Best Thread Capital Spreads

[capitalspreads]

steve

with dividends we must take some account of the underlying tax situation. Otherwise traders would just sell out of their 'real' shares on the day before ex dividend and take out a 'buy' bet with an SB company and then, having received the '100% div' from the SB company,just reverse the trade thus avoiding tax on the dividend. This might (we believe) make CS compliant in attempts at tax avoidance and would at the very least (if it became very prevelant) bring the eye of the taxman very firmly in our direction.

In the real world you have somewhere between 25 and 37 pc tax on divvys. We belive that the 20pc charge plus attendant dealing costs make it less likely that CS can be seen to be aiding tax avoidance.

Simon

 

[ascon]

As for the complainant..after the error on his stop was made (his original stop was fairly hit but because he amended it whilst the computer was processing it the stop level went through on the amended price) he gave us a big list of deals which he wished us to look at and we did so and found no errors. He then decided to change tack and said effectively "thats now not enough, look at all the trades I have ever done...check them against the market at that exact time going back a year" (!)... having no further proof of any specific deal error he was now asking us to look at thousands of trades taking a staff member several weeks (at our cost) when he had had no complaint about them at the time. But then added "but I will accept £5K if you don't want to do this" ! He has the full time and sales data himself on his deal confirmations and deal history. If he can find a problem or has suspisions about an individual trade then present the proof and we will look at it.

As i stated in the past if a client has a specific problem with a trade then we will look at it. We will not go on some sort of fishing trip.

Compliance indicated that as far as Capital Spreads was concerned we had looked into the matter found no further errors on the original list of deals. Compliance also stated to him that unless he had a specific complaint then we considered the matter closed and we did not expect to make any further response. As the client has not written or phoned with a specific complaint since then we can hardly respond.

Simon

I dispute your claim that the stop was fairly hit. If the adjusted stop level is picked up and used for calculation of the loss on the contract then it must have been detected by your software before the stop level was hit. I have noticed on other contracts which are fairly hit that they are marked or touched as hit.

I am not questioning your integrity or that of your staff. When I identified the problem of incorrect stop levels being used in the calculation of closing P/L I asked if it was possible to audit the transactions retrospectively assuming that it would be possible to go back and correct all errors by CS (either at my expense or yours). I still believe that you will eventually treat me fairly - because there is a financial consequence for you it may be necessary for me to push a little.


"He then decided to change tack and said effectively "thats now not enough, look at all the trades I have ever done...check them against the market at that exact time going back a year" "

My quote marks are accurate - yours are false and misleading. Those are not my words.

I have clearly documented the course of events. There were a number of problems with the way my account was being handled. The defect in your accounting system which leads to incorrect contract closure values was just one of the problems. I regard the failure to close contracts promptly as a very fundamental breach of contract.

There are many ways to deal with a problem. I carried out a statistical analysis of my account and made an estimate, on a perfectly reasonable basis, of the overall extent of the problem. Similarly, one could estimate the extent to which other clients might be affected. I have simply given you the opportunity to deal with the problem by detailed analysis or by agreement with me if you want an easier and less costly approach. You seem to have chosen to ignore me in the hope that I will go away or lose interest - I genuinely believe that this is how you hande all of your complaints.


"he gave us a big list of deals which he wished us to look at"

I have documented three specific examples of errors about the close-out value which were raised, one by one, to draw your attention to a serious problem. I subsequently gave details of 8 other transactions (attached to the long letter copied in an earlier post) which I believed to have been closed out incorrectly and this was given to support my claim that a detailed analysis should be carried out by CS. At no time has anyone at capital spreads ackowledged recipt of this list, discussed items in the list with me or written to me about items in the list.

If ALL eight of these transactions prove to be correct then I I give an undertaking here that that I will withdraw all complaints against, apologise here and withdraw my complaint from the FOS process. The quid pro quo is that I expect an undertaking from you to carry out a full audit of my account if you assertion is untrue or incorrect.

Here is the list originally submitted

"Starred items would be suspect.


