dbfx - Market maker or ECN?

[GammaJammer]

How do you define "decent?"

At the top-end of my trading, I'll be looking at moving between 20,000 to 50,000 lots per week. That's far to many individual trades on any retail platform that I know of, nor would I want the headache of trying to manage that many open positions during the course of one week. So, I'll need access to a platform that allows me to trade in Yards. This language does not apply to Options, I know, but I use it here just to give you the dollar volume concept that I'll be dealing with on the top-end of my trading. I'm not there yet, but it should be sometime this year when these lot levels become a weekly reality. I do not believe that there is any Options platform right now in FX that can handle that level of notional value. So, defining "decent" helps.

.

Decent in that exact context depends on lots of things. Remember, when trading options, and more importantly, when market making and risk managing them, it's not really the notional size of the option that's the key factor. It's a very different proposition for example quoting half a yard of a 1 delta, 1 week option than it is even quoting and managing 50 million of the 1 month ats. Typically risk management as it pertains to banks' market making activities (either on an electronic basis or otherwise) is in no small part couched in vega terms.

So to just say 'I'm going to be doing several yards' doesn't really tell me much.

But in practice, what it usually means is in sub 3m stuff, trading around the say 30d handle, you're talking in several tens of millions before dealer intervention kicks in. Can't say exactly how many tens for the exact reasons I stated above, but I have a feeling it's bigger than your size is going to be anyway. Over and above that size electronic execution is never going to be the best way of obtainingn a decent fill anyway. There are always better prices to be had out there if you have the right interbank relationships.

Hope that helps

GJ

 

[oildaytrader]

As far as db is concerned - hey - they told me that were stand-alone 32 bit client/server through their own systems and I found out last Friday, that such a statement was untrue. So, I'm applying that Jury instruction you get here in the States where the judge instructs the Jury that if they find a witness taking the stand and lying about one are of testimony, they can discount ALL areas of the witnesses relevant testimony - or, something close to that anyway. In other words, my Mother used to say that if person will lie, then they will cheat. And, if they will cheat, then they will steal. And, if they will steal, then they will kill.

Why they got hooked-up with FXCM (I understand the cost of entry to the Retail business storyline) is something I will never fully understand, but why they lied about what their back-office relationship was, is unrecoverable for me personally.

.

No seller will openly admit using another competitor's services.We have known they use the the same set up on A P I , and possibly the same software services and support.

We tested the fxcm spreads and platform on one computer, and another on dbfx on another computer.The fxcm demo always used wider spreads compared to DBFX.

Why would FXCM set up a competitor?Maybe their image is tarnished with the Refco swindlers?Do they have a partnership with Deutsche bank?Is the DBFX meant to be a honest image play?

 

[GammaJammer]

I think everyone has missed the point a bit here. DB don't view fxcm as a competitor. All they wanted to do was enter retail space quickly and inexpensively initially, with the likelyhood that they spend a bit of time getting the lie of the land before expanding.

So they licensed FXCM's front end and plugged their own pricing in (after all, they're doubtless already contributing liquidity to FXCM as it is). I don't think it's anything more complicated and I never have.

My initial comments on this thread (if I remember correctly) were just expressing mild surprise that DB were going to market this way. Not that I don't understand it, just that I expected more from them.

But I do think as usual people are erading way too much into this stuff.

My $0.02

GJ

 

[piparb]

I tested the demo from DBFX now 3 weeks and my performance is very well , I like to
go on trading this plattform in real account , then I give a comment ....
The most important thing for me in trading is like I feel and how the plattform works.
The other thing is my day performance , thats the main reason for being good in my
trades and win overall .
I tested so many plattforms in 6 years , maybe all Futures ,CFD ,and Spreadbetting
firms , 300 demos .....
But what I find out is , that I am mostly the problem to 90% the rest is the plattform
and the market .
So what I want to say : first look what you do and make backtesting , before you say :
this firm is not good or is well , I think its subjective and normaly , that not every
system works with you well all time .

I found out that only little differences in these firms and that a routined trader could
manage these troubles without big losses and so it doesen`t matter in the end .

good trading :clover:

I think everyone has missed the point a bit here. DB don't view fxcm as a competitor. All they wanted to do was enter retail space quickly and inexpensively initially, with the likelyhood that they spend a bit of time getting the lie of the land before expanding.

So they licensed FXCM's front end and plugged their own pricing in (after all, they're doubtless already contributing liquidity to FXCM as it is). I don't think it's anything more complicated and I never have.

My initial comments on this thread (if I remember correctly) were just expressing mild surprise that DB were going to market this way. Not that I don't understand it, just that I expected more from them.

But I do think as usual people are erading way too much into this stuff.

My $0.02

GJ

 

[TraderNumber7]

It probably means just what it says - institutions. May have nothing to do with what size your account is, or what size you're typically trading, and be more about the fact that credit and operations wise you're set up as an individual by the sounds of things. You're not an institution.

GJ

Ok, then. If all I need to do is file a C-Type, LLC or LLP to create a separate entity with its own TIN (here in the States we call it a Tax Payer Identification Number or TIN) and then open an "account," just to be considered an "institution," then that's no problem, as this was my original intent to begin with - manage a private fund (that I create) with in-house capital (not a customer facing business). I'm simply not interesting in managing anyone else's capital for a living - tough enough managing my own.

