Brokers chasing you for negative account balance

Just want to make sure people are aware of how cmc is handling the event - refunding all clients after the UK financial ombudsman has ruled in client's favour and against CMC Markets.

"...I think that the business hasn't acted fairly... "My conclusion therefore is that the complaint should be upheld."
It goes onto say that cash adjustments should be reversed, any interest on paying negative balances should be refunded along with various compensatory payments for the people stuck in this 10 month saga.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...12Y4N520151104
http://news.forexlive.com/!/cmc-mark...rades-20151021

My lawyers and I have still been unable to gain any response from Interactive Brokers. Has anyone heard anything?

Thanks

Hi, That is great news, I have CCI chasing me for Alpari's account negative balance, I was about to pay it today but now I will reconsider. I have not opened a query with the Financial Ombudsment service to dispute the balance. Is it worthwhile me doing this? are there any other people out there with similar situation with Alpari's negative balance? and have any of you contacted the Financial Ombudsment service? I would like to hear from you.

Thanks

Myself and my broker who was also hit hard have both written to the Financial Ombusman in January. They responded to say they were looking into and would reply in 6 weeks. They never responded. Since then both of us had letters from CCI. I have ignored them as they go to an address overseas and my broker has responded and brought in the help of a lawyer who disputing the large losses he is facing.

Since the news regarding CMC it is now looking more hopeful. I think if one company loses the rest will follow. I am just watching from afar and being copied into the legal correspondence between my brokers lawyer and CCI lawyers.

Update on IG Group

- IG Group have been going around cleaning out smaller negative balances - which I doubt is a fair process although makes for sound commercial practice. However I don't know if this would fall foul of TCF (treating customers fairly) principles.

- The FOS agreed that IG did everything right based on their Terms but still thought it made sense to improve the price from 0.9250 to 1.02493.

- 1.02493 was the price IG achieved for the first 87mn of its hedge which it carried out prior to other customers - if this is not a breach of FCA rules then what is?

Guys, something must be clarified ! (its clear for me after a few months of doing research) (sorry for explaining from the basics and sorry for my english mistakes)

The forex market is not a centralized market. There is no centralized and regulated price.
It is an OTC market. There are market makers and clients. And the market maker determines the price.
Its a hierarchical system, with top-down direction. At the top level of the hierarchical system are the biggest liquidity providers (and the National Bank)

biggest liquidity provider (and National Bank) ------►liquidity provider, forex broker, bank ------► liquidity provider, forex broker, bank ------► liquidity provider, forex broker, bank ------► liquidity provider, forex broker, bank ------► retail client

So a forex broker acts as a client as well if it also has a liquidity provider. In this situation:
a) market maker = forex broker -----> client = retail client
or
b) market maker = liquidity providing forex broker ---> client = forex broker

The biggest liquidity providers at the top level decided to freeze the market for an hour on the 15th January.
During this hour they assessed the situation.
They aggregated how many EURO is offered for sale.
After a few minutes of calculation they said:
"Look guys! Since everybody wants to sell EURO, we can buy your EURO only for 0,8 CHF, at a very discounted price"
And that price was a ripp off !
They could decide relatively very calm during this hour, because it was a halted session, and it was an unilateral and vulnerable situation for the clients. But not for the top liquidity providers. They were in a very comfortable position: manna were streaming and they were the only one who could catch it. At the price they said !
And we lost the controll.

Both the brokers (a) and the clients (b) suck at this situation.
a) The brokers have to accept the price, because there is a contract between the liquidity provider and the broker.
And if there is a liquidity in the pool, they have to forward that rate to their clients.
b) The client have to accept the price, because we had opened the position and since we didnt have enough margin on the account, we lost the conroll over it.

Of course there were market maker brokers that won a lot of money in this situation: they hadnt covered the trades, they were independent of liquidity providers, so they didnt have any loss. They just won the account balance of the clients. It was a game inside the house.

But the winners were the biggest liquidity providers and they are the most responsible.
Forex brokers should go to court against their liquidity providers and not against retail clients.
The liquidity has a top-down direction.
So the court action should have a top-down direction as well. (unfortunatelly its a dream at the moment. Or we just dont know about these court action in the backstage. It is possible that the forex broker won a court action against the liquidity provider but the broker still claims the money from the retail clients....)

We dont have any right to see datas, information without the help of the supervisor.