7 March 14.57 Sell 30 Dax RD 6510 2335.00*
7 Mar 14.57 Sell 10 Dax RD 6518 100.00

13 Mar Sell 10 Wall Street RD 11940 2110.00
13 Mar 13.43 Sell 10 Wall Street 11920 220.00*

17 Mar 12.53 Sell 5 GBPUSD 2.0030 610.00
17 Mar 12.53 Sell 5 GBPUSD 2.0010 1475.00*

1 Apr 19.20 Buy 5 Wall Street RD 12585 690.00*
1 Apr 19.20 Buy 5 Wall Street RD 12610 740.00
1 Apr 19.20 Buy 5 Wall Street RD 12585 75.00*
1 Apr 19.20 Buy 5 Wall Street RD 12585 230.00*

18 Apr 12..57 Sell 10 EURUSD RD 1.5780 340.00
18 Apr 12..57 Sell 10 EURUSD RD 1.5760 530.00*

18 Apr 13.42 Sell 10 EURUSD RD 1.5730 470.00
18 Apr 13.42 Sell 10 EURUSD RD 1.5730 440.00
18 Apr 13.42 Sell 10 EURUSD RD 1.5710 2240.00*
18 Apr 13.42 Sell 10 EURUSD RD 1.5720 2120.00*"

You have previously claimed that you are willing to do a public audit - lets see what that means.

I look forward to your response to this matter and will document other issues of public interest in a separate reply.

Tony

 

[stevespray]

steve

with dividends we must take some account of the underlying tax situation. Otherwise traders would just sell out of their 'real' shares on the day before ex dividend and take out a 'buy' bet with an SB company and then, having received the '100% div' from the SB company,just reverse the trade thus avoiding tax on the dividend. This might (we believe) make CS compliant in attempts at tax avoidance and would at the very least (if it became very prevelant) bring the eye of the taxman very firmly in our direction.

In the real world you have somewhere between 25 and 37 pc tax on divvys. We belive that the 20pc charge plus attendant dealing costs make it less likely that CS can be seen to be aiding tax avoidance.

Simon

Interesting answer and certainly one I wasnt expecting.

How would this 'tax situation' work if a client moved from say direct access to 100% spread betting? If we took fx as an example then it makes perfect sense to spreadbet rather that trade directly since the spreads are generally equally as narrow - could this not also be termed as 'tax avoidance'?

This is a very interesting angle. Would you say that the spreadbetting firms are under constant presure to 'show' that they are not a 'tax avoidance tool'? I'm struggling to see how anyone (either CS or the tax athorities) can determine that taking a position on a stock prior to xd OR trading entirely through spreadbetting is anything other than an attempt to avoid paying tax.

Surely from your perspective you'd like anything that increases trade through your markets? By only paying 80% you are effectively making stock trading unattractive around xd time?

Steve.

 

[ascon]

my word, this is so wrong on so many levels that I hardly know where to begin


point 1 is just a complaint that we do not pay interest on client funds. I accept that this is a sore point for some clients but that is company policy and is unlikely to alter.

we do not remove the £60 margin from the £19,200 value of the position as it is so meaningless. This amount of margin requirement would make precisely 0.8p difference to the £2.63 rolling charge.

If we did not charge for positions then clients would merely sell the rolling GBP/USD and buy the December GBP/USD contract thus ensuring a guaranteed profit. You demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge about how margin trading works by this statement. If we got rid of Future expiring bets punters would just sell/buy with us and buy/sell with a competitor. As every single SB, CFD, FX, margin broker in the world charges for rolling trades/bets are you saying that they are all in a conspiracy together?

Again your knowledge of the markets is sadly lacking if you think that when you trade FX or any other product on margin that you can compare this to an annual interest cost. My example was exactly correct in that if you held a rolling bet open every day for 365 days that would be the charge. The charge is not compounded as we do not charge interest on interest it is merely charged on the value of the trade and so if GBP/USD remained exactly at 1.9200 and Base rates remained at 5pc for the UK and 2pc for the US then the annual charge would be exactly as I said at exactly 5pc.