So, individual or institutional, I just hope that Barclays is not taking the same route as Deutsche Bank, in terms of relying on weaker third-parties in the FX Broker community to provide them with mission critical services. I hope they have their own (truly independent) FX solution.

Of course, if notional value traded per week is not the concern for them, as you say, then I should have no problem - I hope.

 

[TraderNumber7]

Decent in that exact context depends on lots of things.

To be sure, the Greeks control much of the universe of options in any market (no pun intended, but it does have a funny ring to it). Aside from Greeks controlling the universe (now, pun intended), my concern seems to come full circle, for example, when considering using PFGBest for my options consideration (off-setting trades). If I were forced to go back to the equity business, then I would never trade anything but derivatives on underlying stocks for the reasons of: Leverage, Revenue Optimization and Trade Optimization. My money management would by necessity need to be altered relative to currency trading, but I could work that out sufficiently.

My biggest problem, however, would still (at the end of the day) be options liquidity and for a number of different reasons. Example: Having to hunt down the right underlying stock with the right combination of volatility dynamics and trend stability (sounds contradicting but the way I trade, it is not), while at the same time having to make certain that the contract had enough Open Interest, was not always an easy task for me in years past. In fact, sometimes, it became a down right pain in the rear-end. And, I'm talking about household names like Northrop, General Dynamics and several others, that had the "right dynamics and trend stabilization" that I needed to get the job done. If I had to go back to the equity options business, I could still be consistently successful, but at a much lower level of Revenue Optimization. That's why I made the move to currencies.

Now, having access to currency derivatives is the best of both worlds, but still, the problem (at least down the road a bit) will be Open Interest and Trade Execution (for the same reasons stated above to OilDayTrader).

The other problem that I keep running into is the difference between Plain Vanilla Open Interest and European Style Open Interest. What I really need is American Style with plenty of Open Interest, but neither of those two things are factorials that I have been able to hunt down, anywhere. If I've missed a homework assignment, let me know where to look. The Digitals, while I find them very interesting and fairly easy to work with, don't allow me to get the kind of off-setting relationship that I need against my spot or pair positions. I can do it, but it gets too messy - I don't want to be hovering over my computer screen 24hrs a day, just to trade, so I've developed a fairly good fire-and-forget type system that works for me (my Black Box). Hummm, I guess I could do Digitals for the off-setting, but the messiness would become a management headache that I'd rather not have.

So, I'm stuck, until enough Open Interest comes and until more American Style versions of what's already out there becomes a reality. Frankly, I don't know why it is taking so darn long to get the American Style derivatives up and running. If you want real options hedging flexibility, then you really get maximum Trade Optimization through the American brand and not through European and/or Digital.

So, if you know of a source for executing Americans, please let me know - I'd appreciate the help - I'm trying to make a living here.

So to just say 'I'm going to be doing several yards' doesn't really tell me much.

It seems to be a problem with just about every "Forex" Broker I talk with and now even one of the largest BANKS in the business has a liquidity problem, too.

They claim a liquidity problem exists far below a Yard. At $500,000.00 cost basis (equity [from the account balance] in the trade), using 100:1 leverage (something they all frown upon), I'm being told by many Brokers (and now the largest BANK in the business) that a specific liquidity problem starts to emerge at that level of trading. I find it rather odd, that brokers and banks start talking liquidity problems between $20MM and $50MM notional value and virtually all of them don't allow single-click execution beyond this level.

If you call and speak with just about any intermediary out there right now, from brokers to banks, they all sell you on the idea of 'unlimited trade size available', but in reality, as soon as you hit the $2.5MM notional value level (per trade), they start to algorithmically gear-up the spread you pay. Then they claim that the reason they are algorithmically gearing-up the spreads (above $2.5MM notional) has everything to do with their risk in the trade, because you are using leverage.

Well, somebody stop the presses. "Their Risk In The Trade?"

Isn't that precisely why they program (code) their software (trading platforms) with an auto-margin-call function. Of course, it is. That code is there to protect the Intermediary and by logical consequence, it also protects the trader. With that function call, they can eliminate 99.99% of negative margin problems. So, using that as the excuse for raising the spread, merely because the trader enters the market beyond the $2.5MM notional level on a single trade, does not pass the logic test. So, there must be an ulterior motive here on the part of these intermediaries.

So, sure, true liquidity in a projected $5 Trillion (for from 2007 to 2010) market for somebody pushing a lousy $1 Billion notional trade into that same market, should (logically) not be much of a problem at all. However, not if the brokers and intermediaries are allowed to tell the story because according to them, doing large deals raises your cost per trade algorithmically and by the way, also presents a "liquidity problem" to the market.

Somebody is not telling the full truth here. Logically, this makes no sense.

Either we are trading a multi-trillion per day market, or not. Either the liquidity is there, or not. Either the brokers and intermediaries can handle large trades ($1 Billion notional value) or not. How can a $1 Billion trade not find a matching counter-party or a series of matching counter-parties in a market turning-over Trillions per day? It makes no sense, whatsoever.

Somebody is restricting (on-purpose) the maximum net notional value that you can execute in the market and they hide behind the risk assertion reasoning (lame) every single time, even when the vast majority of that risk is all but eliminated via the software itself. You simply cannot get a negative margin call from most FX intermediaries in the business today, yet they are still using this lame excuse to raise your trade cost by raising the spreads on larger deals. That is bogus.

I just got off the phone with a BANK (for goodness sakes) in New York, offering a so-called FX Trading Solution for both retail AND institutional traders. I was just told not minutes ago, that:

'...the prices you see in our trading platform, are not the same prices that you can execute trades in excess of $2.5 to $5.0 million notional value...'

