Best Thread Capital Spreads

[lurkerlurker]

Yes agreed. IMV the client should be able cancel until the offer is accepted and the SB firm should requote if they refuse the clients offer. The practice of filling an order at a different rate to the clients offer is dubious but I do accept this can favour the client at times, but in any case the client should have the option to cancel.

Just to be clear - Capital Spreads do not operate that way with standard trades. There are no requotes, and you either get the price you see on the screen or the deal is rejected. I know TradIndex provide a "market order" option where you will get the next best price, but that may be different to what you see on the screen.

 

[lurkerlurker]

Links and Links

Sorry about the links. I have edit my post.

My apologies - far be it for me to suggest what you can and cannot post. I was just stating my point of view, and saying I wasn't going to link - it wasn't a dig at you for linking! Anyway, I quoted from your post, so the links appeared in the quoted version of my post, so I'll have to edit that also.

I did read a paper on MFID "Best execution" recommendation. There are some that claims it might not help traders as intended. Simon might know more about this issue.

Now, do you have a link to that? The only thing I have read about SB and MIFD is a lot of propaganda from spreadbetting companies saying that it unfairly restricts them. For example, they may be required to quote futures prices only, instead of the more popular cash option, because there is no traded cash index.

In response to that, I would say that the SB firms should just quote futures prices and be done with it! There are no "cash" markets for indices. If a punter wants the "cash" price, they can go and buy the correct weighting of the constituent shares. Otherwise, they should learn what a "future" is and how dividends and cost of carry affect the price before thinking that the market owes them a living. To be honest I frankly couldn't give two hoots if punters get their knickers in a twist over legislation which is meant to give them a fair deal by ensuring that SB firms quote fair and reasonable prices for markets. If MIFD is interpreted to mean that SB firms cannot quote a market which doesn't exist, including the "cash" price for an index, then so be it!

I might add that it would give us all a welcome break from the "My SB firm is trying to rip me off and bias prices!The news said the FTSE was at 6305 and they are quoting me 6340 to close my short!!!!11111!!1" posts.

 

[gle101]

Just to be clear - Capital Spreads do not operate that way with standard trades. There are no requotes, and you either get the price you see on the screen or the deal is rejected. I know TradIndex provide a "market order" option where you will get the next best price, but that may be different to what you see on the screen.

Capitalspreads must be saluted for not using a re-quote as means of rejecting trades. "Price not longer valid" is far better. One must be honest to say that it does not occur that often. There are also moments that I am surprised to see that the trade went trough to my advantage.

 

[lurkerlurker]

Capitalspreads must be saluted for not using a req-uotes as means of rejecting trades. "Price not longer valid" is far better. One must be honest to say that it does not occur that often. There are also moments that I am surprised to see that the trade went trough to my advantage.

There is no "to [your] advantage" unless the price was wrong when you clicked on it, in which case that is a problem with their price feeds. If you try to buy or sell at the CS quote, and the CS quote correctly reflects the underlying market, it is not to your advantage if a dealer fills the order 30 seconds later when the market has moved in your favour - it is simply what you would expect after clicking on a price.

As for it not occurring too often - I may have agreed with you at one point. When my trades went to the system dealer, I would get "price no longer valid" perhaps once per week in a genuinely fast market. On dealer intervention, if the market moved more than the spread in my favour I would get rejected without fail. Without fail.

No requotes is nice - a deal is either done or it isn't. However, I don't know if that is something to be saluted for. Consider that with CMC, if a trade is declined and you get a "requote", all that happens is that a box jumps up showing their best bid or offer (depending on whether you tried to buy or sell), and a chance to either deal on the price or not. If you do not deal, nothing gets done. With CS, you have to close the "price no longer valid" box, enter your stake in the appropriate market, press trade, wait for the box to come up, and then trade again. This takes considerably longer than it would if you had the option to trade on a "requote". Of course, this isn't much of a problem, but a requote is a lot faster than pulling up a new ticket and therefore favours the client in exiting a position in a fast market.

Remember, when CS reject the price the effect is the same as a requote. They have rejected your offer, you have nothing done, and you have the option to deal on a new price or not at all. "no requotes" just means you have more clicks.