I cannot comment on other companies calculation methods but i believe that if you actually calculated the interest rate cost from the close/open price then the number would not be significantly different to ours.

point 4 does not even make sense... the rolling charge makes no note of stops or margin used (as these have nothing to do with the total value at risk on the bet) it just looks at the value of the bet (stake times closing price).

"your final point is also disengenuous ... you are suggesting that if we have a position that has another positon the other way round then we should not charge... what absolute b****cks.. so what do we say to the person who is short and expecting to be paid?? "oh sorry Mr Smith, Mr Jones was long so to be nice to him we are being nasty to you""

I am not sure that I understand your exasperation. If a clients money is tied up in a specific contract then this should be reflected in the overnight interest charge. Put simply, £5000 down on a £20000 contract - leads to 75% charge. Perhaps som-one else can maje this point better than me.

Simon

I am not calling you a fool and I am not being rude to you.


"point 1 is just a complaint that we do not pay interest on client funds. I accept that this is a sore point for some clients but that is company policy and is unlikely to alter."


"I am observing that you do not pay interest on the client funds account - neither do IGIndex or all the others as far as I know. I have not complained about this matter here or elsewhere. "

we do not remove the £60 margin from the £19,200 value of the position as it is so meaningless. This amount of margin requirement would make precisely 0.8p difference to the £2.63 rolling charge.

My point is that your calculation does not include the margin (whatever it is and however it is calculated). If it doesn't worry you then build it into the calculation.

"If we did not charge for positions then clients would merely sell the rolling GBP/USD and buy the December GBP/USD contract thus ensuring a guaranteed profit. You demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge about how margin trading works by this statement. If we got rid of Future expiring bets punters would just sell/buy with us and buy/sell with a competitor. As every single SB, CFD, FX, margin broker in the world charges for rolling trades/bets are you saying that they are all in a conspiracy together?"

I am saying that your interest charges on rolling daily bets are excessive and that they are calculated without taking into account the margin. I notice that you often dismiss arguments by saying that clients would merely sell one thing and buy another with you or elsewhere - you rarely take account of the spread and thus your statements can be very misleading or even incorrect.


"Again your knowledge of the markets is sadly lacking if you think that when you trade FX or any other product on margin that you can compare this to an annual interest cost.
My example was exactly correct in that if you held a rolling bet open every day for 365 days that would be the charge. The charge is not compounded as we do not charge interest on interest it is merely charged on the value of the trade and so if GBP/USD remained exactly at 1.9200 and Base rates remained at 5pc for the UK and 2pc for the US then the annual charge would be exactly as I said at exactly 5pc."

I have made no claims about my knowledge of the markets. I do think that you may be wrong about interest rates though. For instance If you tell the Financial Ombudsman that you only charge 7% per annum interest (say 2% above base) he will think that you mean that were interest to be charged on a rolling bet held open for 365 days that 7% of the amount would be taken after a 365 day period. He will not realise that you really mean that you take 1/365th each day and have the benefit of the interest (and compound interest on that interst during the rest of the period. If you do follow this illustration you may begin to see why a few people that you are happy to describe as fools do actually have a vaild point. Perhaps if you dealt with complaints properly then you might move to a differnt position. We all accept that you need to charge interest on contracts held open for significant periods of time.


"I cannot comment on other companies calculation methods"

Why? We are not talking about secret information.

"point 4 does not even make sense... the rolling charge makes no note of stops or margin used (as these have nothing to do with the total value at risk on the bet) it just looks at the value of the bet (stake times closing price)."


You seem not to accept that it is possible for the margin determined by stop level to be material in terms of the contract value. Now this might fairly be called disingenuous.

 

[ascon]

overnight charges



As for the complainant..after the error on his stop was made (his original stop was fairly hit but because he amended it whilst the computer was processing it the stop level went through on the amended price) he gave us a big list of deals which he wished us to look at and we did so and found no errors. He then decided to change tack and said effectively "thats now not enough, look at all the trades I have ever done...check them against the market at that exact time going back a year" (!)... having no further proof of any specific deal error he was now asking us to look at thousands of trades taking a staff member several weeks (at our cost) when he had had no complaint about them at the time. But then added "but I will accept £5K if you don't want to do this" ! He has the full time and sales data himself on his deal confirmations and deal history. If he can find a problem or has suspisions about an individual trade then present the proof and we will look at it.

