Best Thread Capital Spreads
yeah it's fine for me again now... have moved here from finspreads (complete disaster site) but am having trouble using the fibonaccis on CS. Anyone know how to get them working on the chart software? i've found the option in the drop-down menu but it's not working for me.
Slorm
Member
- Messages
- 64
- Likes
- 3
You need to left click on the first point release, then drag your mouse to the second point and you'll see them appear on-screen. Left click again to fix in place.
capitalspreads
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,452
- Likes
- 79
downtime
small upgrade put through over w/e so the site was unavailable for a while.
to withdraw funds... unfortunately all withdrawal of funds must be requested because we have to do the old money laundering / fraud checks.. a couple of SB companies give the impression of having automated withdrawal but i believe there is always a bit of human intervention in the background.
e-mail requests to repay funds are accepted and are actioned asap. Sometimes there are alot of requests/questions etc etc and the refund may take a few hours. We make no repayments over the weeekend.
cancel requested trades
the ability to cancel a trade ticket is not a function on our platform as traders would just use it in peak periods as an easy way to print money. ... big number comes out ...immediately two clients sitting next to each other make equal and opposite buy and sell trades .. three seconds later the losing one cancels his trade... leaving the winning bet rolling. We have seen every trick in the book and I could tell you quite a few that some clients try which have never been mentioned on these threads. If we at CS are not clever enough to catch somebody fiddling the system then that is tough on us but we are very alert to potential tricks from whatever direction.
I restate my oft repeated line. In the real world on DA if you make a trade and the market moves away from you then you MAY have a very good chance that you will miss the price BUT if the market moved against you you would ALWAYS be filled. This is exactly what happens in SB. Sometimes the deal is rejected (missed the price) but if the price moves against you you will nearly always be filled.
There is an argument that client should be able to force a trade (i.e get filled but maybe not at the price requested) as you can on the exchanges. The problem with that is that the SB company is a market maker and can you imagine the complaints from clients who would always assume that any slippage was just the SB company deliberately shifting the price. You can get a good simulation of this via a 'new order' but you have to also live by the limitations.
If you have left a new order and it should have been activated you can always trade under the assumption that it will eventually be actioned. So, for example, if you have left a buy order on the Cable and it has gone through your price and you would be in a profit (if the trade was open) then just sell to open an position. When the order gets filled it will just close this sell bet, hopefully (if there is no slippage) with your profit intact.
We do this quite frequently in our own FX hedging...sometimes fills take time to get through to us so we have to trade on the assumption that they will eventually come through.
Simon
small upgrade put through over w/e so the site was unavailable for a while.
to withdraw funds... unfortunately all withdrawal of funds must be requested because we have to do the old money laundering / fraud checks.. a couple of SB companies give the impression of having automated withdrawal but i believe there is always a bit of human intervention in the background.
e-mail requests to repay funds are accepted and are actioned asap. Sometimes there are alot of requests/questions etc etc and the refund may take a few hours. We make no repayments over the weeekend.
cancel requested trades
the ability to cancel a trade ticket is not a function on our platform as traders would just use it in peak periods as an easy way to print money. ... big number comes out ...immediately two clients sitting next to each other make equal and opposite buy and sell trades .. three seconds later the losing one cancels his trade... leaving the winning bet rolling. We have seen every trick in the book and I could tell you quite a few that some clients try which have never been mentioned on these threads. If we at CS are not clever enough to catch somebody fiddling the system then that is tough on us but we are very alert to potential tricks from whatever direction.
I restate my oft repeated line. In the real world on DA if you make a trade and the market moves away from you then you MAY have a very good chance that you will miss the price BUT if the market moved against you you would ALWAYS be filled. This is exactly what happens in SB. Sometimes the deal is rejected (missed the price) but if the price moves against you you will nearly always be filled.
There is an argument that client should be able to force a trade (i.e get filled but maybe not at the price requested) as you can on the exchanges. The problem with that is that the SB company is a market maker and can you imagine the complaints from clients who would always assume that any slippage was just the SB company deliberately shifting the price. You can get a good simulation of this via a 'new order' but you have to also live by the limitations.
If you have left a new order and it should have been activated you can always trade under the assumption that it will eventually be actioned. So, for example, if you have left a buy order on the Cable and it has gone through your price and you would be in a profit (if the trade was open) then just sell to open an position. When the order gets filled it will just close this sell bet, hopefully (if there is no slippage) with your profit intact.