Well, shock me stupid then! If I'm using 100:1 and trading $2.0 million notional value, then that means my equity in the trade was a lousy $20,000.00. That's right folks, twenty thousand lousy dollars and your spread start to increase via mathematical algorithm used by this particular BANK. What a crock!

What the heck am I going to do with a lousy $20,000 trade! That's peanuts - heck, that's not even peanuts - that's dirty. Beyond this level, your trade cost goes up with this BANK. Emphasis on BANK folks, not a Broker!

I tried to get the BANK rep pinned down on at least a range of fluctuation to expect. I was told that giving me such a range was not possible. Thus, that means, for any trade above $2.5 million (a lousy $25,000 trade at 100:1), I could get filled at just about any spread range. That's bull! How can I manage my cash that way? How can I even code my trade signals that way, when I don't even know where I should set my Limits within a reasonable range of expectancy.

Yes, I know - the real currency market does fluctuate rapidly. Yes, I get that already. But, what about the constant advertising that goes on with these intermediaries where they always promise you that their "proprietary technology" (yeah, right) rapidly consolidates the best prices from the top liquidity providers and passes only the best Bid/Ask range through to our award winning trading platform where you (the trader) receive full price transparency and The Price You See Is The Price You Get." (or words to that effect) Lies, lies, lies. Award winning my rear-end. Price Transparency my rear-end. Best Aggregated Bid/Ask, Turbo this, Turbo that, Real-Time this or that, my royal rear-end.

Give me some solid food to eat please - I'm starving here.

Talking to this BANK today, was frustrating but it was very revealing. People want to know WHY they are not getting filled at the spreads advertised on websites all over the net - well, THIS is why, folks. If you are trading over $2.5MM notional value (a lousy $20,000.00 trade), then your trade is subject to Partial Fills at Higher Spreads - period.

But in practice, what it usually means is in sub 3m stuff, trading around the say 30d handle, you're talking in several tens of millions before dealer intervention kicks in. Can't say exactly how many tens for the exact reasons I stated above, but I have a feeling it's bigger than your size is going to be anyway. Over and above that size electronic execution is never going to be the best way of obtainingn a decent fill anyway. There are always better prices to be had out there if you have the right interbank relationships.

Well, help me understand why a BANK, supposedly the largest interbank liquidity provider in the world (or this side of heaven anyway), would tell me that I'm going to run into liquidity problems at $2.5MM notional? And, that the reason why "other FX Brokers" advertise low "fixed spreads" while telling you that you can trade that same $2.5MM notional value, is because there is "little to no real liquidity behind their offer of $2.5MM?"

Again, somebody is not telling the truth here. The Brokers say, sure, you can trade with the Banks, but they will increase your per trade costs for the privilege of doing so. The Banks say, sure, you can trade with the Brokers, but you can't rely on their tighter spreads at higher notional values and expect good fills.

I say, BOTH of them are full of it!

Nowhere on the BANK's website (the one I just got off the phone with) does it say anything about being geared-up in terms of my per trade cost, once I start executing beyond $2.5MM notional value. That is an incredibly tiny trade folks! This leads me to believe that most people that are not constantly seeing Partial Fills and Trade Cost Increases through Higher Spreads, are most likely still trading Lots and doing so, well below the $20MM notional level. Which means most of you out there in the land of Forex, are probably PayPal Traders or Credit Card Traders and you know what I mean by that.

I mean, what am I supposed to do. Just have my bank manager wire over $7 million into my new FX account, just so I can get jammed up and slowed down by a lousy $20,000 trade limit with Partial Fills on everything I execute and Spreads that make no sense or that I have no way of verifying were real in the first place? This really stinks and I am fuming right about now. I finally get to the point of wanting to open up the throttle on my trading and now I find out that I'm stuck with unreliable trade execution: "Maybe we can get you filled at...X. Maybe we can get you filled at...Y. Maybe this, or maybe that...Z. I don't need an intermediary giving a bunch of maybe at this stage in my growth.

Sorry, I'm having a bad day today - I'm getting all kinds of bad news this fine Wednesday regarding trading.

Oh, and Barclays? Well, they never called back. Again, that could be a good thing (not out looking for PayPal type Traders) or it could be a bad thing (no clue about how to conduct good Customer Service).

Who the heck am I going to trade with? I'm a Trader with no home! Frustrating as heck!!!

I need:

1. A reliable firm - first and foremost.
   
2. A reliable stand-alone trading platform written (coded) by people who understand trading.
   
3. A no hassle way to execute on trades between $20MM and $1BN notional value (I don't care if I have to break them up sever times).
   
4. A reliable network to connect to (high network availability).
   
5. A reliable access point to deep liquidity on a consistent basis.
   
6. Low trade costs.

In other words, I need the real support that real traders need to get their jobs done. I'm tired of getting jerked around on ever 800 number call I make, lied to on every website I visit and having my questions ignored on every chat session I have with FX "intermediaries." Is there anything real in this business or not.

Is this pie in the sky, or does it actually exist? My trading has reached a point where I can't continue to deal with frozen trading platforms, busy 800 numbers when the platform is frozen and having my trades clogged up like so many bathroom drainage pipes.

The company that has the sense to start a true FX trade execution service with genuine pass-through and a good (fast/high speed) size aggregation algorithm into the real interbank market, is going to be the company that cleans up the entire FX (retail/commercial) industry.