As i stated in the past if a client has a specific problem with a trade then we will look at it. We will not go on some sort of fishing trip.

Compliance indicated that as far as Capital Spreads was concerned we had looked into the matter found no further errors on the original list of deals. Compliance also stated to him that unless he had a specific complaint then we considered the matter closed and we did not expect to make any further response. As the client has not written or phoned with a specific complaint since then we can hardly respond.

Simon

Your recollection of events is incorrect. The actual sequence of events is properly documented in my letter copied in post 4402

The "big list of deals" contained only 8 suspect transactions. I have NOT had any response from CS in connection with list. It took me day or so to analyse the large number of transactions on my account and as anyone with any understanding of the detail knows it is virtually imposssible for a punter to check the close-out value of isolated transactions on a CS account. Your suggestion that this is a straightforward matter is rather unpleasant. Believe me - I would happily spend a week analysing data to obtain a refund of £5,000.

My account was very active - you will have made lots of money/profit and I do not see why you are bleating about the cost of treating me fairly. Big customers require big support.

"If he can find a problem or has suspisions about an individual trade then present the proof and we will look at it. "

This really is not a satisfactory repsonse. It is an implied term in any contract that you will have a proper accounting system - I do not expect to have to check my back pocket to see if anything is missing when CS is in the room. When the FSA taks about treating customers fairly they mean that the onus is you to deal with the kind of problem I have raised. Clearly all other clients are still subject to the likelhood of a similar error being made on their accounts. Do you not think that you should contact them? - an email via your mailing list can't cost too much.

Finally, CS seems to have complete disregard for FSA complainsts handling guidelines. The little things like responding in writing, appointing a complaint handler, setting out a time-table for handling the complaint, the issue of a final response on a timely basis etc are there to protect everyone. The procedures take some of the stress out of the situation, stop comlainants from wasting their time and money and help them protect and understand their legal rights.

Arrogant know-it-alls are not usually suited to handling of complaints.

Tony

 

[arabianights]

Ascon your complaint about financing charges honestly has no merit at all, no comment on the other stuff as I guess you have to have been there .

 

[ascon]

Ascon your complaint about financing charges honestly has no merit at all, no comment on the other stuff as I guess you have to have been there .

So, you can make a dismissive comment about the interest rate issues because there does not seem to be a lot money involved but when it comes to the very serious matters of incorrect close-out rates, delays in closing contracts, the CS complaints handling process, misleading responses given by Mr Denham on this thread you are unable to make a comment.

I am not impressed.

Tony

 

[arabianights]

Well how can I make a comment one way or the other? It's a he says she says situation.

On the other hand I can comment on the financing charges because they are both transparent and logical - so I can say that.

I'm not here to impress you!

 

[stevespray]

Tony - He's only trying to help.

For what it's worth he's pretty much right in my opinion. Go down DFS (or any other store for that matter) and buy a new set of sofa's and chairs for the living room. They'll ask you if you want to open a 'Store Card' account. Sign up and don't forget to check out the APR! It will weigh in at around 30%+ and they'll still fall under FSA regulation. My point is that FSA regulation doesnt mean that the interest rate has to be x,y or z. In terms of borrowing money (which is what you are actually doing here even if you dont properly understand that point) CS will probably one of the cheapest ways of doing it. On top of that, when you signed up, you had the choice of accepting the costs of borrowing in just the same was as you do a store card or credit card. I've had a fair bit of experience in terms of dealing with the FSA / Financial Ombudsman Service. Your complaint with regard to costs of finance appears to have absolutely no grounds whatsoever - this isnt helped by the fact that you dont actually make 'a genuine complaint' regarding costs - you complaint on this matter is vague and has no real substance.

Your other complaint appears to have more merit but you have to wait for Simon to respond to your last few posts. Obviously the 'close out' prices of trades is pretty critical in the context of spreadbetting. Now that you have clearly stated that you want particular trades looked into the firm can act accordingly and respond with results to your enquiries. I dont see that, based on what Simon has already said, you are going to have a problem with the firm over this.

