I feel robbed by etx capital and I don't know what to do. Any advice?

Jell02

Junior member
27 1
this **** is scary, how are there no protections against this? a stop is a stop is a stop, the companies should protect people from this.

It doesn't work like this at all. A stop and a take profit are never guaranteed. I am a bit lazy to get into this but if at your stop loss price there are no buyers or sellers (depending if you are short or long) then it would not hold and the next available price will be the stop or take profit. The only brokers that could offer some 'protection' are market makers because they control the market price. But at such events like EURCHF no one is protected. I am very surprised no one wrote this. The broker is 100% right and yes, it is a terrible experience but this is the market.
 

barrymong

Newbie
7 1
I know but my main issue was being told that after the trade was reversed I was at a profit of £65 and then it was changed to a loss of £65 and then it was changed AGAIN to a loss of almost £900! That is taking the **** no matter what anyone says! I was continuing to trade throughout the following days because I thought I had the funds in my account and then all of a sudden my account got wiped and my open trades got closed and I was then in debt. I think anyone would be annoyed but like I said before thank god it was a relatively small amount compared to what it could have been.
 

jamesuk

Junior member
45 2
I know but my main issue was being told that after the trade was reversed I was at a profit of £65 and then it was changed to a loss of £65 and then it was changed AGAIN to a loss of almost £900! That is taking the **** no matter what anyone says! I was continuing to trade throughout the following days because I thought I had the funds in my account and then all of a sudden my account got wiped and my open trades got closed and I was then in debt. I think anyone would be annoyed but like I said before thank god it was a relatively small amount compared to what it could have been.

Jell02 has right however barrymong is right aswell they should had informed him with the correct information and going back and forth
 

Jell02

Junior member
27 1
Jell02 has right however barrymong is right aswell they should had informed him with the correct information and going back and forth

The guy that informed him made a mistake with the amount. Many people that do not know the market made mistakes and that includes people the broker hires. It was a mistake which was soon corrected. Many traders lost on EURCHF but many, many also profited. Those that were short USDCHF or EURCHF made a lot of money.
 

rawrschach

Experienced member
1,223 277
this **** is scary, how are there no protections against this? a stop is a stop is a stop,

No it isn't. It's an order and no one can control where it will be filled.

All the spread bet whiners have no idea that these issues are much worse in the real market.
 

highbury fx

Well-known member
338 114
No it isn't. It's an order and no one can control where it will be filled.

All the spread bet whiners have no idea that these issues are much worse in the real market.

This is quite correct. Unless it is a guaranteed stop to close an open position a normal Stop Loss order is simply an instruction to your broker to trade at the next available price once the Stop Loss level has been touched.

After everything that happened with the EUR/CHF you would have hoped that the one lesson retail clients learned that day was that liquidity is not bottomless and there are not an endless supply of bids and offers for you to close or open positions at.
 

alexaherself

Established member
560 149
All the above comments are perfectly true and valid, but I think that isn't really what the OP is complaining about?

See what he said, just above:-
I know but my main issue was being told that after the trade was reversed I was at a profit of £65 and then it was changed to a loss of £65 and then it was changed AGAIN to a loss of almost £900! That is taking the **** no matter what anyone says!

The issue highlighted here is about customer service and behaviour, surely? A representation was made to him in an official capacity by an ETX employee; it turned out to be completely wrong and they haven't even apologised for that (is my understanding, here)?
 

barrymong

Newbie
7 1
That's right Alexa. Markets are markets and that's fair enough but to be wrongly informed and messed about is really unfair especially when money is concerned. It's a fact though that if the same thing had happened and I was in profit £900 instead of at a loss I wouldn't be complaining. I think maybe it was just self pity and desperation. It was a valuable lesson though highbury and thankfully it didn't cost me thousands of pounds. I have changed broker now and they don't do requotes so hopefully everything will be ok.
 

stevespray

Experienced member
1,289 154
Keep fighting this...

Hi Barry,

I've had issues like this with various firms over the years. Fight them and you will get your funds returned.

You have a very strong case because they actually executed your stop loss order and filled your position. That constitutes, in law, a legally binding contract.

Bear in mind that all the firm's arguments are retrospective in nature. In real time they obviously offered the quotation which you were filled at. They are only arguing 'after the event' that this particular price shouldn't have been offered.

