So ETX Want To Punish Anyone Who Doesn't Use His A/C At Least Once in 4 Months!

[peakoil]

Beware folks - ETX are very shortly proposing to make this change to their standard spread betting Terms and Conditions:


"
Clause 3.5 has been amended as follows:
“We consider a Trading Account to be dormant or inactive when there have been no open Trades on
the account on a trading day. We may deactivate your Trading Account if it has been dormant or
inactive for a period of 120 calendar days or more. Where reasonably
practicable we will give you
advance notice (by email) of any deactivation but this may not always be possible and/or practical.
In the event you receive a notice of pending deactivation or your account has been deactivated
without you receiving notice and
you wish it to remain active or be reactivated, please contact our
support team by email.
We will charge an account maintenance fee in relation to inactive or dormant accounts. Charges for inactive or dormant trading accounts can be seen on our website. "

Frankly I find this proposed change to be outrageous. Spead-Betting is after all still gambling, and if persons wish, for whatever reason, to take a sustained break from gambling, they should not be penalised.

Do others feel that forcing people to make or keep open at least one trade in any four month period is unacceptable?

Please remember that the market leaders only impose charges on accounts that have been inactive for 2 years, or longer. Now that is as fair as it should be: Fair play to IG!

Meanwhile, instead of ETX's trying to force persons more frequently to use their inactive accounts, they should instead respect that persons must be able to take a prolonged break from gambling - without any fear of being punished for doing so.

Besides, If ETX is finding that too many persons aren't using their accounts enough, then surely they should instead be thinking of incentives to get them to trade more - & not effectively punish them for such few months of inactivity!

All agreed?

 

[forker]

I think you blowing this out of proportion. Just reopen when you return or go somewhere else. I don't see how 120 days is a problem.

 

[lexcorp]

Do you need to ask them to close your account if you don't use it anymore then, to avoid getting fees thrown at you? I still have an account but don't use it.

I stopped using them about 6 months ago. I funded a small account of about £500 for a bit of fun. Turned it into about 3k over the course of about 1 month. I then tried t take all of the money out and they couldn't have possibly made it any harder if they tried! First of all they completely ignored my online requests. After about th 5th attempt, they told me I had to ring them. (no mention of that on the online form)
Then when I rang them the guy practically begged me not to withdraw the money. I basically told him that I wanted to take all fo the money out (after him suggesting a number of times that I leave a lump in there). Eventually we were on the same page and i'd confirmed that I wanted to withdraw it all. He then tried to end the phonecall by saying ''So are you happy for me to go ahead and do that for you and leave half in the account?!'' I thought I was going mad. We got there in the end, but Something must be going on there! lol

 

[forker]

Didn't they try buy alpari clients

 

[peakoil]

I think you blowing this out of proportion. Just reopen when you return or go somewhere else. I don't see how 120 days is a problem.

"Just re-open when you return" = yeah thanks for that, and actually I only use ETX on occasion because their competitors are usually better, is my reason. Anyway, good for you that 120 days is all you get before they start charging you, but I can't agree with your solution - that just means more hassles due to all the ever increasing paperwork etc., needed to open/re-open accounts these days!

I'm just hoping I'm not the only one who cares about 'you've got only four months or we'll start charging your account for just having money in it.'

Call me old fashioned, but I remember a time when institutions were only too glad to have money sitting in an account with absolutely no interest to pay the account holder on it...

 

[peakoil]

@lexcorp - an interesting response. Hmmm, maybe all's not well at ETX indeed!? That's especially if your experience is any reflection of the state of things, then it's arguably an ominous sign - when clients have to undergo such kerfuffle in withdrawing what would be a relatively modest amount to the big players.

If others report similar experiences, maybe it really will be better just to close out and move on...

 

[forker]

"Just re-open when you return" = yeah thanks for that, and actually I only use ETX on occasion because their competitors are usually better, is my reason. Anyway, good for you that 120 days is all you get before they start charging you, but I can't agree with your solution - that just means more hassles due to all the ever increasing paperwork etc., needed to open/re-open accounts these days!

I'm just hoping I'm not the only one who cares about 'you've got only four months or we'll start charging your account for just having money in it.'

Call me old fashioned, but I remember a time when institutions were only too glad to have money sitting in an account with absolutely no interest to pay the account holder on it...

They are in the business of making money off people like you. Why would they want to sit with dormant accounts that aren't making them money. They also don't want connection spongers (people using their platform to view data only).

 

[peakoil]

"They are in the business of making money off people like you". Etc.

Is that so? Well I learned something new today, but, alas, that wasn't it. As you seem to have some difficulty understanding my point, I'll happily reiterate it for you: 4 months is too little time. That is to say, of all the Spread Bet Companies, 4 months before they start penalising clients for leaving money with them, is at the very extreme end of acceptability. I still trust that I'm not the only one who would feel that way.

IG Index, for example, start to charge persons for inactivity after TWO years. Now that is, by comparison, reasonable.

Or, to put it at its very simplest for you - I'm not at all arguing about the principle of it (..no matter how much you can't get over seeing it that way), I'm actually arguing about the reasonableness of the time-frame change: i.e., once it was reasonable, soon it will not be.

 

[lexcorp]

I've got various accounts with all of the big spreadbetters, but i've not used any of them in years as I mainly trade futures with IB nowadays.
I don't appear to have been charged any money by any of them though? Would they just start taking money out of your bank account if the trading balance is empty?

Do I need to ask them to close my various accounts to avoid all of this nonsense?

 

[peakoil]

Good questions lexcorp. The thing is that each Spread Betting company appears to have its own criteria for inactivity and how to handle it. One thing's for sure though - many give clients plenty of leeway, and a few don't.