Steve.

 

[ascon]

Tony - He's only trying to help.

For what it's worth he's pretty much right in my opinion. Go down DFS (or any other store for that matter) and buy a new set of sofa's and chairs for the living room. They'll ask you if you want to open a 'Store Card' account. Sign up and don't forget to check out the APR! It will weigh in at around 30%+ and they'll still fall under FSA regulation. My point is that FSA regulation doesnt mean that the interest rate has to be x,y or z. In terms of borrowing money (which is what you are actually doing here even if you dont properly understand that point) CS will probably one of the cheapest ways of doing it. On top of that, when you signed up, you had the choice of accepting the costs of borrowing in just the same was as you do a store card or credit card. I've had a fair bit of experience in terms of dealing with the FSA / Financial Ombudsman Service. Your complaint with regard to costs of finance appears to have absolutely no grounds whatsoever - this isnt helped by the fact that you dont actually make 'a genuine complaint' regarding costs - you complaint on this matter is vague and has no real substance.

Your other complaint appears to have more merit but you have to wait for Simon to respond to your last few posts. Obviously the 'close out' prices of trades is pretty critical in the context of spreadbetting. Now that you have clearly stated that you want particular trades looked into the firm can act accordingly and respond with results to your enquiries. I dont see that, based on what Simon has already said, you are going to have a problem with the firm over this.

Steve.

Thanks for the reply.

"borrowing money...which is what you are actually doing here even if you dont properly understand that point "

Really, I do understand. If I have 30K in my CS account and take a £1 GBPUSD rolling daily position overnight then CS will charge me a fee. The reality is that the contract is fully covered by my funds but CS will still charge a notional fee called interest. It is like putting the telescope to the blind eye.

My problem is that there is a serious defect in the CS trading platform so that if you push stops right back so that the contract is fully covered (or so that there is low leverage) then some of the capital will be locked in until the contract is closed, even if the stop level is brought closer. On balance this seems unfair and the defect is the matter which is worthy of complaint. The interest cost may be small - I suppose it depends on how much you trade. The defect is not mentioned in the documentation and it comes as surpuprise when you are affectd by it - most notably when your capital runs low.

From a personal point of view I don't give tuppence about the interest on open contracts - I do care about the response to my complaint and I am happy to let CS respond in whatever way they wish to my complaint - in the end they will paint a picture of the way the firm operates by the way they respond.


"I dont see that, based on what Simon has already said, you are going to have a problem with the firm over this."

Based on what Simon says in public I would agree with you - the fact that I have waited for three months and have no response does tell a different story.

Tony

 

[arabianights]

Ok so Tony if I get this right your logic is that you shouldn't pay interest to borrow pounds as you already have more than that many pounds in your account?

 

[ascon]

Ok so Tony if I get this right your logic is that you shouldn't pay interest to borrow pounds as you already have more than that many pounds in your account?

I have made my points about CS interest charges in some detail. If you think that there is anything which I have written which is incorrect or misleading please let me know. You have the style of a man who is very clever - so I am ready to be corrected.

I note though that you and Mr Denham both seem happy to focus on the relatively trivial matter of notional interest charges, raised in my letter of complaint (copied above), and ignore the other very serious matters raised.

As I said, I am not impressed.


Tony

 

[ascon]

Well how can I make a comment one way or the other? It's a he says she says situation.

QUOTE]

This is quite an interesting point really - I missed it the first time round.

Some time ago, I called the Financial Ombudsman Service and explained that I had made a complaint against CS but that they were refusing to deal with it and that I felt that if too much time passed it would be very difficult to get data to prove that contracts had been closed out at an incorrect level and that recordings of telephone conversations would be difficult to obtain.

The FOS approach is similar to yours - they sit on the fence until presented with evidence from both sides. When I phoned the FOS about CS my complaint was flipped into a new level immediatley but the clock started anew. Thus if the response to a complaint is allowed to run its maximum course before getting into the regulatory system then the initial delay becomes four months not the two months that most people expect. Presumably the case does not get dealt with by the FOS for some time so a complaint might take 6 to 9 months before anyone looks at the evidence.

Although your statement was clearly intended to be neutral, I do think that a neutral stance is not always fair on all parties.

 

[stevespray]

Ascon,

In my opinion the Financial Ombudsman Service are a bunch of bungling imbeciles. Not only do they ‘sit on the fence’ but, when presented with a weight of evidence, they fail to come off the fence and take action. They appear to be utterly useless and it seems to me that their existence is merely an attempt by the government to make people feel ‘safe’!

In 2002 I had the complete displeasure of dealing with them. At the time I made what I felt was a completely valid and bulletproof complaint about the actions of a certain spreadbetting firm. (Not CS I should add). My complaint, along with supporting evidence, showed what I felt was a clear breach of T&C of the Customer Agreement. The firm attempted to defend itself from my action by claiming that “Other terms and conditions existed which aren’t physically listed in the Customer Agreement” (or pretty much words to that effect). As one of my lawyer mates said, when you get a firm to write something like that in a letter you are pretty close to nailing them.

With that I prepared my submission and set it to the FOS along with a considerable amount of supporting evidence which all appeared to be directly relevant to the complaint as a whole.

Initially I received a prompt and efficient response from the FOS. A nice letter thanking me for taking the time to submit such a comprehensively supported complaint. The letter went on to introduce the person dealing with the complaint and also supplied contact details etc. Once I received this letter I contacted the person concerned and introduced myself and asked briefly if there was anything else that he needed from me. At that time the guy dealing with the case indicated that he basically agreed with me and declared that he felt that the firms interpretation of their own terms and conditions was “somewhat unusual”.

I sat back and waited for what I felt was going to be an ‘open and shut case’. Obviously the firm had to be allowed to present their case and answer the questions that the FOS asked them based on the evidence which I had provided. Initially I was told that this would take “around three or four weeks”.
A couple of months then passed with little or no noise from the FOS. My concerns started to grow. I contacted the guy at the FOS and he said that he’d been very busy with other stuff. I asked him about the state of my case and he indicated that the firm had responded but he needed to send them a further list of questions. Again a month or two passed with no word. We’d now reached the stage where I felt that I had to pester the FOS in order to progress my case. Again I contacted the FOS and the guy informed me that the firm had not replied to his further lines of questioning and that the firm had now missed a deadline for responding. The guy indicated that the boded well for me since it appeared to him that the firm were reluctant to answer specific questions relating to certain aspect of their business.

Everything sounded positive from my perspective so I asked what the next step in the process was. This is when things started to go wrong. The guy was very unsure. He said that he needed to speak with ‘an ombudsman’ about the next step. Instead of the case moving forward we seemed to go into reverse. More time passed with nothing seeming to happen. Phone messages left at the FOS went unanswered. When I did get through the guy seemed completely stressed out and was pretty much unable to provide me with any details regarding progress. He then announced that “the firm needs more time to respond” – bear in mind that this was months after saying that they’d missed their deadline.

This kind of incompetence went on for well over a year! (They normally sort cases in six weeks apparently!) My guess is that it would take them two weeks to make a cup of tea.

After a further period of time I had a response from the FOS. A letter arrived from the guy dealing with my case saying that he couldn’t recommend that my complaint be upheld! The reasoning given was brief and totally unbelievable. I pressed the matter with the FOS and asked the guy to explain on the phone why he wasn’t following normal legal procedure (ie following the exact wording of the T&C) but he said that it wasn’t his job to do that and that he was purely there to ensure that the firm was treating clients fairly which itself was a clear contradiction in terms.
I then found out that I could elevate the complaint myself within the FOS. I contacted them and advised that I wanted the complaint forwarded to an actual Ombudsman. They seemed surprised. By this time many months had passed since the original complaint was submitted to the FOS.

