Best Thread Capital Spreads

with regards to UK stocks...only in their size, which is generally small at their price, not the touch price. so it may be 125 -26 on the yellow strip but one mm is 125-30 and the other 121 -6 both only in 5000 so if you want to trade in 10000 neither has any obligation to deal in anything over 5000.

In Sets stocks there are no MM so no -one is obliged to deal in anything with you...

pro's and con's of everything.
As I have pointed out before, the size issue could in some cases be applied when it comes to dealer intervention. The SB is making an offer by giving their quote, they just cannot refuse to deal whenever it is convenient for them. You also have Internet e-commerce compliance for every country (I have to look it over), this together with the MiFID financial directives, makes a very strong case for the client.
 
Last edited:
with regards to UK stocks...only in their size, which is generally small at their price, not the touch price. so it may be 125 -26 on the yellow strip but one mm is 125-30 and the other 121 -6 both only in 5000 so if you want to trade in 10000 neither has any obligation to deal in anything over 5000.

In Sets stocks there are no MM so no -one is obliged to deal in anything with you...

pro's and con's of everything.

Still, my point is that spread betting firms are not market makers; there is no product exchanged, like shares or futures or options; they do not make a market, just take bets, like bookmakers do.

Eduardo.:)
 
Still, my point is that spread betting firms are not market makers; there is no product exchanged, like shares or futures or options; they do not make a market, just take bets, like bookmakers do.

Eduardo.:)
Systematic Internaliser : a Systematic Internaliser is a firm that executes orders from its clients against its own book or against orders from other clients. MiFID will treat Systematic Internalisers as mini-exchanges, hence, for example, they will be subject to pre-trade and post-trade transparency requirements (see above).
 
Still, my point is that spread betting firms are not market makers; there is no product exchanged, like shares or futures or options; they do not make a market, just take bets, like bookmakers do.

Eduardo.:)
What about CFDs? Most of the CFDs offered by brokers, is not products listed directly at the exchange. Are they market makers or not?
 
Last edited:
What about CFDs? Most of the CFDs offered by brokers, is not products listed directly at the exchange. Are they market makers or not?

No they are not; besides a CFD is nothing more than a posh name for a bet, really; that and the fact that you are treated as a creditor rather than as a customer if things go pear shaped...brrr! Danger danger! And you pay tax, too!
Seriously now, market makers make markets, spreadbetting firms and brokers are not market makers, as they follow the underlying; market makers price the underlying.
If you trade through the Order Book, you are dealing directly in the market, and for a time make your own price (until it is accepted), but that makes you a trader, not a market maker, as you do not offer both prices, nor are required to, nor are a member of the exchange.
It doesn't matter how they are treated or called legally, officially, etc...If it quacks, chances are that it is a duck, don't you agree?

Eduardo.:)
 
Simon, have you been declared, or applied for being a Systematic Internaliser?

Systematic Internaliser : a Systematic Internaliser is a firm that executes orders from its clients against its own book or against orders from other clients. MiFID will treat Systematic Internalisers as mini-exchanges, hence, for example, they will be subject to pre-trade and post-trade transparency requirements (see above)
 
No they are not; besides a CFD is nothing more than a posh name for a bet, really; that and the fact that you are treated as a creditor rather than as a customer if things go pear shaped...brrr! Danger danger! And you pay tax, too!
Seriously now, market makers make markets, spreadbetting firms and brokers are not market makers, as they follow the underlying; market makers price the underlying.
If you trade through the Order Book, you are dealing directly in the market, and for a time make your own price (until it is accepted), but that makes you a trader, not a market maker, as you do not offer both prices, nor are required to, nor are a member of the exchange.
It doesn't matter how they are treated or called legally, officially, etc...If it quacks, chances are that it is a duck, don't you agree?

Eduardo.:)
Sorry Eduardo, I don't agree. CFDs are financial instruments, whether this applies to SB is debated, but in my point of view SB must be regarded as being financial instruments, as thus being under the jurisdiction of MiFID. It would be interesting getting some feedback on this subject.
 
