Personal EURCHF losses

spinola said:
And what about suing IG or a bookie, if they fail to properly represent the underlying at all times. Sue for damages and losses .

I mean OK so your price is not the underlying, in fact it may be different from the underlying, so if they fail to provide a bookie price, no matter how they derive it's value, then hasn't a customer got a legal claim to sue for negligence and any damages because of the firms bad practice ?

Just thinking out loud !

:)
Click to expand...

They have the perfect get out clause at all times "the price is wrapped around the current dma price"

We have to go into this endeavour with ours eyes wide open, we are dealing directly with IG & similar providers, not the open market, we have to best judge ourselves if the price offered is fair.

This is a brutal game, all who enter should remember it is real pound notes we risk.

I see IG & all bookies/brokers etc as a vehicle to trade the market, they could'nt give a fiddlers monkey if we win or lose IMHO

My view is never have more than you need in their account & don't overleverage
 
Last edited:
tokyojoe said:
They have the perfect get out clause at all times "the price is wrapped around the current dma price"

We have to go into this endeavour with ours eyes wide open, we are dealing directly with IG & similar providers, not the open market, we have to best judge ourselves if the price offered is fair.

This is a brutal game, all who enter should remember it is real pound notes we risk.

I see IG & all bookies/brokers etc as a vehicle to trade the market, they could'nt give a fiddlers monkey if we win or lose IMHO

My view is never have more than you need in their account & don't overleverage
Click to expand...

Yes, and put any assets into a trust. (or another legal identity name) So if you do blow up. it'll make it hard/ impossible for them to liquid assets to settle any debt etc.
 
Guys if you don't complain about your CHF's fill levels then that means you accept them , first step make a complaint to IG legal department then after you get their response in 8 weeks complain to the FOS . You should complain about the fills and how it is not the "best execution" that they promised to give and how it was unfair and outrageous ... etc . And seek legal advice .

http://www.ig.com/uk/complaints

[email protected]

FOS :

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/default.htm
 
Last edited:
tar said:
A couple of years ago my IG account went few hundreds in the negative , we kept sending emails quoting - both of us - T&C back and forth for 9 months , i complained to their legal department twice , at the end they closed my account and cleared the balance . And they asked me to confirm if i accept that decision , i said i will accept but as a gesture of goodwill from me :LOL: .
Click to expand...

I don't get your point? is it; you decided you didn't want to pay them because you calculated it would cost them too much to chase you and eventually you could wear them down or is it because you lost the money under circumstances where you honestly thought they had done something untoward and directly influenced your loss or is it because you lost a trade and then decided you'd try and get away with not paying what you owe them?

if its 2 then there is probably much to more this than we know based on your short post.. if its the first one then how do you know they didn't make a negative report to a credit agency about you which may cause you bigger problems down the line, or maybe you just don't care about things like that.

if its the 3rd one then I just think that's cheap, but that's me, I always pay what I owe but I understand plenty of people don't want to live like that and try and get something for nothing.

i'm not assuming anything, just interested in why you decided you didn't want to pay what they said you owed. its unusal for them to be totally wrong, for example they may have said you owe us £300 and you say no I think I owe you £50 and you both look at a chart and compromise somewhere reasonable but for you to say nope, I owe you nothing must have had an interesting set of circumstances for that to happen.
 
highbury fx said:
I don't get your point? is it; you decided you didn't want to pay them because you calculated it would cost them too much to chase you and eventually you could wear them down or is it because you lost the money under circumstances where you honestly thought they had done something untoward and directly influenced your loss or is it because you lost a trade and then decided you'd try and get away with not paying what you owe them?

if its 2 then there is probably much to more this than we know based on your short post.. if its the first one then how do you know they didn't make a negative report to a credit agency about you which may cause you bigger problems down the line, or maybe you just don't care about things like that.

if its the 3rd one then I just think that's cheap, but that's me, I always pay what I owe but I understand plenty of people don't want to live like that and try and get something for nothing.

i'm not assuming anything, just interested in why you decided you didn't want to pay what they said you owed. its unusal for them to be totally wrong, for example they may have said you owe us £300 and you say no I think I owe you £50 and you both look at a chart and compromise somewhere reasonable but for you to say nope, I owe you nothing must have had an interesting set of circumstances for that to happen.
Click to expand...