We do this quite frequently in our own FX hedging...sometimes fills take time to get through to us so we have to trade on the assumption that they will eventually come through.
Simon
Thanks for all your help so far guys... just one more thing regarding charting... on the demo (which i've been using for a while now) the charting seems unable to see 15 minute price movements over a month period or daily candlesticks over a year... therefore you only get a small snapshot of the possible information.... any ideas or reponses appreciated.
Slorm
Member
- Messages
- 64
- Likes
- 3
The charts on CS are pretty ropey because of scaling issues, though they're okay for intraday use.
If you're looking to swing trade or longer term investments you may want to think about getting a real charting package (there is a forum on this board discusing various products) which will cost you depending on what you want
Simon, "printing money" is not that easy and you know it. I don't buy your explanation on why you refuse to cancel a trade. I think you missed the point somewhat. What was meant is, that the dealer waits to see in what direction the wind blows, if the trade goes against the trader, the trade goes through, otherwise there comes up the message "the price is no longer valid". However, I have not experienced this to be a big problem at Capitalspreads, there is a delay until the trade notification comes thorough, but surprisingly often, one still gets the correct price. The only thing that bothers me is that during this time delay ("order pending"), the position is "locked" and you can't close the trade even if you wish to do so. This is absolutely a major security risk in any market condition. I am aware of the problem seen from the SB point of view, the real market spread widens during important news releases and SB's like to keep their fixed spread, and at times this is narrower compared to the real market spread.
lurkerlurker
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,482
- Likes
- 150
I would be interested to know this also.
So finally, I did hear of someone that has been put on dealer intervention by CS. I thought that was virtually impossible with them. You have a very clear and pleasant way of expressing yourself, your writing is excellent and shows that you know the market very well. I wonder, do we get the whole picture in your case? You have been telling this board about what happened to you and how disappointed you became with CS, to the extent that you even closed your account. I think with this kind of understanding and this positive attitude, you could have easily been able to solve this issue with CS in no time. On the other hand I don’t like Simon’s definition of a scalper. It seems this definition has been created for their own purpose and use. Don’t CS honor their price quote? Do they take the easy way out, just by putting some clients on referral to a dealer, especially when the market gets very volatile? The spread they have should cover any delay issue. I know from my own experience, that some SB’s are not easy to communicate with, some of them seem to have a set mind on some issues, and when they have cataloged you in a certain category, it is not easy to change that. However, I have found CS to be very reasonable when it comes to solving problems. I have also experienced that they have had some technical problems lately. They have missed stop loss and there has been too much slippage when there was no gap in the market and so on. Through communication and factual presentation by email, I have been able to solve these issues to my advantage. I have never called them on the phone, I wonder if they really have the time for this. I have been positively surprised by the seriousness with which they have been taking on my cases. Even if you get a negative answer at first, you can get back to them with more facts that support your side, and very often they will change their mind.
It sure was an interesting issue you brought forth. I don’t know if I can fully agree with you on this assumption from a legal point of view. This problem with CS occurs when you are on intervention by a dealer, not on auto execution. This is actually the problem with CS, it varies, sometime you get through directly, and sometime the dealer will have a look at the price. Through the user agreement you have in fact signed away “Best execution” so the Market Maker is covered legally. You have also given the dealer, through the user agreement, the right to look at the price, over a certain level of time, before letting you know. So you mean that the dealer will do the work for free, for a half minute or so , and just before giving you the price, you change your mind and cancel the order? Just joking, really I understand and support your point on this issue, but this has to be legally regulated through the user agreement. I am quite sure that there will, in the near future, emerge stricter regulations for trading, when financial instruments are the underlying asset concerned. Spread betting is really a kind of an option as I see it. Maybe the mfid guidelines by EU for “Best execution” will be a first step in this direction. Till then, I guess that our best bet at the moment is, to trade with the company that gives the best deal and fastest execution.
