Brokers are not obliged to fulfill stop loss - True or Morality?

http://www.businessinsider.sg/flash-...angry-2017-12/

I'm using IC market and Thinkforex. They have specifically mentioned. They do not have to fulfill those orders in high volatility times.

So those victims didn't have a hard stop in place or brokers didn't have enough liquidity or are trading against their clients' position.

It happened when Swiss decided not to limit their currency and many brokers including fxcm had to close shop.

Conclusion?

Hedging?

Option 1: limit time presence in a market, therefor limit your exposure to such risk

Option 2: limit size of you positions, so such a risk does not have substantial effect on your activity in the market

Option 3: only for people with deep pockets, own a market so you control when and if such a risk occurs

Golden Rule: make yourself anti-fragile.

Hedging? Do you want to do it manually? Then you will have to be glued to a screen. Or maybe you want to have automatic opposite direction order? But if you stop loss did not execute, what guarantee you have your other order will? And maybe when it execute you will have much much wider hedge than you planned in the first place, meaning you have problem with large(er) floating loss

I've tried Martingale. Blew up many times. Hedging via straddle. When one trade close the other trade gets open. Limit orders.

Profit => 0 ? ((Option 1 || Option 2) && Golden Rule) || Option 3

Very true. Under "normal" market conditions your stop losses and take profits will be fulfilled. However, during sharp moves either high impact news or not will result in your broker to freeze and cause your stops to no longer be honored. Just as it can work against you, it can also work in your favor.

this probably means you are trading with a chop-shop operation. Move your funds somewhere safe.

Some things to query is whether the regulator in your jurisdiction requires that clients' funds are held in a separate account from the firm's operational funds and secondly if there is a client account protection scheme. This would be a scheme that firms must belong to and which would finance reimbursement of clients' funds up to a specified maximum in the event of a member firm going bust.

Another issue worth considering is that most single day price events that could be called Black Swans actually aren't. That is, big price falls generally come out of a downtrend, big price rises generally come out of an uptrend. This is why no traders should have been long going into the Wall Street Crash 1929, nor 9-11 in 2001 nor the EUR/CHF crash in 2015.

Hello Newbietofx,

FXCM I still very much active. As of October 2017, there were over 121,000 active accounts traded at FXCM with $192 billion in customer trading volume for the month, and you can find our metrics released on a monthly basis here.

Jason

Half truths and quarter truths

I would not put even a cent into FXCM. Their owner, Global Brokerage, filled for bankruptcy. Obviously Jason will tell you that this is FXCM US-whatever and fund are (supposedly) separated -whatever, but considering history of frauds, penalties, financial mishandling and shady structure, just put FCXM in the same bin as Israeli binary gambling houses. Too much clever accounting happening under surface. Trust is hard to earn and goes off easily in a puff, in case of FXCM in many puffs

"November 12, 2017

Following the close of equity markets in the US on Friday afternoon, Global Brokerage Inc (NASDAQ:GLBR), formerly known as FXCM Inc, announced that it will be filing for “Chapter 11” protection under the United States Bankruptcy Code, as part of a planned reorganization of the company.

Global Brokerage’s main asset is its 50.1% holding in FXCM Group LLC, which operates the FXCM Retail FX brand.

FXCM reported negative earnings of $28.2 million for the quarter ending March 1, 2017 and held $141.7 million in cash. They owe $121 million to Leucadia.[27][28] Global Brokerage owes another $163 million to convertible note holders"

https://www.leaprate.com/forex/broke...nkruptcy-fxcm/

BTW, self-professed metrics Jason trying to sneak in, must be approved by the marketing department, before see public light

Well, it's a freaking shame that "broker" is still active,
and specially that after FXCM's fiasco,
Twee has not banned everything related to them like yourself.

I guess thieves' puppets speak the same language.

Hello Jdieieh,

Your numbers are incorrect. As mentioned in our Nov. 18 quarterly financial release, we repaid $55.8 million of our loan with Leucadia and now have $67.6 million of principal outstanding on our original $300 million loan. Since 2015 we have stated our focus on paying down the Leucadia loan and have worked to do just that. FXCM has no responsibility or obligation for GLBR’s debt or other obligations.

Our metrics have been monthly released since at least 2010. The data is very transparent.

You’re obviously not a fan of FXCM, and I respect if you have decided not to trade with FXCM. You may see the servicing of our clients and interaction with the forex community as ‘marketing’, but we see it as the right thing to do to help our traders and the community as we (I) have done since 2009…and demonstrated by our interaction on the forum. And despite your sentiments, we will continue to provide the best service and products possible such as the release of our new HTML5 platform this week, a new soon to be released REST API and much more.

Jason

Those numbers are NOT mine. Go and argue with LeapRate about them. But I cannot see why they should try to show false numbers, they dont have any incentive to do so. Other resources are easily available on the net to anyone to search and check.

But when I read all below - just very recent news - without going too much into past, that make me think again about FXCM/Global Brokerage. Strangely enough, other well regarded brokers do not have such a publicity. That means EITHER: A) industry journalism decided to wage massive collective war against FXCM/Global Brokerage OR B) FXCM/Global Brokerage has massive problem with honest law-compliant practices. Which one?

"Nature of “order flow” payments now at center of mega lawsuit against FXCM"
https://financefeeds.com/nature-orde...-lawsuit-fxcm/

"FXCM’s “flash crash” narrative is merely a smokescreen, according to plaintiffs in securities fraud case"
https://financefeeds.com/fxcms-flash...es-fraud-case/

"Global Brokerage steps up efforts to have “mega lawsuit” dismissed"
https://financefeeds.com/global-brok...uit-dismissed/

"Largest US Forex Broker FXCM Shut Down and Permanently Banned from NFA"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...tly-banned-nfa

"FXCM and founders fined USD7m over forex fraud"
https://www.hedgeweek.com/2017/02/07...er-forex-fraud

"FXCM fined and ordered to leave U.S. market by CFTC"
https://www.forexfraud.com/forex-art...t-by-cftc.html

"Massive FXCM lawsuit case involves fraud and market manipulation"
https://atozforex.com/news/massive-f...-manipulation/

You would think that your stops are guaranteed, especially since your stops are actually pending orders in the opposite direction, so if a broker is blowing past your stops they are most likely using a dealing desk.

Note; I'm not directing this message to the original OP. I address it to a newb who might be reading, because I see this problem time and time again.

It's in the fine print. Every broker. Every time. If it's not in the fine print, then you can sue them and they don't want that. They hope your greed and impatience will make you overlook this very important thing or they wish to prey upon naivety. This is especially true of American retailers who are brought up with the sentiment of "The customer is always right." and that "Just throw money at the problem and all will be well." This attitude is one that every broker loves to dine on. Of course, the broker's are going to state in the fine print, "We wont' be held responsible [insert immoral behavior here]."

I'm poor. I'm nothing. What little I have to toss to the wild is hard-earned. I cannot understand why bigger players would toss their money into a broker without reading the fine print, without checking the regulators to see where and when said broker has been charged, fined or admonished (in the US). They all are guilty and it's not hard to figure out what their game is. When you have a basic overview of each broker's corruption, you can decide to learn how to trade around it. It's a huge part of risk management. You also need to know who is failing so you can bail, diversify or implement some other risk management strategy against a totally immoral industry.

Are there good brokers? I'm guessing there are, but I haven't enough money to meet these good guys. My goal is to have that happen, but before that I must live in reality: They want to steal my money in every way possible and even when I win, they're not going to want to cough it up. That's my take on it. Not sure if it's a realistic pictures, but by the data I've read ... pretty tough.

That being said: in the end, for the smaller traders, you want to pick a broker that is already fat and happy and watch if they continue to be fat and happy. Doesn't matter "how" they're fat and happy as long as it's not off me and my money. And as soon as possible, head to the real deal broker even paying commissions for the risk stability.

Just my 2cents left on my 2dollars.

Note: I am not an expert or professional. I am, however, a survivor of the markets.

Trade safe.

edited: took out the trash