It was a bit complicated , anyway according to their legal department - and T&Cs - i dont owe them a penny that was the final decision .
 
tar said:
It was a bit complicated , anyway according to their legal department - and T&Cs - i dont owe them a penny that was the final decision .
Click to expand...

complicated is good, it teaches people who come on here about different scenarios and shows them that not everything is as it may appear and if you pick your battles right with your broker you have a good chance of succeeding rather than being dictated to.

spill the beans tar, what was it that led to you fighting IG for 9 months over a few hundred and ultimately having your account closed by them? and was it worth it?

i'm a champion of the T&C not because I sit on the other side of the screen from most people on here but because i think it is the rules that you sign up to before you start trading and if you don't like them then you should go somewhere else where you can accept them. People may say the terms are unfair and of course in plenty of instances it would seem they are either too ambiguous or designed to protect the broker or both and I can't disagree with that as there are far too many examples of people being rogered by t&C's but it seems in this case you have used them to your benefit and wriggled out of paying them a few hundred. The T&C's therefore in this instance worked to your benefit and not to the firm that designed them to protect them and it would be appreciated by a few people on here if you went in to detail about how you done that, why you done that and why ultimately you caused a multi billion dollar firm to wipe your debt and sling you out..

to go to the FOS costs a few hundred so some s/b firms take the view that any dispute under a few hundred where the FOS are mentioned should be wiped out. i always followed that up by closing the account but that isn't necessarily the right thing to do as it cost me a client.
 
The thing with the legal system is, it's not about what's moral or right, it comes down to who can win. It's like trading on the expertise of language.

Legal departments also need to know when to cut a loss and run, or spend thousands chasing a few hundred . That legal trade aint worth it.

Just thinking about legals etc.
 
highbury fx said:
complicated is good, it teaches people who come on here about different scenarios and shows them that not everything is as it may appear and if you pick your battles right with your broker you have a good chance of succeeding rather than being dictated to.

spill the beans tar, what was it that led to you fighting IG for 9 months over a few hundred and ultimately having your account closed by them? and was it worth it?

i'm a champion of the T&C not because I sit on the other side of the screen from most people on here but because i think it is the rules that you sign up to before you start trading and if you don't like them then you should go somewhere else where you can accept them. People may say the terms are unfair and of course in plenty of instances it would seem they are either too ambiguous or designed to protect the broker or both and I can't disagree with that as there are far too many examples of people being rogered by t&C's but it seems in this case you have used them to your benefit and wriggled out of paying them a few hundred. The T&C's therefore in this instance worked to your benefit and not to the firm that designed them to protect them and it would be appreciated by a few people on here if you went in to detail about how you done that, why you done that and why ultimately you caused a multi billion dollar firm to wipe your debt and sling you out..

to go to the FOS costs a few hundred so some s/b firms take the view that any dispute under a few hundred where the FOS are mentioned should be wiped out. i always followed that up by closing the account but that isn't necessarily the right thing to do as it cost me a client.
Click to expand...


Hi Highbury FX

I appreciate your comments and as a normal law abiding citizen - and trader - I like to think that generally - I stick to the rules.

But if you are being totally honest - any business that as to use its T & C along with its small print to ensure they can take advantage of all the arising situations - really does not deserve lots of customers.

With this matter - I am on Tars' side and I can also talk from experience having had a few run ins with so called "brokers" - yes that's what they like to do to many of their customers

In one case with CMC UK going back to approx 2006 / 7 - I had proof of the different settings they used on my own trading platform - to change settings and timing so to disrupt my normal trading methods. Luckily - many others had big grievances and in the end they faced large fines from the regulators and lost 1000's of clients and it cost them hundreds of thousands of pounds - cheats - big time then - now I understand they are squeaky clean

Face it FX brokers are hardly covered in glory - they are maybe nearly as devious as Bankers.

The law is like the Ritz hotel - open to all - who have money :)

The law is also an ass in many cases - and its not always who's correct and what's fair that ends up as the winner.