There is PLENTY of liquidity out there, I know. Our problem as traders is not liquidity, but greedy intermediaries. If I were an intermediary, I'd hone in on my best traders (customers) and instead of constantly trading against them, or increasing their spread while using the lame risk story for the reason why, I'd simply trade with them and make more profits for my business that way. In fact, it is a great way for me to locate the best traders, without having to pay them to trade for me - they pay me (a decent and fair spread) and I get to profit on their history of high trade success.

I need to grow. There must be a better way....

 

[TraderNumber7]

No seller will openly admit using another competitor's services.We have known they use the the same set up on A P I , and possibly the same software services and support.

We tested the fxcm spreads and platform on one computer, and another on dbfx on another computer.The fxcm demo always used wider spreads compared to DBFX.

Why would FXCM set up a competitor?Maybe their image is tarnished with the Refco swindlers?Do they have a partnership with Deutsche bank?Is the DBFX meant to be a honest image play?

It could be, but I've always heard that when you lay down with pigs, you always come up piggy (dirty). So, in reverse, the obvious question would be: Why would Deutsche Bank lay with FXCM knowing what its reputation was like before hand?

I guess today, after my call with that BANK, I have bigger fish to fry. I've got bigger problems on my hands. My goal is to trade my way clear to $1BN - $2BN. I have the technology that can get me there in the currency markets and I have a good start. What I need is reliability, execution and reasonable cost stability.

When you are dealing with this kind of money, that last thing you want is somebody lying to you, or for the playing field rules to be muddy and/or unclear. I need clarity on my spreads. If I'm going to have to pay higher spreads then fine, but I need to be able to Model that, so I can make proper down-range revenue expectations. I don't trade for my health. I trade to specific revenue targets as that helps me to build the right trading system with the correct parameters that work to make the 'Model' a Reality.

So, having a bunch of fluffiness on the execution side of things, makes me a bit angry or frustrated at the least.

Clarity, clarity, clarity - is what I need right now - preferably from a stable Bank with other revenue streams such that it does not have to jerk around its FX customers. Telling me that I "might get filled" on a lousy $20,000 trade ($2.0MM notional) makes me sick to my stomach. What on earth could I expect from such an intermediary when I need to bring $1MM to market, or $20MM to market ($2+BN notional), if they can't handle a lousy $20k deal without coughing up blood on my trade.

I need a billion dollars. I don't desire it, I actually have a need for it. I don't need it personally (of course, not) but I do have plans for it. Actually, I $1BN for the start-up costs alone and then another $500MM to $1BN being turned over in several trades per year, to pay for operational costs. I have the right plan to get there, but this whole liquidity lie being pushed my way today on the phone with this BANK, really get under my collar.

A $5 Trillion per day business and they have problems with a $2MM trade! That makes no sense at all. Both the EUR and the GBP have to make up the lion share of currency transactions out there after the USD, so while there isn't $5 Trillion flowing in GBP all by itself, there still has be Hundreds of Billions of GBP turn-over every single day. So, still, telling me that they "might be able to fill..." on a $2MM notional deal out of Hundreds of Billions, is calling me stupid to my face.

Just tell me the real reason is that you are not as connected to interbank as you claim to be and I'd have more respect for them.

I'm really ticked off today, sorry.

 

[TraderNumber7]

I think everyone has missed the point a bit here. DB don't view fxcm as a competitor. All they wanted to do was enter retail space quickly and inexpensively initially, with the likelyhood that they spend a bit of time getting the lie of the land before expanding.

LOL. That they would have enough time to get their lie straight - OR - the lay of the land! I think, the former rather than the latter. A Freudian slip maybe for them, but they did not count on a network failure exposing the dialog box that shows the fxcmcorporate server. So, the missed the boat on getting their lie straight. I guess the only fallback position now is to get the lay of the land before rolling out something truly stand-alone.

So they licensed FXCM's front end and plugged their own pricing in (after all, they're doubtless already contributing liquidity to FXCM as it is). I don't think it's anything more complicated and I never have.

Complicated, or nefarious? I don't think I've missed the point, when my point is one of ethics and principles. If I'm depositing my cash in their institution, then I expect to not be lied to about price feeds, data, servers and network connections. If I am connecting to your server through your network via your gateway, then tell me that. But, if I am not, then I deserve to be told that as well. I think I get the point rather well.

I think you are correct. I do think that they used FXCM as an on the cheap method of entry. My whole point was that such an entry method should have been expressly stated, given the root source of service provision and the very nature of the service being provided. Example, when I fly JetBlue, I don't for one minute suffer under the delusion that JetBlue manufactured and certified its own aircraft. From the word go, I understand that Airbus Industries is the manufacturer of the A-340 that JetBlue either owns or leases under contract. A straight forward understanding and no one is lied to.

When I trade with a BANK and they tell me that they ONLY use front-end of a competitors product and that their back-office is all "natural" so to speak, then I expect that when I login to my account sitting on the "back-end" that I am indeed touching the BANK's hardware, data and pricing.

Well, one might say: What's the difference, if you found out that JetBlue lied about producing its own fleet of A-340s? The difference in actually getting me from point "A" to point "B" may be little, for certain.

