IC Markets margin call

I also spoke to Angus, but did not come to any agreement with him and found the conversation to be more of a public relations exercise than a genuine attempt to solve the problem. To date IC Markets have not been able to provide me with data that supports their decision to shut down my account.

One of the rules that govern their ability to trade is fairness, and in addition under the terms of their client agreement clients should monitor their margins. It is not possible for clients to monitor their margins if no, or erroneous data is feed to them.

I agree with Princeton that they should have stopped their system when they do not have the ability to provide fair pricing.

Reluctantly I now have to take my claim to Fos.

I'm in the same boat, i lost 2000euro in usdchf. They adjust to 0,67 like thr most clients. But with some exepcions to 0,91.
http://www.forexpeacearmy.com/forex-...8-16.35.24.jpg
They are unbelievable

Glad to know that IC Markets are trying their level best to help their clients. Like princeton mentioned i have been trying out ICM's demo account for the past few months especially for their tight ECN spreads. Let's face it, almost all brokers have been affected by the CHF move, with major players like FXCM and alpari taking hits, i was curious to find out how ICM fared. Seems there has been a number of trader queries requesting for pending adjustment, but the fact that ICM has tried to establish contact with their clients regularly via mail and the head of trading desk, Angus calling clients directly to clarify their issues and queries is a real good move to assure traders of their commitment.

Well I am glad that IC Markets is doing the right thing to rectify the situation to some traders' satisfaction. And just as I suspected all along, IC Markets must have been to a certain degree under pressure from their liquidity "providers", those "prime banks" to accept those quotes and pay up the losses that those liquidity f***ers single-handedly created in the first place by first shutting down quoting system and then putting in outside of market prices that were tremendously detrimental to traders. I hope IC markets are not getting squeezed on their end by their "banks" now that they actually managed to adjust some of the negative balances for some traders.

Regarding maintaining the quotes during the news time, I actually agree with IC Market's decision in keeping the quotes alive from an ethical point of view. And IC Markets was not the only broker who kept streaming quotes during and after the SNB event. The reason why is because of the uniqueness of the instrument that we are trading. We are not trading a piece of stock or real estate or a work of art, we are trading MONEY itself, the very medium of exchange that people use and depend on for their everyday transactions. There is a reason why the forex market never sleeps because the world never sleeps and the world doesn't stop using money. When one part of the world sleeps, another part is awake going about transacting in all kinds of products & services. So even though we retail forex industry is small but we actually help provide the world economy as a whole 1) price completeness and 2) price continuity so at any time, anywhere around the world when somebody somewhere wants to know the value of one currency in terms of another, there is a value readily available, up-to-the minute, second and instantly because a country's currency can be instantly changed according to what's happened to that country. And it's not correct to use the value of the currency that is no longer reflecting its true value. This may sound condescending but this is true.

And this is the reason why we NEVER shut down the currency market like the stock market no matter what the news is, NFP announcement, Crimea annexing to part of Russia and etc. We are not the stock market where they do trading halts as soon as there is tiny bit of news and sometimes multiple times a day. No matter what happens around the world, the currency market is always open!! It's because people don't depend on stocks for their daily activities and yet people do rely on currency for their daily lives because this is what they use to buy food!!! And this is why I believe what those liquidity "providers" like Deutsche and Citi did with shutting down their quote system was so despicable because they single-handedly erased the value of CHF vs. all other currencies. What if at that time somebody whats to exchange CHF? They wouldn't know which value to take and they weren't be able to. People were lining up around monnie exchange kiosks around the world not able to do anything. Those liquidiity "providers" really didn't give a f*** about the impact of their action, not giving a s*** about people around the world depending on a seamless and uninterrupted foreign exchange market to carry on their daily lives. And even if you do want to shut down the quote system to do some sort of "trading halts", you are supposed to do it BEFORE the SNB news if you REALLY believe this news has too large of an impact on the foreign exchange market that it would cause undue volatility. In stock markets, trading halts all happen BEFORE the company's release of any important news; they don't do it in the middle of it or after. So even in doing the trading halts, those "big banks" didn't even do it properly. You don't keep the trading open and then once you see that the market is in your favour, then you halt trading so you can come back and corner the market and make a killing. Their action didn't just drive the retail forex market into turmoil; they drove the entire foreign exchange market into turmoil.