 

[gle101]

There is no "to [your] advantage" unless the price was wrong when you clicked on it, in which case that is a problem with their price feeds. If you try to buy or sell at the CS quote, and the CS quote correctly reflects the underlying market, it is not to your advantage if a dealer fills the order 30 seconds later when the market has moved in your favour - it is simply what you would expect after clicking on a price.

As for it not occurring too often - I may have agreed with you at one point. When my trades went to the system dealer, I would get "price no longer valid" perhaps once per week in a genuinely fast market. On dealer intervention, if the market moved more than the spread in my favour I would get rejected without fail. Without fail.

No requotes is nice - a deal is either done or it isn't. However, I don't know if that is something to be saluted for. Consider that with CMC, if a trade is declined and you get a "requote", all that happens is that a box jumps up showing their best bid or offer (depending on whether you tried to buy or sell), and a chance to either deal on the price or not. If you do not deal, nothing gets done. With CS, you have to close the "price no longer valid" box, enter your stake in the appropriate market, press trade, wait for the box to come up, and then trade again. This takes considerably longer than it would if you had the option to trade on a "requote". Of course, this isn't much of a problem, but a requote is a lot faster than pulling up a new ticket and therefore favours the client in exiting a position in a fast market.

Remember, when CS reject the price the effect is the same as a requote. They have rejected your offer, you have nothing done, and you have the option to deal on a new price or not at all. "no requotes" just means you have more clicks.

I can't agree on a "price no longer valid" being the same as a re-quote. A re-quote is much much more risky and gives a lot more stressful trading.

 

[lurkerlurker]

I can't agree on a "price no longer valid" being the same as a re-quote. A re-quote is much much more risky and gives a lot more stressful trading.

I think we are in disagreement about what a requote actually is. I am using what one might call "the CMC example". They decline your original price, the same as CS, but they have a prefilled ticket for you to choose to either deal on the next price or not. This is basically the same as a CS "price not valid", except you are saved the bother of pulling up a new deal ticket. You have no obligation to deal on the requoted price.

 

[gle101]

I think we are in disagreement about what a requote actually is. I am using what one might call "the CMC example". They decline your original price, the same as CS, but they have a prefilled ticket for you to choose to either deal on the next price or not. This is basically the same as a CS "price not valid", except you are saved the bother of pulling up a new deal ticket. You have no obligation to deal on the requoted price.

Well I have have bad experiences with re-quotes, getting a price that does not reflect the underlaying asset at all, is a risk when the market moves very fast. One must have enough time to reflect to the new price given, at least that goes for me.

 

[lurkerlurker]

In the Good Old Days

What I can say is that you will know immediately whether the deal has gone on or not and you will not be left in limbo wondering if anything happened.

I know this was said a long time ago, but I am wondering if that is still the collective experience with CS when we have so many people talking about dealer interventions, and delays, and the inability to cancel a pending trade.

 

[lurkerlurker]

Well I have have bad experiences with re-quotes, getting a price that does not reflect the underlaying asset at all, is a risk when the market moves very fast. One must have enough time to reflect to the new price given, at least that goes for me.

I would consider myself to have fairly fast reactions, however there have been more times than I remember where I sit frozen staring at the requote price, trying to figure out whether I want to deal on it or not, looking back at the chart, and missing the price. It happens though, and is just part of trading.

 

[Phil Mibbutz]

re. CS classifying 20-30 trades a day as 'overtrading', resulting in a client being branded a scalper and having to go through a dealer, shouldn't this info be included in their terms and conditions? Call me a cynic, but I suspect they'd have no problem with 300 trades a day, so long as that punter was obviously a clueless loser.

Does anyone know which SB companies lock out customers when an order is pending? FS does, I think, while WS does now, but didn't in its early days. Too much 'free money' given away, eh!

 

[Slorm]

Call me a cynic, but I suspect they'd have no problem with 300 trades a day, so long as that punter was obviously a clueless loser.

You may be a cynic but that doesn't mean you're wrong

 

[gle101]

I dont feel that this is an issue of 'best execution' but more of a contractual issue. Because of this the status of the client would not alter the clients right to withdraw an offer to contract if no acceptance had been made by the firm. Legally it is a two way street - if a firm delays executing an order then they are also presenting the client with the opertunity to withdraw that order - it's not rocket science.