If you need to employ a lawyer to go through all the brokers small print in T & C's and for them to have as many excuses in as possible to tip the balance to their own favour - then they need to be challenged - and taken down a peg or two.

Nothing personal - you might be a really nice genuine honest guy doing the best for your company - but if you are - your honesty and credibility will be tested

After 25 yrs in different businesses - both my own and at Director level in some large corporates - I know how things work - and sometimes you ignore the rules and the law and use many other methods to get you way.

I learn some of them from the master - as a Director in one of Branson's company's in the late 1980's and what the man got away with at times was unbelievable;-)

Trust me - the customer is king - not the lawyer or the business

Regards


F
 
tar: your case is just a "few hundreds" which isn't worth it for them to chase you over a certain period of time/effort. Losses in this instance is different, a lot more.

I really don't understand why people keep posting up these threads, its quite simple really. (in fact, I do understand because they do not understand)

If you were in the right side of the trade where you would have a "massive" profit, would you have accepted it?
If so, makes no difference to the trade being on the wrong side.....need to accept the loss.

You can't use the argument that your account is £0 and turned negative and have no liabilities.....but only gains.....surely?

Language of law argument is just a defence line/barrier.....an excuse for not paying up.

Although the situation/transition could have been dealt with differently and it needs to be looked at.....which is beyond our control.
 
Forexmospherian said:
Hi Highbury FX

I appreciate your comments and as a normal law abiding citizen - and trader - I like to think that generally - I stick to the rules.

But if you are being totally honest - any business that as to use its T & C along with its small print to ensure they can take advantage of all the arising situations - really does not deserve lots of customers.

With this matter - I am on Tars' side and I can also talk from experience having had a few run ins with so called "brokers" - yes that's what they like to do to many of their customers

In one case with CMC UK going back to approx 2006 / 7 - I had proof of the different settings they used on my own trading platform - to change settings and timing so to disrupt my normal trading methods. Luckily - many others had big grievances and in the end they faced large fines from the regulators and lost 1000's of clients and it cost them hundreds of thousands of pounds - cheats - big time then - now I understand they are squeaky clean

Face it FX brokers are hardly covered in glory - they are maybe nearly as devious as Bankers.

The law is like the Ritz hotel - open to all - who have money :)

The law is also an ass in many cases - and its not always who's correct and what's fair that ends up as the winner.

If you need to employ a lawyer to go through all the brokers small print in T & C's and for them to have as many excuses in as possible to tip the balance to their own favour - then they need to be challenged - and taken down a peg or two.

Nothing personal - you might be a really nice genuine honest guy doing the best for your company - but if you are - your honesty and credibility will be tested

After 25 yrs in different businesses - both my own and at Director level in some large corporates - I know how things work - and sometimes you ignore the rules and the law and use many other methods to get you way.

I learn some of them from the master - as a Director in one of Branson's company's in the late 1980's and what the man got away with at times was unbelievable;-)

Trust me - the customer is king - not the lawyer or the business

Regards


F
Click to expand...


Hi F

I think you're absolutely correct and my post was not intended to criticise tar, it was meant to start some debate about the morality of the T&C's versus principles.

If tar sincerely thought IG was being unreasonable about how much he owed and he disputed it, escalated it through IG's own procedures and got them to relent, then power to him, but if he just argued the toss for 9 months and ended up saving £300 but losing his IG account then thats pretty lame. I don't know the facts as tar hasn't expanded on the circumstances but thats entirely his prerogative and it won't alter my opinion of him, which is of an intelligent and interesting person to have some trading dialogue with. I feel the same about you as well, you make good comments, are fair and have stuck around here long enough to sniff people like me out if you think i have an ulterior motive.

