I traded with Forex.com & left after I became suspicious of their practices - numerous disconnections, platform being taken down at odd times, slowing down the data feed & lots more. They even phoned me to ask why I closed my account!! How does anyone prove how much clients are owed & what about traders who have since left this broker - would they ever be re-imbursed? Every account the plugin was run on would have to be scrutinised. I would be surprised if I ever receive a refund from them. It's great that they've been nailed & hopefully the practice stopped but I'll bet their accounting is very clever.
IKON GM Nailed by the NFA for Using a Virtual Dealer Plugin
- Thread starter Pharaoh
- Start date
Sanjeev Shandil
Recruit
- Messages
- 4
I have an lite forex account opened some months back . at first the broker seems to be honest and trader friendly but with time every thing gets to degrade.
Lite forex also seems to moniter trades and work against them by making changes to Mt-4 such as SL,TP Levels different for different pairs and minimum SL bigger then TP.
They mention in the beginning that trades shorter than two min. durations would not earn cash back. but actually they dont allow to close the trade manually before 2 min. and also sometimes after the two min. time, a message is shown Not enough rights.
Also they slow down their platform execution during high volatility and news events to prevent from entering at the exact price intended and sometimes the charts does not get updated immediately if price starts moving in the favour.
Execution sometimes does not get thru immediately and then off quotes message comes in.
Something is defenitely going there against traders in a planned manner so that it does not get noticed immediately and needs to be checked by the regulating authorities.
There are only two kinds of forex brokers...
the ones cheating -- and the ones not yet caught.
I have an account with FXCM, is there any way to get NFA to check on them?
Emmanuel Patrick
Recruit
- Messages
- 13
Yes I agree with you liteforex need some checking.
I think that now that the NFA is aware that brokers are using this malicious plugin there will be more brokers caught soon. It's only a matter of time.
It's not only metatrader brokers. Those brokers like FXCM who have their own platform can also have their own proprietary plugins.
a good broker
I have been using fxcm.com but I have feeling there doing some unethical things they work great but there are times when I couldn't make a
Winning trade if my life depended appone it, and when I call and talk to someone who works for them they give me a.line of bs.
So please someone guide me to a good broker please!!!!!!!!!!
I have been using fxcm.com but I have feeling there doing some unethical things they work great but there are times when I couldn't make a
Winning trade if my life depended appone it, and when I call and talk to someone who works for them they give me a.line of bs.
So please someone guide me to a good broker please!!!!!!!!!!
Send a message
Reading through this thread it's obvious how pervasive these kind of underhanded broker tactics are. It would be hard to have confidence in any broker. The NFA does not have the manpower or budget to keep them all honest. The only answer for a level playing field for retail traders is a regulated central clearing house for all trades that would remove brokers from the process. They can't be trusted and shouldn't. All this has pretty much convinced me not to trade Forex until some things change.
Reading through this thread it's obvious how pervasive these kind of underhanded broker tactics are. It would be hard to have confidence in any broker. The NFA does not have the manpower or budget to keep them all honest. The only answer for a level playing field for retail traders is a regulated central clearing house for all trades that would remove brokers from the process. They can't be trusted and shouldn't. All this has pretty much convinced me not to trade Forex until some things change.
Jason Rogers
FXCM Representative
- Messages
- 517
Hi Mikey,
A dealing desk can profit off of traders losses, so it should be no surprise that market makers may use this. A dealing desk is in business to earn a profit, and those profits are protected by using re-quotes, dealer intervention, restrictions on stop, limit, or entry orders, etc.
FXCM's No Dealing Desk execution eliminates the conflict of interest by offsetting every order one for one with another bank or financial institution so your profit or loss doesn't impact FXCM's bottom line. We profit through a pip-mark up on the spread (which is essentially a commission). A greater loss on your part (slippage for example) doesn't equate to a greater profit for FXCM so it wouldn't make sense to use this type of plugin. In fact, our traders can also experience positive slippage for price improvement and again FXCM is still simply earning the pip mark-up on the spread.