However, my life depends on the integrity of the aircraft and I know that aircraft manufacturers have decades more experience than airlines when it comes to aircraft design and manufacturing. But, even beyond that fact, JetBlue would have lied and in doing so, I cannot stop thinking about what else they might have lied about. Required Aircraft Maintenance - lie or truth? Properly Maintained Aircraft Maintenance Logs - lie or truth? Adequate Part 121 Pilot Training - lie or truth? Accurate Reporting of All Aircraft Accident Incidents - lie or truth? Is My Flight Loaded Far In Excess of Its MTOW Before Take-Off - lie or truth? Is There A Properly Filed Flight Plan In The System Prior To Departure - lie or truth? One lie can mean that others have been or will be told more readily.

My initial comments on this thread (if I remember correctly) were just expressing mild surprise that DB were going to market this way. Not that I don't understand it, just that I expected more from them.

I expected a lot more myself.

But I do think as usual people are erading way too much into this stuff.

I guess that might be true, if you trade less than $2MM per trip. However, if you were seriously considering opening an account of more than $7MM (possibly as much as $12MM) and you had plans to go far beyond that with a specific Model to help get you there based on what a certain BANK promised in its "advertising," then aerating this issue just might be the right thing to do, somewhere along the lines.

It really is all about vantage point and perspective. If one is a PayPal Trader, then I would agree, too much has been written here about this subject. But, if one is a serious trader that was looking to make the "next" big move in their trading and revenue growth, then I don't think last Friday's little show-and-tell network outage issue that the FXCM servers caused for dbFX can be highlighted enough, quite frankly.

I'll get over it - though I was counted on it (Deutsche Bank) for a very long time now to be "The One." Sort of a Neo-Not moment for me, anyway. (if you've seen the Matrix, then no explanation is necessary on the Neo-Not comment)

db was supposed to provide the Red Pill FX Trading experience. A Blue Pill in disguise, no doubt. Or, quite possibly I've got it wrong. Maybe what db offers IS the true Red Pill and my being out here thinking that a better way to trade exists, is nothing more than Blue Pill thinking.

Hmmm. That could very well be the "truth."

Red Pill Intermediary, anyone?

 

[oildaytrader]

Whats wrong with Globex or Hotspot?

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/forex-brokers/77082-hotspot-fxi-true-e-c-n.html

 

[TraderNumber7]

Whats wrong with Globex or Hotspot?

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/forex-brokers/77082-hotspot-fxi-true-e-c-n.html

Globex is not something that a serious trader would consider using - GTS? That's not serious trading. It was like pablum for traders.

HotSpot, I've demoed and was simply left wanting more. The GUI, as far as I am concerned, was lacking and the functionality, in-terms of actual order entry flexibility, was in someways, hostile.

So, from milk and cookies to rank hostility, I just can't get my head around seeing either of these two as tools that would work for me, but I do appreciate the toss.

I just bookmarked DukasCopy and will revisit on Thurs, given Barclays no return phone call policy to people inquiring about their offering. Of course, I will try to reach someone at Barclays one more time, but in the meantime, I'll go to school on the "Duke" to see what they are all about. At least there, I won't have to move funds very far to into a Swiss bank account.

But, seriously, Barclays really does need to be "The One," or I just might be trading Gold Futures with my old eSignal data feed. I like Gold data as it works well with my system, but of course, there's that leverage issue once again that makes the currency markets so attractive and lucrative.

I'm up $36,000 tonight and should pull in over $100k by morning (before the next 'session') so at least some of the earlier frustration gets mitigated by good trading. It is admittedly a rather light trading day for me, but I went lite today given all the unfolding drama.

I probably should not have traded at all today, but the system does all the work anyway, so what the heck. $100k a day is not too far off track, so I guess I should be grateful. I really do need to start growing, however, I feel constrained at these levels. I need to open up the throttle and let it run.

Sometimes, I wish I had my own bank, but that's another headache in and of itself. Although, it might be "an" answer to a lot of other problems down the road. But, still a pain in the butt to do right here in the states from what I've learned - establishing a new bank in the U.S. is not easy - so I am told - the truth about the matter - I have no idea.

$47k and climbing... goodnight. :whistling

 

[neil]

I asked DB about this via email and got this reply. They don't seem concerned about what is written about them.
Dear Neil

The software is licensed from FXCM.
dbFX cannot control what people will write on the internet. I would tell you customer accounts and trading volumes are at all time highs here reflecting high customer satisfaction.





Here is a video explaining the platform:

http://www.dbfx.com/forex-trading-platform/fx-trading-platform-video-tutorials

dbFX was launched in order to allow clients the privilege of trading directly with the world's #1 bank in FX, previously a service reserved for institutions. You trade directly on Deutsche liquidity, pricing, and execution, with Deutsche holding nearly 22% of the FX market share. Moreover, clients can trade with the confidence and comfort of knowing their funds are held directly with Deutsche, a bank that has been in existence since the 1870's, holding over 2 trillion Euro in assets etc.

Funds deposited in a dbFX account are protected by the Deposit Protection Fund of the Association of German Banks, currently this is in excess of EUR 1 billion per depositor.

I would be happy to speak with you about this further and show you some of the added resources our clients gain access to such as institutional research on our DB research portal.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Frederick Penha
dbFX - Deutsche Bank
Mail Stop NYC60-0510
60 Wall Street
New York, NY 10005

Tel: +1-212-710-9000
Dir: +1-646-432-2444
Fax: +1-212-710-9001
Email: [email protected]
www.dbfx.com

 

[GammaJammer]

TraderNumber7 - I have to be honest with you. I find it exhausting reading your posts through. If you stop ranting so much I think you'll get a little more help. I am betting that at least a certain amount of this ranting comes through when you're talking to the banks, ecns etc and as a result I very much doubt you're getting the best out of those conversations.