OTOH, if you check with them, and you do happen to find any others with fewer than 6 months of leeway, before penalties are incurred, then perhaps you would be good enough to add them to this thread please. Thank you.

 

[kalott]

why not send out a email as a reminder in time before they do anything on the account?

if its trading they want?

 

[forker]

"They are in the business of making money off people like you". Etc.

Is that so? Well I learned something new today, but, alas, that wasn't it. As you seem to have some difficulty understanding my point, I'll happily reiterate it for you: 4 months is too little time. That is to say, of all the Spread Bet Companies, 4 months before they start penalising clients for leaving money with them, is at the very extreme end of acceptability. I still trust that I'm not the only one who would feel that way.

IG Index, for example, start to charge persons for inactivity after TWO years. Now that is, by comparison, reasonable.

Or, to put it at its very simplest for you - I'm not at all arguing about the principle of it (..no matter how much you can't get over seeing it that way), I'm actually arguing about the reasonableness of the time-frame change: i.e., once it was reasonable, soon it will not be.

So what. Are you unable to make money trading or do you just like bitching about stupid things

 

[jkane]

place is begging for business

They spam too

stay FAR AWAY

 

[lexcorp]

It appears that if your balance is zero (like mine is ever since I took all of my winnings out) then they stop charging you this £15 per month fee.
Maybe starting to make sense now as to why the guy seemed desperate for me to leave money in there! lol
(he could see from my history that i barely used the account)

They don't take the money out of your bank though, which is what I was concerned about.

Still, I plan to close my account. I don't trust them not to keep introducing other ways of getting money back off customers, and I've traded futures for a few years now anyway so don't need them.

regards.

 

[peakoil]

Cheers Lexcorp, it's nice to know that some people still get the point around here... ;-)

 

[Fintrader]

Beware folks - ETX are very shortly proposing to make this change to their standard spread betting Terms and Conditions

Peakoil, did ETX send you an email to tell you about this, or did you see it on their website? Do you know if it affects forex as well as spread betting?

I've got an MT4 account with them (transferred over from Alpari - seemed an easier way to get my money out than waiting for the receivers) and so far I haven't heard anything about an inactivity fee.

 

[peakoil]

Good afternoon Fintrader, What happened was this - they recently emailed me notice of upcoming changes to their terms and conditions. So I took out the ol' fine toothcomb, brushed it off and eventually discovered on reading through same, that most of which are neither here nor there. A minor this, a minor that. But... then there was the change which I reported above...

BTW, There was another change at ETX, which they implemented in late November 2015, which people may not have noticed and which (IMO) at least some of us should also consider: in any monthly period, you're allowed up to five withdrawals of over £100 each, completely free of charge. After 5 withdrawals in a month (or for any withdrawal of under £100), they now charge £10 per withdrawal. Call it a 'processing fee' if you will. Needless to say, I'd have no qualms about calling it something else altogether. Hmmm, still, to be fair to them, it's best I just leave it at that for now.

Anyway, and as long as you would take my advice on a DYOR basis please, I'd be surprised if these changes won't also affect forex as well as spread betting. I take that implication because this is how they worded their email, "Please be informed that our ETX Capital Customer Terms and Conditions, Privacy Policy and Order Execution have been amended and will take effect on 31 January 2016. The revised Customers Terms and Conditions, Privacy Policy and Order Execution are available on our website." In other words, I took it that "ETX Capital Customer Terms and Conditions" means that the changes affect all clients, and not just spreadbet clients. Again, I'm taking that on an E&OE basis.

So what to do? With all respect, I'd suggest to you that the very best thing to do in your case is to either email or call them and ask whether the proposed & upcoming 'inactivity fee changes' cover all clients of ETX or just Spreadbet clients? Also, if you didn't get that email, may I suggest that you should try to find out what happened - did it, for example, somehow end up in a bulk mail folder?

Cheers for now & HTH

 

[Splitlink]

This does not concern me until it happens, like most things, but I have been trading with Finspreads for decades without incurring these charges.

Out of curiosity I looked at their FAQs and thought that you might be interested in this

"Where no activity has occurred on your account for a period of 12 months or more, your account will be deemed inactive. Activity is defined as placing a trade and/or applying an order on your account or maintaining an open position during this period. A monthly inactivity fee of £25 (or equivalent to your cash balance if less than £25) will be applied for accounts that are inactive for 12 months or more. "

This charge is not, exactly, new. It happens to most trading and SB companies, I believe. The main reason is that some wealthier clients are inclined to hide their money in these accounts, out of sight of the tax people and I expect that this causes a nuisance to the company concerned.

Perhaps I am wrong about this, though.

 

[peakoil]

Aye, it's fair enough that a small inactivity fee should apply, especially when it comes to the smaller players, and only where any account becomes inactive for a year+

I've a lingering suspicion that ETX's proposed reduction to only 120 days, before clients are penalised for inactivity, is quite possibly the quickest 'rush to punish', of the entire spread bet industry. Still, if anyone can come up with a a less accommodating comparative policy, then I would very much stand corrected, in saying that.

 

[timetotrade simon]

Actually the real reason for this is rather more boring.

Many exchanges now charge 'per person' who looks at the data. Gone are the days of blanket permissions.

If a spread betting company has a client who is just looking at data and not trading then that client is actually costing the company money.

The Fees are not small either, I believe that the LSE has become very greedy indeed charging £4 per month per client (plus an annual fixed charge). So if you log in once a month you will cost a company using LSE data £4 . And the SB companies will be using data from a wide array of exchanges.