Reading about your case, I just wonder, are you true to yourself? I thought I heard it all, but buying at an error price of 7000 points (I have no reason to doubt Simon) and even thinking you have the right to get away with it! Honestly, there isn’t a court in the world that would rule in your favor. I support Simon’s viewpoint on this, hundred percent. You knew you bought the position unfairly, with an extreme error price, and one should not complain when CS was reclaiming the money that is rightfully theirs (regulated in favor of the SB through the user agreement). One just needs to use common sense to understand what is right in this situation. I am even surprised that there is a discussion among traders on this board about this issue. We are not talking about buying a position on a lagging price quote that mounts up to a few points. We are talking about a staggering 7000 points! The time factor does not matter in this case as I understand it. If we are talking of a couple of points here and there it is altogether another matter, and I am quite sure CS would not bother if that would have been the case.
That "Price is no longer valid" box quite often moves to a better price, too, so I don't think that it is, necessarily, a ruse to get us in at a worse price.
The "locked in" situation is a real nuisance, as you say. I trade with someone else and had a bad case this morning.
Split
Yes I agree, in fact I started to record some of my CS trading sessions. It showed very clearly that the price did change, and sometimes even to my advantage.
CS really have to do something about "locked" positions. It is the reason I don't increase my stakes with them.
My objection is the apparent disregard for the client in that the account has been touched without discussing it with him first. In Harry's case it was 7000. I agree with you on the fact that he must have know that was an error. However, the same could be happening to lots of smaller "errors" that may or may not be in dispute and that we never learn about. It is a dangerous precedent. In addition, a month went by before discovery. Quite frankly, it that happened to me for a small amount I would, probably, let it pass by as a possibility. That does not make it right, though. Or does it?
Split
lurkerlurker
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,482
- Likes
- 150
Well, dealer intervention wouldn't be much of an issue for position traders, and providing that they find some way to make the system fairer by allowing us to cancel pending orders, day traders should be okay also. Unfortunately, I can't day trade index futures when I don't know if I am filled or not, and am only ever filled if the price has moved against me.
I appreciate what Simon says about it being easier to sell into a rising market than a falling one, etc, however I can read the order book and T&S on the Dow and know full well that I could have been filled at that time at that price in the size I wish to trade in, and the only reason I am not filled with CS is because a dealer got around to the order 30 seconds later and the market had moved on. They can't get their hedge (if applicable) on at the price they offered me since the market has moved, so they decline the trade. When I was on automatic dealing I occasionally got a trade rejected in a genuinely fast market, but for the most part I got filled at the price almost immediately.
Regarding Simon's comment that two traders could sit next to each other and take opposite bets, I have only the following to say. A client should be entitled to cancel an offer to deal with you at a price at any time prior to your acceptance. If your dealer hasn't accepted the trade, no action has been taken by your firm, you haven't incurred transaction costs, and it is affecting neither your book risk or your market risk. Clients should not be "locked in" waiting for you to execute. This is more of a platform bug than anything else. The other SB firms I have traded with pretty much without exception allow me to cancel unfilled orders
This is not an easy way to print money. Take a hypothetical example of trying to trade as you suggest over a NFP number. Trader A and B are colluding, as you suggest. They both have CS accounts. As the number comes out, trader A goes long £10pp and trader B goes short £10pp. There is a delay as the orders go to your dealers- traders A and B are watching the ES feed from the CME, and see that the news was bearish, and the S&P is down five full points. Trader A hasn't been filled yet, however he no longer wishes to be long from the pre news price. Your dealers have not accepted the order, so it doesn't affect your risk profile. Trader A cancels the order. Trader B sits and waits for his fill, however when your dealers get it the market has moved 50 of your tics, so his trade is rejected. Where is the free money?
The only free money I see in this situation is when you don't allow trader A to cancel his order, thus forcing him to enter the market 50 tics down, while simultaneously rejecting trader B's order as "invalid price". Your firm is up 5 full S&P points and can then hedge off the position for a guaranteed profit.
If it had been one or two issues, then yes. However, I experienced so many problems with CS that trading was becoming more stressful than it needed to be. Further, the staff were becoming less helpful with any queries and complaints, and I had reason to believe the dealers were being deceptive about my account being on dealer intervention. When I asked them to confirm that it was my account that had been selected for dealer intervention, and to explain why this would be the case, they declined to comment. Also, I felt that the bias on fills was an extreme handicap in a fast market, as I tried to trade my usual short term strategy and found that I was being left with only the losing trades that the system produced. As it was impossible to profit under those circumstances, and CS were unhelpful, I closed the account.