-Jason
Pharaoh
Brigadier General
- Messages
- 20,308
Jason,
It could make perfect financial sense for a true NDD broker to use that plugin:
1. Process the order normally.
2. If slippage is negative, customer gets that price.
3. If slippage is positive, customer gets little or none of the positive slippage. The broker pockets the difference.
If more advanced settings are used that add a delay in orders appearing to the client, the broker can grab a few more pips by adding negative slippage that never really happened.
It could make perfect financial sense for a true NDD broker to use that plugin:
1. Process the order normally.
2. If slippage is negative, customer gets that price.
3. If slippage is positive, customer gets little or none of the positive slippage. The broker pockets the difference.
If more advanced settings are used that add a delay in orders appearing to the client, the broker can grab a few more pips by adding negative slippage that never really happened.
Ikon Group Announcement
Ikon Group Announcement
In early Oct 2010., Ikon GM, one of the many Ikon Group companies, received and notice that from NFA about the supervision of a third party platform (MT4) supervised by Ikon GM staff. The complaint of the NFA against Ikon GM related mainly to clients of Ikon GM, through its subsidiary of Ikon Royal. Few customers of Ikon Group were involved.
In fact, even in the NFA case, the customers involved in this matter amounted to less than 0.2% of the Ikon Group clients and no more than 3% of the Ikon GM trading volume (as referred to and confirmed in the NFA complaint).
We say this to make it manifestly clear to our dear clients that the number of the Ikon Group clients involved in this matter are minimal and comprise a minute fraction of our client base of, as we stated earlier, no more than 0.2%. This is practically so because we at Ikon Group hold the highest standard of trading integrity and trustworthy industry standards and further we are proud to say that we always strive to supply our customers with the most competitive pricing and best possible price fills.
While this matter does not involve the vast majority of the Ikon Group clients, however, we feel it incumbent upon us, to deny the allegations of the NFA, albeit it they are not significant considering they only relate to circa 0.2% of the Ikon Group clients.
Further we say that the NFA complaint, has been derived without a full examination of the facts before the NFA, but rather was driven by the rapidly and cumbersome evolving regulatory framework in the United States.
In early October when we learned about the alleged shortcomings of the Ikon GM staff and the possible complaint of the NFA, the Board of Ikon Group, for the benefit of our dear customers, took the decision to terminate individual clients trading in Ikon GM and restrict it to institutional clients such as our partner banks, financial institutions and corporations.
We wish to emphasize that our decision to migrate our Ikon Group individual US operations involved a number of important factors and reasons which included, but not limited to the following:
1. First reason: the USA financial authorities have advanced a number of rules which we believe are not desired by our customers. These rules have been introduced over the last year and include for example the inability of our customers to trade FIFO, the reduction of the margin requirements from 200:1 to 100:1 and then to 50:1 and other rules. We simply believed, with or without the issuance of the NFA complaint, that it would be the benefit of our customers to move to our other regulated companies such as Ikon in the UK (regulated by the UK financial service authorities (FSA), which we believe has also one of the highest standards of regulatory regimes in the world) and IFSCL (regulated by the New Zealand Exchange) and Ikon Singapore (regulated by the Singapore Exchange) and Ikon FX (regulated by the Dubai Gold Exchange).
2. Second reason: Our decision as aforementioned was further enhanced by the forthcoming joint venture with one of the largest exchanges in the US wherein, for the first time in history, Ikon Group is the only company in the world at present transforming foreign exchange products from an OTC product to an exchange product. We wish to pause here and emphasize that had we not moved our Ikon Group clients from the US to other regulatory bodies in the UK and New Zealand and others, it is most certain that a conflict of interest would have arisen in that Ikon GM would be promoting both Forex OTC and Forex Exchange product, which would most likely have a detrimental and negative effect on our ground breaking project of the transforming forex from an OTC product to an Exchange Product. Simply put, the Board of Ikon believed, and quite rightly so, that it would be inimical to the whole ethos of the exchange product for the same company to at the same time offer OTC product. It was not open for Ikon GM to offer both products at the same time. This is one of the main reasons that we decided to move our clients from the US. This is for the benefit of our clients, no more no less.
