I didn't survive that night (on GBP) - the deposit went negative. - page 4
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
all stops were bought back... it's for the people that they made a fuss ...... so, if we fall below the shadow, then the return to the shadow zone is guaranteed, to the midpoint of stop buybacks. if he does not sell his purchases to the bears... and you have to look at the reports.
We will not argue about who bought out what and who had to provide liquidity.
There are facts that there was a gap and the DC of the topic starter could not close the deal at the stated price because of the lack of liquidity at that time, as a result of which the account was negative.
If the counterparty to the transaction was the DC of the topic starter (the transaction was executed within the company), it (the DC) had to close (buy from the topic starter) at stop out or stop loss price (if it was) and the minus should not be. If the deal was placed on the market by DC, then the counterparty was someone else and the absence of a buyer did not allow to close the deal at the required price.
If the counterparty in the transaction of the top starter was his DC (the transaction was executed within the company), he (the DC) had to close (buy from the top starter) at the price of a stop out or stoploss (if it was) and the minus should not be, in theory. If the deal was led to the market by DC then the counterparty was someone else and the absence of the buyer did not allow to close the deal at the required price.
I have always focused on the legal side of the problem (there is no point in considering unreasonable behavior of the brokerage company)(.
Where is it written in the brokerage agreements/regulations for real accounts that stop out is executed differently depending on, for example, account type?
I have three brokerage companies, nothing like that. The stopout is indicated in the terminal, you can look up each symbol.
I'm always focusing on the legal side of the problem (there's no point in considering the unrestrained behaviour of the brokerage companies).
Where is it written in the brokerage agreements/regulations for real accounts that the stop out is executed differently depending on, for example, the account type?
I have three brokerage companies, nothing like that. The stopout is in the terminal, you can see it for each symbol.
I don't know if it's written in the rules or not. But the market is the market. If you move away from the theme of forex and take a simple example. To sell something, you need that someone wants to buy it. For example, you sell an elephant for 100 rubles. (pending a sale) But the buyers don't want to buy an elephant for 100 rubles, but they will buy it for 60 rubles. (pending a buy) And you can not make them you can only or wait when there will be a buyer for 100 rubles. (buying on the market) or agree with the buyer's price (selling on the market).
Tired of repeating the same thing. To close the purchase on it means to sell. Every transaction has a counterparty, i.e. they must buy it from you. But there is no buyer! No one wants to buy. Then you cannot sell at the desired price. That's why the stoploss and stop out does not guarantee that it will be executed at the requested price. It happens, it's rare, but it does happen. If you have a "kitchen" account (the deals take place inside of a brokerage company), then in all deals your counterparty is a brokerage company, and the deal didn't go to the real market. This is where the difference comes from.
I don't know if it is written in the regulations or not. But the market is the market. If we move away from the topic of forex and take a simple example. To sell something you need someone who wants to buy it. For example, you sell an elephant for 100 rubles. (But the buyers don't want to buy an elephant for 100 rubles, but they will buy it for 60 rubles. (pending a purchase) And you can not make them you can only or wait when there will be a buyer for 100 rubles. (buying on the market) or agree with the buyer's price (selling on the market).
Tired of repeating the same thing. To close the purchase on it means to sell. Every transaction has a counterparty, i.e. they must buy it from you. But there is no buyer! No one wants to buy. Then you cannot sell at the desired price. That's why the stoploss and stop out does not guarantee that it will be executed at the requested price. It happens, it's rare, but it does happen. If you have a "kitchen" account (the deals take place inside of a brokerage company), then in all deals the counterparty is a brokerage company, and the deal didn't go to the real market. This is where the difference comes from.
.....
Do you really know of any examples where traders have been forced to return minuses in their account to the broker? Or is this just a theoretical reflection on the universe?
And if the 'kitchen' doesn't have 100 roubles to buy an elephant (for 100 roubles but today),(but very big),(but today)? (and yesterday they were 60, but small).
Do you really know of any examples where traders have been forced to return minuses on their account to a broker? Or is this just a theoretical reflection on the universe?
To date, the situation on my (asked forum topic) question is as follows - "my manager" at the brokerage company, after receiving data from my terminal about trades closed in minus, called me back the next day and said that the issue is being studied by higher specialists. It seems they are deciding whether to charge me money or not. If it had been a hundred quid, they probably would've dropped it. But $1,500 is a figure, so why not try to squeeze it out.
It seems like if I hadn't called and asked the question myself, no one would have cared. You could have continued to trade in other accounts or opened new ones. No one would have demanded anything from me and the minuses would still be there and the hell with it. In any case they (the broker) did not know about my minus at the time of my conversion. Maybe they didn't need to apply. And now the wheel is turning, let's see how it ends.
At least I got some arguments to argue with the broker from this discussion. (chuckles): Thank you.
Can I say it again in a nutshell - what do I tell them if they start twisting my arm?
To date, the situation regarding my (forum topic) question is as follows - "my manager" at the brokerage company, after receiving data from my terminal about trades closed in the black, called me back the next day and said that higher specialists were looking into the matter. It seems they are deciding whether to charge me money or not. If it had been a hundred quid, they probably would've dropped it. But $1,500 is a figure, so why not try to squeeze it out.
It seems like if I hadn't called and asked the question myself, no one would have cared. You could have continued to trade in other accounts or opened new ones. No one would have demanded anything from me and the minuses would still be there and the hell with it. In any case they (the broker) did not know about my minus at the time of my conversion. Maybe they didn't need to apply. And now the wheel is turning, let's see how it ends.
At least I got some arguments to argue with the broker from this discussion. (chuckles): Thank you.
What do I tell them if they start wringing their hands?
No one, nothing, you will not twist (you have already said about it 10500 times), how they will squeeze you out, the guys will come from the fence, for a half a gram? :) They are zeroing out, it is their fault, you should not have been minus. They know the minuses and the pluses,
To date, the situation regarding my (forum topic) question is as follows - "my manager" at the brokerage company, after receiving data from my terminal about trades closed in the black, called me back the next day and said that higher specialists were looking into the matter. It seems they are deciding whether to charge me money or not. If it had been a hundred quid, they probably would've dropped it. But $1,500 is a figure, so why not try to squeeze it out.
It seems like if I hadn't called and asked the question myself, no one would have cared. You could have continued to trade in other accounts or opened new ones. No one would have demanded anything from me and the minuses would still be there and the hell with it. In any case they (the broker) did not know about my minus at the time of my conversion. Maybe they didn't need to apply. And now the wheel is turning, let's see how it ends.
At least I got some arguments to argue with the broker from this discussion. Thank you. (chuckles)
If I do not know what to say to them, they may start to twist my arm.
I talk with a brokerage company with letter R, so they have an idea fix that the acceptance of the client agreement is the fact of opening an account (registration office), while the client agreement says that the acceptance is the fact of receiving money to the DC, well, to confirm the fact of receipt of funds they categorically refused to ... In general, 0 read carefully the client agreement.
... "my manager" at the brokerage company, after receiving data from my terminal about trades that had been closed in deficit, called me back the next day and said that a higher authority was looking into the matter. It seems they are deciding whether to charge me money or not.