The company i have an interest in is not for discussion here, i don't want you to think i'm ever trying to influence t2w for commercial benefit. I just want to be honest with my opinion and the longer I'm on here the better chance i have of you all taking me seriously. Some people on here have driven me away for a month or so but right now no one is being a dick lol and i'll hang around a bit longer :)

The T&C;s need to be shaken up. The way they still are is a legacy from when we all first started in spread betting and you had to like it or lump it with the few providers there were. Customer service should be better than it is and you even now have companies that won't speak to you unless its by email - thats crazy imo. The terms are so one sided because thats the way we protected ourselves and in a dispute we wanted to point to a rule that was so ambiguous it could have had 5 different interpretations for 5 separate circumstances. Our clients are far more savvy than the trader sitting in a mid tier bank trying to pick you off on a price because they can see they have a big order to sell 200 million euros or similar. Our clients rely on their judgement and analysis rather than someone else's client flow that they don't have privy to seeing, and it is these clients that we should be more reasonable with as there is no need for us to be so defensive and assume that their reason for dealing with us is to pick us off.

The FX industry's reputation is in a right state for good reason and some not so good as well. When i was a lad it was my job make a good relationship with my banks in order to get their business. It was the late 80's and early 90's and i was b0ll0xed 3-4 times a week trying to make sure in the morning i got their trades rather than another broker. Now a days compliance say the flow has to be spread around and there are no need for relationships because you deal on the best price and that has completely changed the brokerage market. Brokers that were doing well are now doing crap, and brokers that were doing crap are now just as crap as everyone else. If a bank gave me business because they were front running customer orders, i like everyone else assumed it was ok because they had worked hard to win that flow and were using it to their advantage. now that will land you in jail. Sentiment has changed and retail clients who now provide so much FX liquidity demand that the action and opportunity should be the same for them considering they put so much in. I can't argue with that, its common sense and if i was trying to make a living out of something that seemed to being manipulated it would cheese me off.

I think IG are fair. I'm nothing to do with them. They flex their muscles when they think they need to and are very litigious. They would spend £10k winning a £500 bad debt because like all firms at times they need to stand up and push back. Thats why i was interested in tar's post because they don't often give up but they don't often argue the toss to begin with. Unlike plenty of other FX firms who just say NO to everything and don't care whether you stay or go. This more recent attitude sucks and it makes us look like we're at it, when most of us actually aren't. We have the spread in our favour and more often or not that will do, thats a big enough advantage to capture most peoples money over time. Some firms however want it much quicker and they are far more aggressive in their approach. The trouble is there are more and more and more of these types of FX firms appearing and it's bad news for the ones of us that try and do things fairly and harmoniously.

its all just words, the proof is in the pudding. Deal with people you trust and not because they're 0.1 on EURUSD and offer you 500 to 1 leverage.

the moral to my post is if you think you are right then fight back but also have that moral fibre that takes responsibility for the crap trade we all do every now and not try and get the s/b firm to wipe or reduce the loss because you're stropping up. If my 7 year old acted that way she'd go on the naughty step.

nice weekend all :)
 
Easy said when you not facing a situation of owing a broker more than your life savings as some people are. Their only option should this go all the way would be to declare themselves bankrupt. With that comes consequences especially if the person is yet to own a house or works in the financial industry were they check on these things making this situation life changing for the worst. Sure people need to have ownership of their mistakes but let's say you risked a few percentage points on an account that you spent years building with a stop and now face this. Have a bit of sympathy for these people instead of telling them to man up and comparing them to a child
 
highbury fx said:
but also have that moral fibre that takes responsibility for the crap trade we all do every now and not try and get the s/b firm to wipe or reduce the loss because you're stropping up. If my 7 year old acted that way she'd go on the naughty step.

nice weekend all :)
Click to expand...

Ironically SB brokers do that all the time including IG ... have a nice weekend as well .
 
forker said:
Easy said when you not facing a situation of owing a broker more than your life savings as some people are. Their only option should this go all the way would be to declare themselves bankrupt. With that comes consequences especially if the person is yet to own a house or works in the financial industry were they check on these things making this situation life changing for the worst. Sure people need to have ownership of their mistakes but let's say you risked a few percentage points on an account that you spent years building with a stop and now face this. Have a bit of sympathy for these people instead of telling them to man up and comparing them to a child
Click to expand...

thats a fair point and i don't mean to be dismissive or nonchalant about a life changing event, thats really not what i'm trying to do.

