Not the Capital Spreads Changed a Trade With Lots of Exclamation Marks Thread
professor10
Newbie
- Messages
- 8
- Likes
- 0
At least Capital Spreads admitted their mistake and hope they will make good the other party. It's a shame Capital Spreads had to be pushed to admit their responsibility. I didn't like the way their representative - Steve/ Simon's "traders who trade on wrong prices will get caught" phrase - he views traders like thieves who manipulate Capital Spreads software or something and yet traders rely on Capital Spread prices. These morons put a lot of people through heart attacks and misery.
Anyway why was the thread closed?
Last edited:
professor10
Newbie
- Messages
- 8
- Likes
- 0
Apparently Simon is the CEO of Capital Spreads!
These sort of threads always get closed or deleted. They are an embarrassment to the companies concerned and they will threaten legal action to have them closed down. I've lost count of how many times that has happened here. Quite often they are also advertisers but T2W insist that has nothing to do with it.
professor10
Newbie
- Messages
- 8
- Likes
- 0
I think the thread was a good one - next time CS will act rationally. Perhaps we should have a live "name and shame" thread to list all the dirty laundry out (not just from CS off-course)- with the hope of improving services on the brokers and SBs(though im no longer into spread betting lol!!:smart
the hare
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,944
- Likes
- 1,282
Because they where good boys and girls and paid their protection money on time.
I think the thread was a good one - next time CS will act rationally. Perhaps we should have a live "name and shame" thread to list all the dirty laundry out (not just from CS off-course)- with the hope of improving services on the brokers and SBs(though im no longer into spread betting lol!!:smart
You should try that and see how many hours it lasts. The advertisers are the ones with the influence here, not the members.
tar
Legendary member
- Messages
- 10,443
- Likes
- 1,314
ditto
B
Black Swan
Yep, his mission was over...
lovespreadbetting
Junior member
- Messages
- 19
- Likes
- 0
i still dont understand why Capital Spreads was bluffing. I wish to know the conclusion of the case. Any updates.
Trader333
Moderator
- Messages
- 8,746
- Likes
- 1,025
The thread was closed only because the OP asked for it to be closed and there is a major difference between closing and deleting and everyone is more than free to carry on the discussion here. Unless the OP of this thread asks for it to be closed then there is no reason that I can see that this thread should not remain open.
Paul
Paul
stevespray
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,289
- Likes
- 156
Morning Simon,
Hope you had a good holiday!
What you actually stated to Ross is incorrect. You're going to hate me for this but as I said earlier in the original thread, I'm not taking sides here and as I see it you've handled this situation fairly. However, your example in using other online business is incorrect as I will now try and explain...
Back when the internet was a developing medium many retailers saw the oppertunities which the internet offered. Most retailers quickly developed websites and started trading 'online'. Needless to say, it wasn't long before a few savy clients spotted pricing errors and took advantage. There were a number of higher profile incidents involving Dell and Kodak which got press coverage. In the end the companies in question had no choice but to supply the goods because in each instance the company had allowed the clients to pay for the item and, at the same time, issued the client with a sales receipt thus entering into a contract with the client at that pivotal point.
It quickly became obvious to most online retailers that this 'mis-pricing' represented a major issue / danger for them so they (their lawyers) set about looking at ways to remove the risk. The method which they came up with was very simple... they simply altered the point at which a contract is formed with the clients. If you read the T&Cs of various online retailers then you'll see this fact set out. Now, if you place an order with an online retailer, you are not given a sales receipt immediately. Instead you are provided with an order reference number. In legal speak your order remains 'an offer' to the online retailer to trade which the retailer may accept or reject. In due course they examine each order and then decide whether or not they are going to accept your offer to do business. During that period of time the client has the right to withdraw their offer. So, as you can see, the online retailer no longer transact instantly like they used to do in the early days.
This is obviously a different set of circumstances to spread betting where orders are accepted and contract notes issued. In your response to Ross you imply that online retailers simple 'reverse' any trade which they are not happy with - this is absolutely not the case since the retailer is not contracted at that point. And this is the CRITICAL difference between Online Retailing and Spreadbetting - online retailers move the pivotal point of contract to a point where they have time to check that they are happy with the price which the client is prepared to pay where as Spreadbetting Co's initially form a contract with a client and then try to use Client Agreement T&Cs to circumvent Statutory Law (which sets out when a contract is formed under English Law).
As a result your argument is kind of self defeating - If retailers could insert a clause in their T&Cs which said "we reservse the right to reverse any sale we make where the price is obviously wrong" then they would do this wouldn't they? The fact that they don't do this proves a point - that point being that Statutary Law does not allow it. As a result they have to use a more convoluted method and that's how we get to this situation where they shift the point at which the contract is formed. This method obviously cannot work with spreadbetting.
Steve.
Hoggums
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,176
- Likes
- 878
I see lots of whinging going on here, everyone seems to want the best of both worlds.
IF that pricing anomoly meant a customer had his stops triggered and he took a loss when the as a result of the misprice, you would be up in arms, demanding a refund and/or the position re-instated. Yet you demand if you opened a position at that price it should stand...
Don't you see the two-faced side of what you are saying? You can't have it both ways to suit yourself.
Decide if you want to deal at the price CS gives you, accurate or not, or whether you want CS to give accurate prices and correct it's mistakes.
IF that pricing anomoly meant a customer had his stops triggered and he took a loss when the as a result of the misprice, you would be up in arms, demanding a refund and/or the position re-instated. Yet you demand if you opened a position at that price it should stand...
Don't you see the two-faced side of what you are saying? You can't have it both ways to suit yourself.
Decide if you want to deal at the price CS gives you, accurate or not, or whether you want CS to give accurate prices and correct it's mistakes.
tar
Legendary member
- Messages
- 10,443
- Likes
- 1,314
B
Black Swan
so speaks a man of reason who; knows what he's doing, how to trade, what to trade and just as importantly who to trade with..
Not whingeing. I'd just like to know how SBs apparently have a system that generates deliberate errors that result in trade cancellations two weeks later.
Vorbis
Well-known member
- Messages
- 270
- Likes
- 35
Do you have any solid evidence that the error was deliberate? I find it hard to believe.
If this was the case, why would they wait two weeks before reversing the trade in question?
Trader333
Moderator
- Messages
- 8,746
- Likes
- 1,025
There are any number of reasons (and especially technical) that can cause this to happen and even with some of the DMA platforms as well. I remember that IB had an issue a few years ago where the price of US stocks was almost 15 minutes delayed and it was possible to take the trade at the wrong price and (in theory) make a killing. I didn't bother at the time because I knew that all trades would have been busted which they later announced were. So it can and does happen and in most cases it will be some technical issue that caused it.
Paul
Paul