Sure, some of the things you're saying about trade sizes (in terms of what the banks are supposedly telling you is max size before spreads widen out) look a little odd, but still, to start banging on about how it should be straightforward to trade single clip options in a yard just because daily volume is a few trillion shows that you still don't fully understand how it works. You seriously need to do more homework imho.

Good luck - hope it works out for you.

GJ

 

[TraderNumber7]

TraderNumber7 - I have to be honest with you. I find it exhausting reading your posts through. If you stop ranting so much I think you'll get a little more help. I am betting that at least a certain amount of this ranting comes through when you're talking to the banks, ecns etc and as a result I very much doubt you're getting the best out of those conversations.

Sure, some of the things you're saying about trade sizes (in terms of what the banks are supposedly telling you is max size before spreads widen out) look a little odd, but still, to start banging on about how it should be straightforward to trade single clip options in a yard just because daily volume is a few trillion shows that you still don't fully understand how it works. You seriously need to do more homework imho.

Good luck - hope it works out for you.

GJ

Why do people on the internet call "details," rants? Is it a rant, because you think the post is long, or because the post lacks specifics, details, depth and dimension? I'd rather read 11 pages of detail, than one sentence of arrogant rebuttal, as though nobody else has ever traded the markets before.

I'm not new to trading and have probably been trading (equity options) longer than most on this board, given the age of this forum and the content (depth) of some of the things I read here. Needing "help" (on this issue) was a pun and from the details of what I've written on the subject, that should be clear to all. I don't need "actual help" with figuring out what's wrong with Deutsche Bank's relationship with FXCM.

On the one hand, you claim that my post was born of ignorance. Yet, on the other hand, you claim that my ranting comes through in phone conversations with Banks. Arrogance, is assuming you know more than another about the subject of Trading and assuming that you can hear the conversations of others and that you know what's being said and/or how its being said.

I actually don't have the time nor the inclination to make over 4,000 posts on a trading forum. So, because of that, I won't be viewed by 'some' as 'knowing anything' about 'trading'. The fact that I've taken $9,000 and turned it into over 8 figures as a 'trader' notwithstanding. I'll take the 8 figures, over 4,000+ posts (talking about 'trading') any day of the week.

And, who said anything about trading "single clip options in a Yard?" I'd suggest that rather than spending time posting 4,000 replies out of context, that you try learning how to read in context what's already been written. I specifically said that I'd eventually need to "move" a Yard during the "session." I also never said what I consider a "session" to be, since a trading "session" in the currency markets can be virtually anything you want it to be.

Thus, common trader sense would tell one that scaling a Yard into and out of the market over "t" (time) during the "s" (session) would be the method of choice, as opposed to your mythical single click trade. I said, dbFX should not have a problem with the single click of a $20,000.00 cost basis trade. Yet, this is where it claims the higher probability for increasing costs to the trader (through algorithmically increasing spreads) exists. I said, "in the aggregate" I would need to execute on a Yard during the course of my trading session. Again, try reading in context.

It seems like all you ever do on this board is look for a thread to start some controversy by foolishly telling someone that could trade you under a table, that they need to do more homework, or they are arrogant or they are ignorant about this business. I could have worked on the floor of the NYSE for 35 years and STILL not know everything there is to know about the myriad of ways to net/net consistent profits in any market, so drop the 'hero' mentality - I've seen too much of it over the years on so-called trading forums.

You'd be better off not attacking people or thinking that you own the domain of trading - maybe then YOU might learn something. Unless you trade 9+ figures a week (your own capital or that of the fund YOU manage), then you can't teach me much about this business. The distance between $9,000 and 8 figures is not as far as you might think. My goal is to accelerate my growth of capital beyond that which equity options allows for those underlying stocks that used to fit my model.

The liquidity question in the (pair/spot) currency market is not rocket science. The question is all about the un-written rules in the industry that impact individual traders coming to market through public facing intermediaries with large scale trades - that's the bottom line issue for me at this stage. I do not consider a lousy $20,000 cost basis trade be even remotely large scale, yet dbFX claims that it begins to choke the trader and squeeze it for more 'costs' at this same level, automatically - without regard for market conditions.

 

[GammaJammer]

Whatever dude. Was actually trying to help but pointing out that I simply don't have the time to wade through posts that are pages long, in order to pick out the questions. I do have a view on many of the ecns and single bank offerings, and it's a view based on experience both as a market maker and an end user. I don't think I have at any point made any claims about anyone's 'trading prowess', beit yours, mine or the queen of England's And equally I challenge you to find one post where I've claimed a positive correlation between number of posts on T2W and either ability or experience.

Further more I HAVE been in a position of trading the sorts of sums you're talking about, and, contrary to how you percieve the value of this type of experience, I still think people (including maybe even yourself) could teach me LOADS. I don't think it in and of itself makes me the sage of Omaha. But what I do promise you is that I know about execution. Hence the attempt to help. But I stand by my comments - your posts read like rants, and while every nugget in them could be true, it still means people end up switching off.

And your response here has kinda proved my point a bit don'tcha think? Just calm down a bit and I'm sure you'll be fine.

 

[piparb]

I tested DBFX and fund out :

Stoploss not work well
Stopmove wrong
Limit were filled totaly wrong prices
Orders not listed correct and added

so I would say : take care with these broker .......