Sorry Eduardo, I don't agree. CFDs are financial instruments, whether this applies to SB is debated, but in my point of view SB must be regarded as being financial instruments, as thus being under the jurisdiction of MiFID. It would be interesting getting some feedback on this subject.

Again, if it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck; a stock option is a financial instrument for which there is an exchange (it's called a "derivative" and lots of instutions make lots of money selling them); if you and I come into an agreement to buy and sell something between us, be it goods or services, in a Court of Law, this is called a contract, not a financial instrument! That is why it is called Contracts for Differences.
But there is no exchange in which to trade it, only an agreement between two individuals or persons (in UK Law, a company is a person); so you may call it what you want; you (or Parliament for that matter) can give it any privilege, name, status, etc... you want, it is still a bet: you take one side, say long, the broker takes the other side, say short; if the broker is smart, he'll hedge the transaction, but at the end of the day, you are left with that - a bet, no matter how you dress it!

Eduardo.:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: tar
No they are not; besides a CFD is nothing more than a posh name for a bet, really; that and the fact that you are treated as a creditor rather than as a customer if things go pear shaped...brrr! Danger danger! And you pay tax, too!
Seriously now, market makers make markets, spreadbetting firms and brokers are not market makers, as they follow the underlying; market makers price the underlying.
If you trade through the Order Book, you are dealing directly in the market, and for a time make your own price (until it is accepted), but that makes you a trader, not a market maker, as you do not offer both prices, nor are required to, nor are a member of the exchange.
It doesn't matter how they are treated or called legally, officially, etc...If it quacks, chances are that it is a duck, don't you agree?

Eduardo.:)

Yes.
 
Yes I agree, the figure 2% on dealer intervention is probably much higher. With a client base of 45000 there is a vast numbers of clients being discriminated daily, and this violate the rules of the MiFID financial directives.

Unfortunately the organisation that makes the rules of MiFid is just a toothless tiger so don't expect them to intervene with any of the spreadbet companies.
 
Again, if it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck; a stock option is a financial instrument for which there is an exchange (it's called a "derivative" and lots of instutions make lots of money selling them); if you and I come into an agreement to buy and sell something between us, be it goods or services, in a Court of Law, this is called a contract, not a financial instrument! That is why it is called Contracts for Differences.
But there is no exchange in which to trade it, only an agreement between two individuals or persons (in UK Law, a company is a person); so you may call it what you want; you (or Parliament for that matter) can give it any privilege, name, status, etc... you want, it is still a bet: you take one side, say long, the broker takes the other side, say short; if the broker is smart, he'll hedge the transaction, but at the end of the day, you are left with that - a bet, no matter how you dress it!

Eduardo.:)

Relevant
provisions
General – Directive 2004/39/EC QuestionNo.7.
Date of question 14/02/2007 Date of answer
Issue
CFD providers – application of MiFID

Question
I’m looking for detailed information regarding the requirements CFD providers have to fulfill under MiFID.

Comment or Answer

Contracts for differences are financial instruments as defined in Annex I, Section C of MiFID(e.g. financial CFDs, CFDs on commodities or emission allowances). Therefore, persons providing investment services in relation to those instruments will have to be authorised under MiFID and comply with its operating conditions. There are no special provisions relating only to CFD providers under MiFID. However, a limited number of CFD contracts may be outside the scope of the directive (e.g. CFDs on sport results). In those cases they may be regulated under national law and will not benefit from the MiFID passport.
Relevant
provisions
General – Directive 2004/39/EC Question No.13
 
Relevant
provisions
General – Directive 2004/39/EC QuestionNo.7.
Date of question 14/02/2007 Date of answer
Issue
CFD providers – application of MiFID

Question
I’m looking for detailed information regarding the requirements CFD providers have to fulfill under MiFID.