I sympathise with people that have lost money but i don't think they should all have their negative balances cleared. some should and some should have fills improved but you want me to say we're all devils and tough luck to you lot - nope, that aint the business. its a risk business and this was an extreme move.

i can make a comparison in whatever way i choose and if you think that makes me an a4rse then fine, thats your opinion. i post what i think here and you do the same and if we agree then fine but if not that should be fine also.

fwiw though, i do think a lot of people should man up and not act like a child yes. i think if you lost tens of thousands of pounds on a few pounds a point bet that your life will change for a few months until you sort it out or longer if you don't sort it out but no one forced anyone to take a bet and no one forced the SNB to lie 3 days before and tell the market they support the 1.2000 level still. they lied and they;re a central bank and thats despicable.

why don't you try and articulate what you think of the whole matter rather than tell me what i should be thinking.
 
Jack o'Clubs said:
Story on Bbg this morning that Saxo prepared to go to court to recover CHF losses:

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/20...es-as-clients-told-to-cover-franc-losses.html
Click to expand...

so they truly at it, I thought it was a bluff. at first week after chf event, many broker's client afraid of legal act from their brokers, but eventually roll back the negative balance are the solution taken by most company, even there's stil several adjustment issue. but to had saxo start court their own precious clients, that's a totallly disrespectfull act.
 
Some people are never going to be able to repay the debt. It is far and above what they even dreamed of making in the first place. You could say that the Greek situation is similar. Unless this is renegociated it is going to cause untold misery to whole families, let alone individuals.

It is one thing to say that these people got into this situation and they should be made to repay it. That was my inicial response. I have been spreadbetting for decades and never got into that kind of trouble. If the truth is known, this not the first time that a lot of these people have not been able to repay and have been let off. The other thing is to , actually, get it back. The problem would never go away.

What interests me is stopping these people, by law, from ever borrowing, let alone gambling. asgain.

I think that we should remember the well known fact that the longer a debt goes unpaid, the less keen is the debtor to repay it.. in fact, he resents having to repay it--- tends to find excuses for not repaying it and spends on other things
 
Jack o'Clubs said:
IG had its results call this morning and commented that they've 'begun the process of collecting' on client debts although it's not clear what that means in practice or how aggressive they will be. I would have thought that the business risk of forcing individual punters into bancruptcy and thereby precipitating a major regulatory clampdown on the industry to protect clients from themselves in the future is much greater than simply writing off debts that are hard to collect. The FT is already starting to agitate about lax supervision in the industry and the FCA doesn't like to be seen as having been asleep at the wheel. 100x leverage is so key to the retail FX model that brokers will be very reluctant to goad the regulators by initiating hordes of hard luck stories. Maybe the BBC would even do a sequel to that appalling 'Millions by the Minute' programme they did a few months back. They could call it 'bancruptcies by the bucket load'.
Click to expand...

Exactly !

Why those highway robbing bucket shops don't all and collectively get banned is completely beyond me.

They could do it in Livermores day.

Why can't they today.

Well ok CFD providers - effectively the self-same as spreadbetters or other bookies - are outlawed in the US for obvious reasons.

Coz, the prices those outfits quote have absolutely nothing to do with what real markets are doing.

Quite honestly, anyone here sharp as a stick enough to actually believe bucket shops are quoting inventive prices for the customers benefit to help em make a buck they couldn't with real prices ???

15787a.jpg


:LOL::LOL::LOL:
 
reading this forum section we still 2 major brokers company still unclear about the negative balance issue, saxo and alpari. can write much since dont had any account with them, just my past account with alpari, at times when they still populer due their zulu trader performance. well, I can only hope and pray for the best of all, and the brokerage company may reconsider their decision, not all clients would able/willing to cover such negative amount, they'll struggle eventually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
long eurchf
Replies
0
Views
1K
ps5555
P
S
Will Swiss Central Bank give up EURCHF peg?
Replies
15
Views
4K
sambazone
S
I
EURCHF - What price did you get filled at on long EURCHF close
Replies
12
Views
6K
igeurchfloss
I
L
Saxo CHF Gap Fill Levels Rebased
Replies
4
Views
2K
Steven2805
S
T
EURDKK Liquidity pulled panic on the last Peg!
Replies
1
Views
1K
The Baptist
T
Top