And your response here has kinda proved my point a bit don'tcha think? Just calm down a bit and I'm sure you'll be fine.[/QUOTE]

 

[TraderNumber7]

Whatever dude.

That says a lot more, 'don'tcha' think?

Was actually trying to help but pointing out that I simply don't have the time to wade through posts that are pages long, in order to pick out the questions.

Not a problem - but you are not the only member of this forum and others will find the details something worthy of reading. Mine was born of a network troubleshooting problem taken from an FXCM failure that lead back to a dbFX lie told to me directly by Deutsche Bank representatives (or, dbFX representatives).

Therefore, I wrote what my experiences were, not that of someone else. I have already explained to you the sarcastic nature (pun) of my so-called "questions" and that some might not have understood my humor and sarcasm directed towards dbFX and FXCM. I don't have questions about them, nor do I have questions about FX Liquidity as it relates to the volume that I routinely trade.

My system now spans Seven (7) Pairs and runs for one week and has anywhere from a .09% to 4.7% chance of losing traded capital. So, I'm doing just fine, however. I just got off the phone with Barclays AND now with UBS. I want to increase my per trade cost basis and cannot do it effectively enough with my current intermediary (who shall remain nameless), so it is now time for me to get serious, form a legal entity, open a real Institutional Account (minimum requirement at Barclays: $300k to $500k) and ease my way into the direct to Interbank system.

I need to learn more about Barclays and UBS for a while longer, in terms of how they treat their customers/clients and learn more about their technology, before I feel comfortable with increasing the size of my trading account(s) with either, into the low to mid Seven (7) figure range. I will always keep a few million in reserve for 'other' things not related to FX.

So, yes - I do need a real Bank and my homework in the FX Bank issue is really just beginning. However, the Options Liquidity issue is understood. With Barclays, I get Options capability which at large transaction levels, opens up a whole new realm of possibilities that I never had as a Retail FX trader (PFGBest notwithstanding). So, I will be able to go back to some of my old equity derivatives strategies and adjust them to work in FX (hopefully, not knowing how the Greeks in FX closely resemble the the Greeks in Equities in terms of outcome, not function - the function should be the same).

But, there are other Institutional pathways to study as well:

Standard Chartered Bank
State Street’s Currenex
Citi
USBC
Morgan Stanley

Here's the sad part. Deutsche Bank leads the world in FX Liquidity - period. That sucks, because they also lied about their relationship with FXCM. Those two (2) facts of life really bothers me, because for years, I've been waiting for Deutsche Bank to enter the retail space, looking forward to the day when I turned 'pro' and established an institutional presence (private only).

So, in a sense, I feel betrayed and I need to get over it, assuredly. I cannot simply hold my nose on Deutsche Bank and start using their institutional platform, knowing what I now know about their retail relationship with FXCM AND most importantly, how they lied about it and tried to cover it up.

UBS, has what they call eFX. It is a 100% web based solution. I am not 100% enthusiastic about a 100% web based solution, coming from the enterprise technology sector myself, but there have been many improvements in web technology over the years and Banks have been some of the leaders in pushing the technology forward on the web.

The flexibility built into the UBS trading platform for institutional FX, has features that I've never seen before in any trading platform, so that was encouraging to note. The others, I have not looked at yet - with the exception of Barclays.

Further more I HAVE been in a position of trading the sorts of sums you're talking about, and, contrary to how you percieve the value of this type of experience, I still think people (including maybe even yourself) could teach me LOADS.

Lessons can be learned, re-learned and un-learned, from paying attention to just about anyone. Recently, I was reminded of the importance that keeping is simple while you trade, is not a bad idea. TheRumpledOne's thread on Scalping on this forum, reminded me that good ideas don't always have to be overly-complex - in fact, some of the best ideas are in fact, very simplistic at the core.

So, yes - I like learning from watching other people at this stage. Growing my own ability to trade and adding those elements that have a real edge into what I do, IF there is an opportunity to do proper integration work into my own system. If not, I leave it alone.

I don't think it in and of itself makes me the sage of Omaha. But what I do promise you is that I know about execution. Hence the attempt to help.

Trade Execution is a third-party input variable into my system for trading. I control the knowledge that I have about the Timing, Direction, Magnitude and Probability of any trade I make, but I have little to know ultimate control over Execution at the Buy and Sell side of the equation.

So, yes - Execution is just as important (on par) with the Signal one trades with, if not MORE important. I have not been a Market Maker, but I have been jerked around by Brokers and Market Makers enough to know the importance that Execution has on any account balance.

Which is why I favor pushing the entire FX industry into a more 'pure' form of ECN where true matching of counter-party and true price transparency can take place. Frankly, I believe that there should be two (2) stated types of Forex: a) Deal Book Retail Forex, and b) Interbank Institutional Forex.

When one opens a Deal Book Retail Forex Account (a DBRFX Account), one should be fully informed (contractually) that indeed their counter-party of first recourse will be the Intermediary (Broker, FCM, etc.) that holds their account.

The Intermediary can then, if they decide to, off-set their Deal Book positions behind the scenes with their own pool of liquidity providers, who in-turn are off-setting in the real Interbank market (if they so decide to do so). Why? Because - and this is just a wild eye theory of course - this should help to keep the Retail stuff (Hyper Micro Mini Lot Fractional Insanity) off the real Interbank market and provide more true Interbank price stabilization. Again, just theoretical thought - not a conclusion.