But for brokers like IC Markets, even though I actually believe they did the right thing by keeping the trading open, unfortunately they became a victim just like all of us traders to the unscrupulous action of those liquidity "providers" and really became prey to their unfair dealings as I have stated many times in my previous posts. BUT what I don't agree with IC Markets is how they try to avoid taking responsibilities for their own action and try to pass the consequences onto the traders in passing the the bad prices that they received from the liquidity f***ers onto us traders knowing they were wrong and knowing they were unfair. I believe if you were doing the right thing, you should do it all the way till the end! If it was the liquidity f***ers who f***ed up the price quotes deliberately just to take advantage of the liquidity "void" created by those "prime banks", then they should deal with the liquidity "providers", the creator and the source of the prolem; it shouldn't be passed onto us traders for us to hold the bag.

So just like what I suggested for the traders to appeal to the regulators, the ASIC and FOS for this issue, I would suggest the same for IC Markets to turn around and launch complaints against those liquidity "providers" for their unfair dealing practices to ASIC or FSC or whatever the jurisdiction that those liquidity "providers" are under. Why not? IC Markets is clients to those liquidity "providers" just like we are clients of IC Markets. So if we can complain to ASIC about IC Markets so can IC Markets about those liquidity f***ers. Nobody should be above the law and those "big banks" are regulated by the same regulators that oversees brokers like IC Markets. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29323483 And if we retail traders shouldn't accept unfair prices neither should brokers.

What you talking there? We talk about our money mister. Exepcions are not fair and ICMarkets are not fair. They are robbers

I saw that some people in forexsignals.com and here already got some money back after the newspaper article http://www.smh.com.au/business/marke...#ixzz3Py4OV9EE so there should be no reason why u dont get favorable adjustments too.

As for liquidity providers, it is always too easy for IC Markets to blame them? Like someone else mentioned, why dont the other brokers using the SAME liquidity providers quote the same ridiculous rates? Why is this only specific to IC Markets? 0.05 USDCHF like the other gentleman mentioned he got for his long which stopped him bad (strangely we dont hear any short cashing in on that price???), was not seen on ANY OTHER BROKER except IC Markets. So how can it be the liquidity provider's fault? If it really is, why dont they just show us the trade receipts to prove it, then these guys can settle it with the banks themselves?

Some things just dont add up. And seriously, better off the quote if it is going to do that ridiculous price or get people really terrible spreads. Nobody will want to be in those shoes.

Dont be fooled. they only started being really active adjusting trades thanks to the media article. before that, you see their bad attitude saying all quotes are final and correct, no other adjustments to be made etc. do a check on the dates and timeline of events before the article (nobody was adjusted) and on the day of the article and after, where u have some adjustments made.

A really good broker would not need the media to carry the story before adjusting for clients.

Giannigr, it is always about the money. IC Markets are adjusting the trades for all traders that have contacted them. Based on your screenshot i can see that the adjusted trade was closed at 0.91, which seems to be right. What exactly is your issue here?

he is complaining he got 0.67 but some lucky people (as shown in the link) got 0.91 and doesnt think it is fair.

Maryanne, I think you need to get your facts right before coming and posting irrelevant stuff here. I suggest you read Princeton's post about his conversation with Angus to understand what exactly caused this movement in ICM's platform from the LQ provider's feed( That is if you basically understand how a ECN broker works).

Also, I Just read the article link that you shared, ignoring the fact that the article makes no sense and giving vague information. That article was published on 27th January. even though i was not in any chf trade from my IC account when this happened, i have a number of trader friends in our group who trade live with IC Markets and i can confirm you that trade adjustments have been made much before the article was published. They have been contacted by IC Markets as early as 17th Jan to submit the Trade request form and the adjustments have been made in the course of the week, If you could have had the patience to go through rest of the threads, you would have seen that there are a number of traders who have discussed about the mails that they have been getting from the IC Markets staff.

The issue is that they adjusted my account with 0,67 usdchf for a pending order without sl/tp and was enough money in the account to keep the trade open but the trade closed with big loss but for other clients they make exceptions and adjusted to 0,91.
If this is not robbery what is then?
I will send a complain to ASIC and FOS

Dear Joshi90 I also think you need to get your facts right.