Remember at all times that ETX offer 'off exchange' trading. Therefore they cannot technically use 'liquidity issues' on another exchange as an excuse to reverse a trade. I strongly suspect (and myself and others knew this long before the CHF business blew up) that on this particular occasion many of the firms out there inadvertently provided a level of liquidity in their own markets which was not there in the underlying markets. While this event is rare it is not an impossible event and it is an event which the firms must carry as risk - that's the nature of providing fixed spreads on an 'off exchange' market.

Ultimately the firm filled your order. In my opinion they have no legal right to cancel it and then refill it. Your stop loss order is, in law, an 'offer' to trade at that price. Filling your order constitutes 'acceptance' of your offer.

Offer + Acceptance = Contract.

They will struggle to overturn this if you take the matter further.

It might be worth checking the T&C's of the Client Agreement as I suspect that the T&C's may not say what the firm have suggested. This is often the way with many of the firms.


I strongly suspect that some of the firms were forced into 'back fitting' trades because they let clients out of positions for prices which were far more generous than prices which may have been available on the underlying. This may have left certain firms with hedge trades which were causing them considerable pain - the only answer may have been to pass this pain onto clients somehow.


Ultimately you will get your money back.

If you need further help then let me know.




Steve.
 

gle101

Veteren member
3,717 84
Hi Barry,

I've had issues like this with various firms over the years. Fight them and you will get your funds returned.

You have a very strong case because they actually executed your stop loss order and filled your position. That constitutes, in law, a legally binding contract.

Bear in mind that all the firm's arguments are retrospective in nature. In real time they obviously offered the quotation which you were filled at. They are only arguing 'after the event' that this particular price shouldn't have been offered.

Remember at all times that ETX offer 'off exchange' trading. Therefore they cannot technically use 'liquidity issues' on another exchange as an excuse to reverse a trade. I strongly suspect (and myself and others knew this long before the CHF business blew up) that on this particular occasion many of the firms out there inadvertently provided a level of liquidity in their own markets which was not there in the underlying markets. While this event is rare it is not an impossible event and it is an event which the firms must carry as risk - that's the nature of providing fixed spreads on an 'off exchange' market.

Ultimately the firm filled your order. In my opinion they have no legal right to cancel it and then refill it. Your stop loss order is, in law, an 'offer' to trade at that price. Filling your order constitutes 'acceptance' of your offer.

Offer + Acceptance = Contract.

They will struggle to overturn this if you take the matter further.

It might be worth checking the T&C's of the Client Agreement as I suspect that the T&C's may not say what the firm have suggested. This is often the way with many of the firms.


I strongly suspect that some of the firms were forced into 'back fitting' trades because they let clients out of positions for prices which were far more generous than prices which may have been available on the underlying. This may have left certain firms with hedge trades which were causing them considerable pain - the only answer may have been to pass this pain onto clients somehow.


Ultimately you will get your money back.

If you need further help then let me know.




Steve.
Hi Steve, aren't you promising this trader too much? Anyway, if there is a lot of money at stake I would also go for it, regardless if I am right or wrong. The broker give you a price based on the underlaying asset. If there is no price available, the system might be closing down your trade anyway based on margin requirements.

The MiFID best execution directive clearly states that the price must be based and reflect the underlaying asset, so I think your argument falls short that the broker is not legally bound by the underlaying asset price.
 

Pat Riley

Established member
794 178
My advice Harry is to read the ETX Capital T&C. I'm almost certain they will have clauses relating to market disruption, Force Majeure, etc which will be worded more than loosely enough to cover the shenanigans on the Swissy floor being removed. Availability of liquidity is an obvious necessity for any provider of prices regardless of how closely their prices follow the underlying or not. It was a one off event and yes they could have, based upon your account of the communications, been a little more forthright, polite and professional.

You could try addressing your concerns directly to Monecor on the customer service side of things and they might offer a sorry of some kind for the lack of courtesy, but you're not going to get your account reset. There's no legal basis for it. And from ETX Capital's point of view, there's certainly no commercial basis for it.
 

gle101

Veteren member
3,717 84
My advice Harry is to read the ETX Capital T&C. I'm almost certain they will have clauses relating to market disruption, Force Majeure, etc which will be worded more than loosely enough to cover the shenanigans on the Swissy floor being removed. Availability of liquidity is an obvious necessity for any provider of prices regardless of how closely their prices follow the underlying or not. It was a one off event and yes they could have, based upon your account of the communications, been a little more forthright, polite and professional.