The IIF (Interbank Institutional Forex Accounts) would have dominion over the rest, which would be strictly Institutional and Commercial Account activity (the old Interbank system before retail). Minimum account balances would be in the range of $100k to $200k, but in my system, individuals of high net-worth could establish STP Accounts with Banks, no different and just as easy as one could walk into their local Branch and establish an IRA account or a 401k account.

If the Bank they do business with, is not a direct liquidity provider to the Interbank system, then the Bank can act as an IFF STP Intermediary and use this the same way they use ATM machines to charge a tiny per transaction fee. The Bank already has multiple streams of revenue and this would only add to their bottom line, without all the headache and worry about being an actual Market Maker or Broker.

I can't think of a more truer form of STP than a Bank that has no interest in your trade, just passing it through to the true Interbank system AND being able to have your $100k to $200k in deposits, helps them too. Everybody wins in that theoretical situation. The IIF ECN Gateway (software), would be a Plug-in that sits on the Bank's server. The IIF minimum account deposit of just 1-3 Institutional Traders would be more than enough to pay for the Bank's IFF ECN Gateway and the professional services installation costs.

Security of IFF Account funds? Well, hey - its a Bank, right. How much less secure would your $100k to $200k minimum deposit be with, oh say, Oanda, or FXCM? And, you would get NONE of the trade killing hassles from the IFF. Just straight, clean, pass-through of your trades with an ATM type of cost attached. What the cost will be is up to the Bank, but I suggest something less than 1 pip per MIO notional traded. Of course, I'm pro-Trader and not pro-Bank on that one.

But I stand by my comments - your posts read like rants, and while every nugget in them could be true, it still means people end up switching off.

Details - not rants. I write for the one who enjoys reading relevant detail. I have ideas (too) on how we can make a better trading environment for all and details are important. If they read like rants, then I apologize - I was a little hot under the collar at db.

What about the concept of officially segregating (firewall) DBRFX from IFF via ECN Gateway and then expanding the selection of Institutional Intermediaries through the existing Banking system and making the opening and closing of IFF accounts much easier and much more fluid? Benefits:

True Price Transparency (call it: TruePRICE - sounds good to me)
True Depth of Market (call it: TrueDOM - it has a nice ring to it)
True Liquidity View (call it: TrueLIQUID - another nice ring)
Zero Dealing Desk (call it: ZeroDEAL - hot!)
True Electronic Trade Execution (call it: TrueTRADE - I'm on a roll)

If I were an individual trader with $100k to $200k minimum and I wanted to engage the real Interbank market and I saw an Ad that read: Real ECN Forex Trading for High Net-Worth Individuals offering: TruePRICE, TrueDOM, TrueLIQUID, ZeroDEAL and TrueTRADE - with explanations of each - and - I also learned that opening an account was no more difficult than opening an IRA or 401k - and - that I had access to Trading Platforms such as: Currenex, ProTrader, Viking as well as other White Label solutions from Barclays, UBS, etc.; I might at the very least consider doing my homework on such an offer. Right now, this does not exist for the one with $100k to $200k minimum who does not want to trade under a Brokers Deal Book. Somebody needs to create this solution.

Let Retail be Retail and let Institutional be Institutional, But, give the guy in-between ($100k to $200k) a conduit to fairly engage the Interbank level without Dealer Interruption (read: Corruption).

Again, these are just ideas that I think should be considered going forward. Forex is growing by the day and something has got to give before something breaks.

There should be no confusion about whether or not you are trading someone else's Deal Book, or the Interbank system. In fact, there should be a legal requirement to disclose both Trade Execution and Trade Counter-Party. If the counter-party is the Intermediary, then the account holder should be able to look at their Contract and see that. If the counter-party is the Interbank system itself, then the account holder should be able to look at their Contract and see that as well.

The word would get out on the street very quickly, that when you walk into your local Bank and open up an IIF Account, that your counter-party will always be the Interbank system. And, likewise, when you open up a DBRFX Account, your counter-party will always be: FXCM, GFT, LiteForex, FXCompany, FXSolutions, Oanda, InterbankFX, MGForex (the list is almost endless) as they are the Retail market.

Firewall the Retail and ECN the rest.

 

[piparb]

DBFX = Scam yesterday I get Margincall on pricegap I don`t know why
They blog orders if I try to trade , and horrible fills ......
The next thing would be they cut my connection .....

I would never trade with this bucket master of scam .....I p!ss over Ackermanns head

FXCM is the same firm , thats true , the same scam ....

 

[piparb]

we got :
Bucket shops
criminal Bucket shops

and DBFX I dont know the words

 

[GammaJammer]

Trader umber7 - fair enough, but once again I'm reduced to skimming / speed reading your post as I simply don't have time to do anything else.

I'm happy to help bnut maybe PM me a few succinct questions if you like and I'll see what I can do.

Or not. Totally up to you.

Nice weekend all

GJ

 

[gigikent]

FWIW, I have downloaded all the ticks of both FXCM and dbFX (they have the same API).

Some info for EUR/USD:
FXCM: starting 2007_03_27, 32,392,044 ticks till 2010_01_10
dbFX: starting 2007_08_14, 28,479,968 ticks till 2010_01_10

In general, FXCM has more ticks than dbFX for a specific pair. For some pairs, like EUR/SEK dbFX has 25% more ticks. I know the periods above are not matched.