Finally, after almost TWO YEARS, the FOS issued their official report into my complaint. Although I was please to finally have something from them the content was appalling. Basically the Ombudsman argued that I had no case for complaint. The key areas of the complaint were not dealt with in the report. Paragraph after paragraph of the report appeared to be purely the opinion of the Ombudsman over what was fair and unfair. Different paragraphs in the report contradicted each other badly. The Ombudsman would argue one thing at one point and then argue the opposite in the next section of the report. The Ombudsman ‘created’ obscure interpretations of sections of the terms and conditions which contradicted terms and conditions physically listed. For example the T&C clearly laid out what represented a ‘valid quotation’ and what represented an ‘indicative quotation’ yet the Ombudsman stated that he considered that all quotes were indicative in nature. When writing these interpretation he would deliberately miss out sections of text which did not support his view.
On top of all that there were statements of fact which were completely wrong.

Slowly but surely, as the report unfolds, the Ombudsman was careful to slowly disregard most of the evidence provided. It was strange how ‘under the rules’ certain things could not be considered even though this evidence appeared to potentially settle the dispute in one foul swoop! Initially I was dumbfounded and angry. After a while I just laughed. I still have the report here somewhere since it is amusing to read the screwed up logic of someone desperate to defend the firm regardless of what has gone on.

In the end it struck me that the FOS is completely useless and serves little real purpose. If anyone had to deal with them at a professional level then they would surely pull their hair out.

In the end the firm settled with me without the need for court action. Of course officially it was ‘a gesture of goodwill’.

In the meantime I’ve heard of at least three or four complaints which the FOS refused to uphold which, after going to court, went in favour of the client.

None of this is obviously relevant to Capital Spreads – I’m just trying to warn people not to expect anything from the FOS.


Steve.

 

[capitalspreads]

Tony

the problem with your complaint against us is that whilst you had a legitimate error on your account which we looked into and (quite rightly) found in your favour. You then asked us to look into another series of trades which you felt might be suspect and we found no error with them.

Not happy with this you then said "look into all the trades i have made over the past year" or pay you £5K. (You had made thousands of trades over the period)

We, in my opinion quite reasonably, stated that this was not practicable as you had no specific complaint about any individual trade and had made no complaint at all at the time when they were actually done. You were just 'fishing' to find something. If you want to make a fishing trip then I respectfully suggest that you do it off your own back and not off ours. Take all the details of the trades and either do the work yourself or give them to a forensic analyst to wade through.

I am sorry but I am not going to waste the resourses of Capital Spreads in this fashion.

As you also appear to be very verbose on this thread I might also like to ask why you would not put any complaint in writing to us even though we asked you to do so (making it quite difficult for us to respond). As you state that you have complained to the Financial Ombudsman I am afraid that this will have to be my last comment on it as it would probably be Sub Judicia (or whatever thay call it)

Simon

 

[ascon]

Tony

the problem with your complaint against us is that whilst you had a legitimate error on your account which we looked into and (quite rightly) found in your favour. You then asked us to look into another series of trades which you felt might be suspect and we found no error with them.

Not happy with this you then said "look into all the trades i have made over the past year" or pay you £5K. (You had made thousands of trades over the period)

We, in my opinion quite reasonably, stated that this was not practicable as you had no specific complaint about any individual trade and had made no complaint at all at the time when they were actually done. You were just 'fishing' to find something. If you want to make a fishing trip then I respectfully suggest that you do it off your own back and not off ours. Take all the details of the trades and either do the work yourself or give them to a forensic analyst to wade through.

I am sorry but I am not going to waste the resourses of Capital Spreads in this fashion.

As you also appear to be very verbose on this thread I might also like to ask why you would not put any complaint in writing to us even though we asked you to do so (making it quite difficult for us to respond). As you state that you have complained to the Financial Ombudsman I am afraid that this will have to be my last comment on it as it would probably be Sub Judicia (or whatever thay call it)

Simon

Thanks for your response.

There is still some misunderstanding here. I have still not had a response to my letter of complaint sent, by recorded delivery, to Mr Guillermo Lopez-Perez on 7 June 2008.