If just your friends got the adjustments, then it isnt really representative of the retail trader population is it and also why didnt they post about it? Go read the complaints here by Princeton, Hellhound and the others. Then go to forexsignals where Nick was still trying to sort out the adjustments even on that date (only 1 guy was adjusted then they say and the rest on day of article or after). Then go to donnaforex and compare. Do your friends number more than these people?

I used to be a fan of IC Markets until I realised there are many things not right about them. This is just one of it. If you care to look below the surface, you will see other things. Now, don't say I didnt warn you when u end up having trouble months later

Exactly, what Princeton post failed to explain is why that guy got 0.05 on his USDCHF when no other broker with same liquidity provider got it? Any answer to that, mr-know-it-all?

Pretty obvious Joshi90 is so biased that he chose to misread your post. He seems very adamant to defend them, makes me wonder if hes one of their IB or affiliate.

And yes, they should explain to you why u didnt get that 0.91. Or maybe you should ask Joshi90 who seems to know it all?

It's seems like this

Maryanne, what exactly do you want to prove here? I think you don't realize the fact that IC Markets made efforts to adjust the erronous feeds provided by the LQ providers. If IC Markets are only interested to make adjustments to "specific" people like you think, they won't try to contact the traders here. You only want to talk about the complaints made by princeton, hellhound etc. why aren't you accepting the fact that they were personally contacted and explained what exactly happened.

And for god's sake try and understand how a True ECN environment works before asking stupid questions! Same LQ provider doesn't necessarily mean same price to all brokers. Some brokers choose to stop the feeds in times of high volatility like news, announcements etc. whereas IC Markets provide constant streaming.

Still in 146k negative ballance, nothing happened yet....

Constant streaming during news is one thing. Constant streaming in all conditions without a sanity check is just insane. No-one can risk trading that.

Ideally i guess traders would want prices to be streamed in all conditions(News, announcements etc) without any freezing/ execution issues. IC Markets uses currenex platform, so if there are no prices as reference rates at a given time, it will let the first price coming through the system.

IC Markets has decided to Cover for the Client Negative Losses from Swiss Franc Volatility.

Please find the latest official Press release announcement made by IC Markets here: http://forexmagnates.com/ic-markets-...nc-volatility/

I agree with IC Markets continuing to provide quotes in all time too (See my post explaining this in Post #124, all the way up/down before all the angry posts from MaryAnne) as I believe that is the right thing to do and so does many of the brokers who chose to provide ongoing streams. BUT what I don't agree is IC Markets not willing to make things right for people who had been taken advantage of with the bad fills because of IC Market's rightful business decision of continuing to provide quotes at all times. These prices were not just bad prices that's a little bit outside of the market; they were several K+ pips away from the fair market price!! And IC Markets knew and admitted that these were the wrong prices and yet they still chose to insist on them and demand people to pay for those negative balances. This is not right and this is what Maryanne was angry at. But you never know, this might be pressure from their liquidity "providers", their banks who, just like IC Markets who chose to adjust some traders' transactions more favourably earlier than others, might have chosen to adjust some brokers' trades more favourably than others.

I am glad that IC Markets have now decided to cover negative balances. It's a right step in the right direction if IC Markets is not able to adjust trades using a fair close on a case-by-case basis. You never know they might be in negotiation with their banks regarding these negative balances and maybe just coincidentally, after the publishing of the article, they have now decided to adjust the trades more fairly. Or maybe just like in the world, some people needs more persuasion than others to do the right thing. The most important thing is IC Markets at least decided to do the right thing at the end. There are other brokers who are even more unscrupulous like Saxo Bank that absolutely insists on retroactively adjusting trades with unfair prices and demanding traders to pay for the artificially created negative balances.

But I have said it before and I'll say it again, if IC Markets have been wronged by those liquidity "providers", they shouldn't absorb the losses in covering those negative balances. They should go to ASIC and FOS themselves to recover them. I don't want to see IC Markets getting squeezed on both ends because eventually it will come back to us traders and we are going to end up paying for it in one way or another. If IC Markets needs to recover any losses from this SNB crisis, it should be from the liquidity "providers" and if that's not possible, then from FOS.