Unfortunately, while you and I may be honest, we must accept the fact that there are many people out to make a good living from ripping off spreadbetting companies. I have heard of a few cases in the early days of SB where a client would take out a large share bet in an illiquid share, and then deliberately manipulate the price through DA in order to profit from the spreadbet. I am sure there are other clients who sit with an interbank feed and try to pick off pips on forex numbers, as Simon has indicated. Spread betting companies are entitled to (and are economically compelled to) do their utmost to prevent clients getting an unfair deal at their expense. However, as far as I can see the best way for a SB company to counter this is to ensure to the best of their ability that their platform does not quote an incorrect price. CS seem to think that it is okay to quote FX markets 24 hours when their desk is unstaffed and whatever feed they derive their prices from is so unreliable as to produce random spikes - for example 800 odd pips on the NZD/USD. Obviously they would be aware of such large spikes and they would stop clients trading on them, but that doesn't change the fact that CS have so many technical problems we have to wonder if it is really in their interest to fix them - aside from the time spent reversing trades and dealing with the odd irate client, CS does not suffer any disadvantage if their price feeds break overnight. It is obviously not worth their while to operate a 24 hour desk, but they equally don't want to miss out on profits from overnight FX trades.
Yes, their staff are very reasonable in the main. However, it should not be necessary for you to keep getting in touch with your broker to argue with them over their mistakes, in which case when you decide you are getting stressed, wasting your time, and needlessly keeping BT in higher profits, perhaps you should consider going elsewhere. I am sorry to hear that you have also experienced technical problems of late, and I hope they sort this issue out. Again, they are usually pleasant enough people to deal with, and as far as bucket shops go I think they do a lot better than most with regard to fairness, platform stability, and customer service. I like their tight spreads on some markets as well - I would consider opening another account with them if I hear enough good reports here and can be assured that the technical and customer service issues are solved.
I would hope that Simon considers what past and present punters have said here - it is all too easy to become jaded and assume that every client is trying to rip you off, or dismiss concerns about the platform with comments such as "you don't always get a fill in the real market either".
Simon -given my NFP example above, do you accept that allowing clients to cancel a trade before your dealers see it does not affect your position whatsoever and therefore creates no opportunity to make risk free money at your expense?
In my point of view CS did the right thing in not notifying him before removing the money. Why, you might ask? Simply because it was crystal clear that CS, through the client user agreement, legally had the sole right to do this, before notifying him. Also as I see it, notifying him could also have legally weakened CS' position, as he would object to it. Of course again, if we are talking of a less error price, the matter would have been totally different. In most cases, I don't support the idea of touching the account before notifying, but in this specific case, from the facts presented here, I must say I do.
lurkerlurker
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,482
- Likes
- 150
That is not correct. The amount in question does not change any legal position regarding the right of CS to debit the funds, and further does not affect any weakening of their position if they were to give prior notice. I don't support the idea of messing about with an account without notifying the client either, but the amount in question makes no difference to the legality of doing this.
stevespray
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,289
- Likes
- 156
You say that my points on the withdrawing of a client order would have to be covered under the user agreement - I dont think this is so. Firstly, the 'user agreement' is just one of many potential sets of rules and regulations which set out the rules when forming contracts and indeed on spread betting in general. You can not escape from the legal perspective of how a contract is formed - there must be an 'offer' followed by an 'acceptance' - No contract is formed until both occur - this means that the client is not legally / contractually obligated until the firm accept the clients offer. This means that the client can withdraw their offer up until the point at which acceptance is made because no contract exists and therefore the SB firm is powerless to enforce the clients offer because it is only that 'an offer'. By not allowing the client to withdraw and offer the firm is effectively enforcing a contract which is only binding in one direction (ie the client can not escape their offer terms but the firm is free to choose to escape the terms of the clients offer if it so wishes). Legally speaking no one can enforce such a situation. Even if the firms T&C were written in such a manner as to entitle the firm to be able to act that way (and, in the case of CS, they dont appear to be written so) then the firm in question would most likely fall foul of the Unfair Terms And Conditions In Consumer Contracts Act Of 1999 since the enforcement of such a such a set of T&C would fundamentally alter the balance of the 'offer / acceptance = contract' laws.
In currently writing a further reply to Simon's post on this issue.
Steve.