You could try addressing your concerns directly to Monecor on the customer service side of things and they might offer a sorry of some kind for the lack of courtesy, but you're not going to get your account reset. There's no legal basis for it. And from ETX Capital's point of view, there's certainly no commercial basis for it.
I am quite sure Harry has done this already, I am also quite convinced the he have gone out of his way in trying to get the trade reversed. The T&C is not actually the whole answer, as clauses in it cannot override the MiFID financial directives. I have said this earlier, there might be some information in the MiFID Financial directives that might give strenght to this case.
 

Pat Riley

Established member
794 178
MiFID Directives only cover firms involved in investment services and activities, not those involved in ancillary services. In the UK MiFID has been incorporated into FCA which means any FCA regulated body is automatically subject to these directives. However, spot FX contracts are not considered to be financial instruments for the purposes of MiFID and that part of a firm's business that is not covered by MiFID is not subject to MiFID.
 

stevespray

Experienced member
1,289 154
My advice Harry is to read the ETX Capital T&C. I'm almost certain they will have clauses relating to market disruption, Force Majeure, etc which will be worded more than loosely enough to cover the shenanigans on the Swissy floor being removed. Availability of liquidity is an obvious necessity for any provider of prices regardless of how closely their prices follow the underlying or not. It was a one off event and yes they could have, based upon your account of the communications, been a little more forthright, polite and professional.

You could try addressing your concerns directly to Monecor on the customer service side of things and they might offer a sorry of some kind for the lack of courtesy, but you're not going to get your account reset. There's no legal basis for it. And from ETX Capital's point of view, there's certainly no commercial basis for it.


I disagree - there is clearly 'a basis in law' since Barry had his stop loss filled (after a certain amount of slippage) before the fill was reversed some time later.

The T&Cs make it clear that orders are not valid and binding until acceptance has occurred - in this case the stop loss WAS filled and thus acceptance occurred. The client is therefore justified in enforcing that particular term against the firm in question.

The T&C also specify that their systems add to the liquidity which may not be present in an underlying market so again it is not unreasonable for a client to use such a term to their advantage. Firm's often ignore such terms when the situation suits them.

In my opinion the T&Cs don't entirely support their actions. It seems to me that the some of the SB / CFD firms have sought to protect themselves by 'back fitting' the trading fills to ensure that they do not lose out financially.

Barry's case is so strong because his fill occurred in 'real time' - before the extent or the reason of the massive move was widely known.

Firm's may well use charts which show where fills were made in the underlying market (as an excuse) but this chart will not reflect the bids and offers which were available in real time on the firms actual market which is the market which the clients were really trading - again the T&Cs specify that the client is speculating against the firms price and NOT the price of the underlying asset.

In this case it appears that Barry's stop order was simply filled, after a degree of slippage, as the price dropped sharply through his stop loss level. As I've said before, the firm may have provided a degree of liquidity which was NOT present in the underlying market but the firm cannot use this as an excuse since it can be shown that 'providing liquidity' is clearly a 'danger' when the firm act as a counterparty and offer a market which is 'off exchange'.



Steve.
 

stevespray

Experienced member
1,289 154
Hi Steve, aren't you promising this trader too much? Anyway, if there is a lot of money at stake I would also go for it, regardless if I am right or wrong. The broker give you a price based on the underlaying asset. If there is no price available, the system might be closing down your trade anyway based on margin requirements.

The MiFID best execution directive clearly states that the price must be based and reflect the underlaying asset, so I think your argument falls short that the broker is not legally bound by the underlaying asset price.


I don't feel that my argument falls short. Barry's stop loss was filled as price broke through his stop level - nothing wrong in that respect. In my opinion the price which the client was filled at did correctly reflect the price of the underlying in the few seconds which it took price to pass through the stop loss level. Some slippage was applied given the nature of the move and again this is fair enough.

What you have to remember is that some brokers provide either 'fixed' or 'maximum' spreads on many markets. When you fix your spread then, from time to time, there will be occasions when you provide liquidity which isn't really there. I strongly suspect that this is what occurred in real time and this is why Barry was given a price which allowed him out of his trade for only minor slippage.

The T&Cs appear to allow the firms to alter their fixed spreads without notifying the clients. However, in this case, it appears that they did not do that - not in real time at least. If I was a client then I would be watchful for any firm which attempted to retrospectively alter the spreads or quotations AFTER the event.
 
 
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

But it's thanks to our sponsors that access to Trade2Win remains free for all. By viewing our ads you help us pay our bills, so please support the site and disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock