ECN, order execution, aggregators, liquidity. - page 11
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
http://www.fx.ru/forum/brokery/22427-lubiteljam-haljavy-pamm-schetov-posvjachaetsja.html#post87341
I guess we won't be getting proof of the 100500 yearly rate. Of course not.
There's been a change in the wording of "I'll give you a million."
Previously, it was promised to show that "It's all real." Nice wording. You can hide anything you want behind it.
Now it's just a suggestion to look through the logs of the etixopen.)
Why not open a pam with non-fake offers and rub the opponent's nose in it?
Oh, right - "P.S. Please do not challenge me to a dialogue here or anywhere else in the public domain. Trying hard to defeat the familiar contagion in yourself - the desire to post. Don't be tempted. "
And so I keep posting everywhere )
I am convinced that you, Sasha, are a rotten and sneaky man.
It is claimed that you have True ECN and direct access to Forex(interbank), but the interbank spread is usually much lower. How can this be explained logically?
Also the logic of this business model is not clear - after all it will be relatively easy for traders to prove in court that the interbank spread is actually much lower and this was an additional (hidden) commission and the court may well decide to return all that has been taken from the clients in violation of the contract and misleading them?
How would your company's investors view the serious risks of such a business? Is the kitchen model preferable and less risky for business in this case?
I am convinced that you, Sasha, are a rotten and despicable man.
If you don't mind, I wouldn't like to discuss anything else with you.
That was a counterexample, in the context of discussing the need to defend opinions expressed publicly
It is claimed that you have True ECN and direct access to Forex (interbank), but the interbank spread is usually much lower. How can this be explained logically?
Also the logic of this business model is not clear - after all it will be relatively easy for traders to prove in court that the interbank spread is in reality much lower and this was an additional (hidden) commission and the court may well decide to return all that has been taken from the clients in violation of the contract and misleading them?
How would your company's investors view the serious risks of such a business? Is the kitchen model preferable and less risky for business in this case?
I have never concealed that we have markups, we use them to regulate vendor commissions in particular. In case you didn't know, the commission can be in the form of a commission or a marcap, it can be split.
For example, some of our suppliers offer us liquidity without any commission at all, transferring all the commission to the spread. At the same time they are western large regulated companies, and operate fully in accordance with the laws and requirements of the regulator. What makes you think that a court will make something happen?
Take VTB24, they are giving a spread of about 3-4 pips and they even put out the pictures that this is the exact spread in the interbank, and they prove that the spread around zero is not interbank at all.
The providers also have different spreads, some are offered with a narrower spread, some with a wider one.
A market company has to make money on something, and it is perfectly legitimate to do so on commissions or marcaps, or on their symbiosis. For example FxPro has chosen only commission, it is 2 times bigger than ours, but spreads are about zero; Nefteprom has chosen markups, they have no commission, but spread is about 1.2. We have chosen a symbiosis. And no law or regulator forbids companies to set any kind of commission and any kind of margap. Everything is regulated solely by supply and demand and company policy.
The Kitchener model is in many cases more preferable for the company but not for the trader. I personally am an A-Book adherent, the kitchen does not suit me in any of its manifestations, and every year it gets stronger.
Tell me, why does hrenfx have to prove anything to anyone? Why should he?
The man shared his thoughts (not trivial ones) with his fellow traders:
- his thoughts (not trivial ones),
- his views on the processes taking place in the industry,
- his research,
- his codes.
What's wrong with that? Why should you persecute someone who does not think like the majority.
Personally, unlike you and some other individuals, I am grateful to hrenfx for his work in the community. For me this work has a positive outcome.
Hrenfx, HUGE RESPECT TO YOU FOR YOUR WORK. DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THE WRETCHED.
I have never made any secret of the fact that we have marcapes, we use them to regulate supplier commissions in particular. In case you didn't know, the commission can be in the form of a commission or a markup, it can be split.
For example, some of our suppliers offer us liquidity without any commission at all, transferring all the commission to the spread. At the same time they are western large regulated companies, and operate fully in accordance with the laws and requirements of the regulator. What makes you think that a court would force something there?
The whole question is who pays the markup. If it is deposited by you, and not coming from the liquidity provider as part of the total amount of its spread and commission, then by any logic, it is a fee withdrawn by you, and not what is taken by the provider as the sum of these components and is called as the provider's spread, relative to the trader who trades with you. It is also easily proven mathematically that the sum does not change when you rearrange the sums, i.e. it does not matter what the internal breakdown is on the spread, commission and marcap, as long as their sum is constant, because it determines the amount of your payments to the provider. By the same logic, the trader also pays you. Isn't it so? So legally there is no evidentiary problem, especially if you yourself admit that you pay some kind of markup - a hidden commission and the logic of this payment is not described in the contract with clients and in the advertisement.
The fact that the other major banks also do the same does not guarantee that the court will take their side. So far there is no logic to justify them in such cases because there is a clear violation of the contract and misleading and such precedents have been when the banks have been punished for manipulating the commissions.
Again, why not do business honestly and show the real spread (deduction to the supplier) and the total commission added? The amount is the same, after all.
The whole question is who is contributing the marcup. If it is paid by you and not coming from the liquidity provider as part of his total spread and commission, then by any logic, this is the commission withdrawn by you, and not what is taken by the provider as the sum of these sums and is called as the provider's spread, relative to the trader who trades with you. It is also easily proven mathematically that the sum does not change when you rearrange the sums, i.e. it does not matter what the internal breakdown is on the spread, commission and marcap, as long as their sum is constant, because it determines the amount of your payments to the provider. By the same logic, the trader also pays you. Isn't it so? So legally there is no evidentiary problem, especially if you yourself admit that you pay some kind of markup - a hidden commission and the logic of this payment is not described in the contract with clients and in the advertisement.
Well, the fact that other major banks also do the same does not guarantee that the court will take their side because so far there is no logic for the court to acquit them in such cases because there is a clear violation of the contract and misleading and there have already been similar precedents when banks were punished for manipulating the commissions.
Again, why not do business honestly and show the real spread (deduction to the supplier) and the total commission added? The amount is the same, after all.
You are not suing M-video which sells a TV set one thousand times more expensive than Media Markt, are you? There are low-cost companies which can afford to operate with minimal mark-up, but they develop slowly, or don't develop at all, have few services and so on. There are companies with more serious costs, they are forced to raise the price of goods. Many companies offer affiliate services and are forced to raise spreads even more to pay their partners. All this is legal. But the client also has the right to choose a company with lower costs.
Legally, a client trades with the company, not with suppliers, and the company provides them with its prices, which the client either accepts and trades with, or does not accept and does not trade with.
Doing business honestly does not mean allowing clients to pick their own pockets and find out how much and on what the company earns. To do business honestly means not to steal pips from the client in the form of artificial delays or slippage.
And the option to set high commission and earn only on it has a marketing problem. Large commission scares away clients and they do not pay much attention to the spread. In addition, as I wrote above, markups have another important function: regulating the commission of suppliers.
For example, one counterparty gives a 0.3 spread and an $18 commission, while another gives a 0.4 spread and a $10 commission. If we do nothing, the main turnover will go to where the spread is lower and we will pay $18 instead of $10. Why do we need this? We add 0.1 to the spread to the first one and it already takes less, and if it does, we do not lose the extra $8 but compensate for it with a markup.
Almost all companies do this (including the big ones). And this forces vendors to compete with each other for turnover and give good spreads and commissions, otherwise they drop out of the top buk and get nothing.
However, it should be noted that even among large vendors there is a thing that they give good spreads and commissions, but over time they worsen performance and often slip. You must have a tool to quickly detect and stop them. As soon as you give them a warning, everything comes back to a good level (as they say, it did not work). We have such a toolkit. So, there is turbidity in the higher echelons of forex as well.
Why am I not aware of it? Not only am I aware of it, but I can also see the background to your claims.
I wouldn't want to get on a first-name basis with you.
Demands can't have a subtext.)
I don't know why you don't know.