On one hand you appear to state that you investigated the small indicative sample of 8 suspect transactions. On the other hand, you claim not to have received the letter of complaint which contained details of the transactions. At no other time did I give anyone at CS the transaction details, I merely referred to the fact, in my telephone conversations, that I suspected that there were many other transactions on my account which had been closed out at an incorrect value. You are obviously a busy man - perhaps you have been incorrectly briefed about the course of events.

You must appreciate that it is difficult for a client to check transactions after a period of time - whereas CS would have access to slightly more permanent information in its accounting system. Your staff have been very specific in stating that all transactions could be fully audited retrospectively. I just do not understand why you cannot be more helpful.

[In case you are not aware, I should advise that I posted a copy of my letter of complaint and details of the 8 suspect transactions on this thread a few weeks ago.]

As far as the £5,000 is concerned. I have analysed my account as well as I can, identified transactions which appear to be suspect and calculated that 2% may be wrong (98% may be right!). I have used the amounts of the known errors (corrected swiftly by CS) and the gross throughput on my account to estimate the likely financial extent of the problem. This seems to be sensible approach and it is unfair to imply that I attempting to extort money from you.

"I might also like to ask why you would not put any complaint in writing to us even though we asked you to do so"

Genuinely, I do not understand this point. I have written to CS in accordance with your complaints procedure. More than 8 weeks ago the FOS advised me that they had also written to your compliance department requesting your files about my complaint. My letter is on this thread for all to see (including you). Customer service at CS claim that they are unable to deal with formal complaints. Your compliance department does not feel that they need to respond to complaints - apparently Mr Lopez-Perez considers that he is there only to see that every thing complies with your terms and conditions and sod the FSA guidelines on complaints handling. Perhaps you, personally, should have another look at how complaints are actually handled by CS.

By the way, the matters raised in my letter of complaint (or on this thread) are not sub judice. Also, for the record, I have not suggested at any time that I would be taking legal action. Clearly you are free to talk to me directly in private, you can discuss the issues that I have raised in this public forum or you can refuse to deal further with the matter. My main purpose in posting in this forum is to find other CS clients who have experienced problems with their Compliance procedures. To be fair, I do seem to be alone in my criticism of CS at the moment.

Just to clarify matters, perhaps I should explain that I have asked the Financial Ombudsman to request that you "treat me fairly". As you have a major defect with your accounting system which allows you to remove money incorrectly from a client funds account, my view is that the onus is on CS to check the transactions to ensure that real money has not been taken in error. The fact that there are lots of transactions on my account is irrelevant - if you want to handle high volume business then the FSA (and I) would expect you to have adequate and appropriate accounting systems. Clearly, the problem about incorrect stop levels may affect all CS clients not just me.





Tony

 

[arabianights]

Simon you gotta let t2w know you're going to be on tv in advance next time

 

[ascon]

Simon you gotta let t2w know you're going to be on tv in advance next time

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=826876440&play=1&__source=RSS*tag*&par=RSS


Freddie, Fannie Fears Make Markets Nervous - www.LenderPolice.com - Police Blog - Lender Police - Real Estate Mortgage Loan Analysis




--

 

[tar]

If we did not charge for positions then clients would merely sell the rolling GBP/USD and buy the December GBP/USD contract thus ensuring a guaranteed profit. You demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge about how margin trading works by this statement. If we got rid of Future expiring bets punters would just sell/buy with us and buy/sell with a competitor. As every single SB, CFD, FX, margin broker in the world charges for rolling trades/bets are you saying that they are all in a conspiracy together?
Simon

Simon , is it forbidden at capitalspreads to take such hedged positions at the same account to make garanteed profits from rolling charges ? cuz i have some ideas here ...


By the way tradefair charges 1% instead of 2% and they use the same platform like CS .

 

[capitalspreads]

tar

if you make these trades and make guaranteed profits then you are quite welcome to try it. any trade made at a legitimate price is a fair trade as far as we are concerned. I also know a guaranteed way to make money on SB FX forwards (but dont ask because I am not going to tell anyone, it is not difficult to work out) but you would have to put up quite a bit of margin to be sure not to be stopped out on one side and this might make the whole excersise uneconomic on the basis of income loss on margin used.

ascon

fair enough i will ask more questions of my staff

simon