The problems:
1. forex brokers dont want to publish their prices so we cant check if our broker lie or wasnt aware enough. Or they just simple deceive us.
2. forex brokers stopped forwarding prices earlier than the liquidity provider !! ---> its a breach of contract
3. forex brokers didnt cover our trades at all. In this situation its a pure scam to refer to the liquidity of the market.

Solution on short term:
1. Forex brokers must be forced to publish their historical rates. They have to publish their rates for the supervisor at least. It is impossible that the brokers can escape this.
2. Forex brokers must be invetigated by supervisor authorities.

Solution on long term:
1. Forex market should be centralized.
2. Clients should wake up and go to more transparent markets, and skip all these idiot forex brokers, CFD instruments. This is a ripp off. Sooner or later everybody will see.

centralized were ? USA, Europe ??
because every country or union has interest in keeping their currencies stronger than others, so it's impossible to have a centralized forex market.

But imo this is a good point you made:

It doesnt matter where it is located. Like a stock exchange. Centralized means = seller, buyer can trade on the same platform, with clearing house, so the sellers and buyers can match their offers.
It doesnt mean that there is only one fx market.

Without this it will be a market maker OTC market forever, where the liquidity provider can scam you.
But this is very OFFtopic. And its a dream. And I dont have well-considered and well-prepared concept about this.

Its better for me to leave these fx brokers. (and later come back trading at a more transparent forex market when I finished with this EURCHF nightmare.

Somehow we have to manage to force these f****g fx brokers to publish their historical rates (with tick data).

Any updates on this topic? Tomorrow will mark the 1st anniversary of this Black Swan

I heard that Saxo Bank is going to sue some of their clients in Denmark court (it is easier persuade judges in s homeland jurisdiction). If they succeed then more cases to come.

Yes they are going for the most optimal approach as they understand laws in their own country. However to do this and use test cases still suggests they are unsure whether they did right or wrong. This is just a rumour as I have no proof but heard Saxo clients in Singapore are likely to win.

Only time will tell.

We have yet to hear from Interactive Brokers, ETX and IG Group......wonder what's going on there?
When these firms start suing retail there is going to be a lot of publicity and regulators will be asked what they have done to protect consumers in this light touch regulated space.

www.truefx.com

http://news.forexlive.com/!/new-zeal...aints-20160216

you became famous

Does this mean any success for you?

edited: for some reason you have to click + refresh the link to be able to read it.

any update guys?

does anybody have a court action?

I got a letter from Beeston Shenton Solicitors giving me 10 days to set up a debt of around 12.000 pounds from 390 euros I had in the account at the moment of the event. I paste below what they say about FOS and FSCS. Any idea what to do? any common lawyer?


"Please note that because Alpari is in Special Administration, customer complaints are determined by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme ("FSCS") rather than the Financial Ombudsman Service ("FOS"). The FOS usually only deals with complaints against solvent firms which are able to meet their financial commitments. As a result, the FOS have informed our clients they have been referring any consumers to the FSCS, and themselves have no open, outstanding or "on hold" cases registered against Alpari.

https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Co...ers_LLC_et_al/

The solicitor has a conflict of interest as he is paid by and working for your broker.
Pick the phone up and find out what FOS says about the situation yourself.

I also got a letter from Beeston Shenton Solicitors. And I do not know what to to now...

I have formed a skype group of people affected by this situation. Feel free to contact me for details how to join. Best wishes!

I would like to join the group. Could you please kindly send me the details? Thank you

My experience about Negative Balance
I got this letters
1.) from RoboForex:
Hello,
There are situations, when the market volatility prevents clients from keeping their accounts balance in the black. In these cases, RoboForex offers its clients an opportunity to reset their accounts balance to zero.
The following account types can be reset to zero: Fix-Standard, Pro-Standard (except cTrader-based accounts), Fix-Cent, Pro-Cent. The cumulative total of resets hasnt reached 10,000 USD (or the equivalent in the clients account currency).
The conditions of the "Negative balance protection" http://www.roboforex.com/operations/...ce-protection/
Each situation will be considered individually.
2.) from ActivTrades:
Thank you for your e-mail,
Your account balance going below zero is highly unlikely, as we imply a trade out level of 30%, which protects your balance to become negative in the first place. However, in the unlikely event of your account balance moving below zero, we will credit your account to a zero balance, as the negative balance protection is part of the company's policy.