Comment or Answer

Contracts for differences are financial instruments as defined in Annex I, Section C of MiFID(e.g. financial CFDs, CFDs on commodities or emission allowances). Therefore, persons providing investment services in relation to those instruments will have to be authorised under MiFID and comply with its operating conditions. There are no special provisions relating only to CFD providers under MiFID. However, a limited number of CFD contracts may be outside the scope of the directive (e.g. CFDs on sport results). In those cases they may be regulated under national law and will not benefit from the MiFID passport.
Relevant
provisions
General – Directive 2004/39/EC Question No.13

I would suggest that you read again my last post; there is a whole industry out there making a living out of giving names to things; they are called politicians and lawyers.
MiFID are regulations, but no matter how you much you regulates, a leopard still got black spots, you can't change that!
If you trade CFDs, you are regarded as an intermediate customer, whatever that means; the reality is that you are a creditor to the company, and your cash a source of finance, pooled with the rest of the business working capital; also, you are taxed - but look at the essence of the transaction: there is no difference between that and a spreadbet.
Having said that, there are CFDs which I do regard as financial instruments: SG Turbos; they are traded through an exchange, there is a market maker to make a market (presumably SG, but that is my assumption) and there is a well defined process to calculate its value - no goal posts shifting here; they are also dealt through a broker, meaning that you get the same price with whoever you deal.

Eduardo.:)
 
I would suggest that you read again my last post; there is a whole industry out there making a living out of giving names to things; they are called politicians and lawyers.
MiFID are regulations, but no matter how you much you regulates, a leopard still got black spots, you can't change that!
If you trade CFDs, you are regarded as an intermediate customer, whatever that means; the reality is that you are a creditor to the company, and your cash a source of finance, pooled with the rest of the business working capital; also, you are taxed - but look at the essence of the transaction: there is no difference between that and a spreadbet.
Having said that, there are CFDs which I do regard as financial instruments: SG Turbos; they are traded through an exchange, there is a market maker to make a market (presumably SG, but that is my assumption) and there is a well defined process to calculate its value - no goal posts shifting here; they are also dealt through a broker, meaning that you get the same price with whoever you deal.

Eduardo.:)
This is nothing new to me. Sorry, my post from the regulator is quite clear on the point ZEPPO.
 
If you trade CFDs, you are regarded as an intermediate customer, whatever that means; the reality is that you are a creditor to the company, and your cash a source of finance, pooled with the rest of the business working capital; also, you are taxed - but look at the essence of the transaction: there is no difference between that and a spreadbet.
Having said that, there are CFDs which I do regard as financial instruments: SG Turbos; they are traded through an exchange, there is a market maker to make a market (presumably SG, but that is my assumption) and there is a well defined process to calculate its value - no goal posts shifting here; they are also dealt through a broker, meaning that you get the same price with whoever you deal.

Eduardo.:)

Zeppo,

You seem a little out of touch with regulation.

Since MiFID there is no 'intermediate' cateogry. All clients are retail, professional or eligible counterparty. The vast majority of CFD traders are classified retail. This means that -unless they have opted to transfer title to their funds, all funds have to be segregated, so your point about commingled funds is no longer correct.

Secondly, I'm not sure why you think that turbo pricing is more transparent than CFDs. There is only one market maker - SG- and they're not transferrable. Granted, the fact that they're listed means that your counterparty risk is to the exchange not a dodgy broker, but the execution risk is identical - you're reliant on the goodwill of one market maker.

Frankly, DMA CFDs seem more transparent to me; you're using the CFD provider as a broker not market maker
 
Yes, DMA CFDs, I guess there could be a problem with liquidity?

er - unlikely.

DMA CFDs access the underlying stock market, and repackage the trade as a CFD, so you get identical liquidity to the exchange.

CFDs listed on exchanges (like ASX) have generally failed because they are less liquid than the DMA alternative though.
 
er - unlikely.

DMA CFDs access the underlying stock market, and repackage the trade as a CFD, so you get identical liquidity to the exchange.

CFDs listed on exchanges (like ASX) have generally failed because they are less liquid than the DMA alternative though.
Ok, thanks a lot.
 
Top