Likes
- 1,314
care to u ? 200:1 is legal in the UK u should complain to the FSA to change their rules , it has nothing to do with IG's risk m
I think they did nothing wrong in letting you open the positions, you had the credit for the positions and could calculate how much each point against you would take on your bankroll and credit. This is not a good defense for your case as I see it. You chance lies in your inexperience not being able to close the position, in close connection to breaching the credit you had been granted. You fail to do this, and with a crazy volatile market at the time, they should have closed your position as you were no longer covered by the credit given you.
"care to u ? 200:1 is legal in the UK u should complain to the FSA to change their rules , it has nothing to do with IG's risk m" - i approached the FSA, they said they don't deal with complaints direct from the public. i asked the FOS to refer the matter to the FSA, they said that they don't refer matters to the FSA. err...ok, so where does that leave financial services regulation? shall i come back in 20 years when you're back from lunch / sick leave / strike?
"I think they did nothing wrong in letting you open the positions, you had the credit for the positions and could calculate how much each point against you would take on your bankroll and credit. This is not a good defense for your case as I see it. You chance lies in your inexperience not being able to close the position, in close connection to breaching the credit you had been granted. You fail to do this, and with a crazy volatile market at the time, they should have closed your position as you were no longer covered by the credit given you." - that is my main defence, but with the benefit of the experience i now have, i think IG's risk assessment of market volatility at the time was woefully inadequate. they obviously realised, too late for some customers, that they had underestimated market volatility by increasing the risk factor from 80, not to 100, not to 120, not to 160, but to 200 in 1 foul swoop. at 200, i would only have been able to put on £100 per point, which would have halved my losses - still not ideal, but a lot better than 92k!
"I think they did nothing wrong in letting you open the positions, you had the credit for the positions and could calculate how much each point against you would take on your bankroll and credit. This is not a good defense for your case as I see it. You chance lies in your inexperience not being able to close the position, in close connection to breaching the credit you had been granted. You fail to do this, and with a crazy volatile market at the time, they should have closed your position as you were no longer covered by the credit given you." - that is my main defence, but with the benefit of the experience i now have, i think IG's risk assessment of market volatility at the time was woefully inadequate. they obviously realised, too late for some customers, that they had underestimated market volatility by increasing the risk factor from 80, not to 100, not to 120, not to 160, but to 200 in 1 foul swoop. at 200, i would only have been able to put on £100 per point, which would have halved my losses - still not ideal, but a lot better than 92k!