Steve.

If I don't remember wrong there is an element in MIFID directive "Best execution" that covers the time issue associated with an order. Also there could be some parts about canceling an order. Maybe lurkerlurker could answer this as he seems to be well informed about the MIFID "Best execution" directive.

 

[gle101]

I know this was said a long time ago, but I am wondering if that is still the collective experience with CS when we have so many people talking about dealer interventions, and delays, and the inability to cancel a pending trade.

I think most of us agree that CS is by overall quite a good SB outfit. Therefore, there will be a concentration of thought on those things that is not so good. I have a few issues myself, that I have ventilated sometimes on this board. I hope CS will take these viewpoints into serious consideration, otherwise there is a risk for this negative criticism to linger and even fester on this board.

 

[isolley]

Apple/Tiscali/capital Spreads Tech Problems

Hi

Anyone else getting tech problems??

Capital Spreads summed up - great spreads, professional and frindly staff, crap reliablitity. The prices go out of line and delayed with charts price feeds in fast markets (they didn't use to), charts don't work sometimes - just tried opening a Gold Rolling Daily and got database error which they are going to get charting company to "work on."

I have had so many problems since changing to a MacBook Pro intel chip pice of **** laptop - from a Powerbook, have to log out and back in just to guarantee I don't get a "market do not match" error message when trying to trade a position - so not very good if your trading style involves scalping - after a year of continual problems I am close to quitting - pointless when you can't exit large posistions in quickly.

 

[nkruger]

A Bit Of Trouble...

Anyone else having a bit of grief getting onto the CS trading platform this morning ?

 

[stevespray]

Anyone else having a bit of grief getting onto the CS trading platform this morning ?

Logged in at 6am this morning no problems.

Steve.

 

[nkruger]

Logged in at 6am this morning no problems.

Steve.

Tried twice, gave up, kicked the dog. Felt sorry for the poor mutt, took it for a walk across the fields, came back, logged on and as you say 'no problems'

Cheers Steve

 

[knight_trader]

I've had problems today for the first time ever so be warned. Entered a trade and got a "technical error" on their screen saying the trade had not been opened, then suddenly it refreshed and the trade had been opened over 10 pips away from the level I had requested. Their guys are looking into it and they're pretty good so I'm sure I'll have an answer soon. If anyone else sees this please let me know as I'd not seen that error screen before.

 

[gle101]

In response to that, I would say that the SB firms should just quote futures prices and be done with it! There are no "cash" markets for indices. If a punter wants the "cash" price, they can go and buy the correct weighting of the constituent shares. Otherwise, they should learn what a "future" is and how dividends and cost of carry affect the price before thinking that the market owes them a living. To be honest I frankly couldn't give two hoots if punters get their knickers in a twist over legislation which is meant to give them a fair deal by ensuring that SB firms quote fair and reasonable prices for markets. If MIFD is interpreted to mean that SB firms cannot quote a market which doesn't exist, including the "cash" price for an index, then so be it!

I might add that it would give us all a welcome break from the "My SB firm is trying to rip me off and bias prices!The news said the FTSE was at 6305 and they are quoting me 6340 to close my short!!!!11111!!1" posts.

Yes this is very interesting. If this is the case it might mean better spread on the SB future indices. Yes I agree, it is very hard to follow the real movement on the cash prices (indices) due to the fact that it is SB's own algorithm and combination of index that makes up the quote. However, some SB's have the future as the underlying asset when they quote a cash price.

 

[gle101]

MIFID “Best execution” directive

An interesting aspect of the MIFID “Best execution” directive, if it is to be followed correctly by the SB’s is, that it is not correct practice to put some clients on referral to a dealer, while other clients are on auto execution. This contradicts the “Best execution” directive as I understand it. The only thing an SB could do in this situation, to prevent the client from trading, is to close down his/hers account. I doubt very much if a certain trading style would justify such an action from the SB in question.

Simon, as a representative of a frontline SB company, it would be very interesting to have your comments on this.