3. Third reason: as stated earlier, with holding the highest standard of trading integrity and trustworthy industry standards, Ikon Group was faced with a dilemma that there were allegations, albert minor, about the performance of the staff of Ikon Royal, a subsidiary of Ikon GM, purchased in 2007. We felt it best both from an operational point of view and also restructuring perspective to limit the operations of Ikon GM. The Board of Ikon Group decided for the reason mentioned herein in this paragraph and the preceding paragraphs to limit the operations of Ikon GM as aforementioned.
Ikon Group and its affiliate are now regulated in a number of financial institutions all over the world, including US, UK, New Zealand, UAE, Singapore and China. As a global financial organization, we strive to operate effectively in each jurisdiction despite vastly different rules and, as always, support any and all regulation that serves to effectively protect retail traders. We have been working closely with the world largest exchanges to make Ikon act as a major counterparty of FX market.
MODERATION NOTE: Please notice the "Last Edited: Dec 30, 2014" note at the bottom. This post release was modified by user Ikonforex four years after it was posted to hide some information. In 2017, this thread was included in a legal threat from MEX Australia designed to hide all factual connections between IKON and MEX. This thread was included in the legal threat even though there was no mention of MEX in it. Below is the unedited version of the post, which includes the name of the owner of the MEX group of companies in his former job as the CEO of Ikon Group.
Ikon Group Announcement
Joint Statement of the President of Ikon Group (Engin Yikilmazoglu) and CEO of Ikon Group (Naser Taher)
In early Oct 2010., Ikon GM, one of the many Ikon Group companies, received and notice that from NFA about the supervision of a third party platform (MT4) supervised by Ikon GM staff. The complaint of the NFA against Ikon GM related mainly to clients of Ikon GM, through its subsidiary of Ikon Royal. Few customers of Ikon Group were involved.
In fact, even in the NFA case, the customers involved in this matter amounted to less than 0.2% of the Ikon Group clients and no more than 3% of the Ikon GM trading volume (as referred to and confirmed in the NFA complaint).
We say this to make it manifestly clear to our dear clients that the number of the Ikon Group clients involved in this matter are minimal and comprise a minute fraction of our client base of, as we stated earlier, no more than 0.2%. This is practically so because we at Ikon Group hold the highest standard of trading integrity and trustworthy industry standards and further we are proud to say that we always strive to supply our customers with the most competitive pricing and best possible price fills.
While this matter does not involve the vast majority of the Ikon Group clients, however, we feel it incumbent upon us, to deny the allegations of the NFA, albeit it they are not significant considering they only relate to circa 0.2% of the Ikon Group clients.
Further we say that the NFA complaint, has been derived without a full examination of the facts before the NFA, but rather was driven by the rapidly and cumbersome evolving regulatory framework in the United States.
In early October when we learned about the alleged shortcomings of the Ikon GM staff and the possible complaint of the NFA, the Board of Ikon Group, for the benefit of our dear customers, took the decision to terminate individual clients trading in Ikon GM and restrict it to institutional clients such as our partner banks, financial institutions and corporations.
We wish to emphasize that our decision to migrate our Ikon Group individual US operations involved a number of important factors and reasons which included, but not limited to the following:
1. First reason: the USA financial authorities have advanced a number of rules which we believe are not desired by our customers. These rules have been introduced over the last year and include for example the inability of our customers to trade FIFO, the reduction of the margin requirements from 200:1 to 100:1 and then to 50:1 and other rules. We simply believed, with or without the issuance of the NFA complaint, that it would be the benefit of our customers to move to our other regulated companies such as Ikon in the UK (regulated by the UK financial service authorities (FSA), which we believe has also one of the highest standards of regulatory regimes in the world) and IFSCL (regulated by the New Zealand Exchange) and Ikon Singapore (regulated by the Singapore Exchange) and Ikon FX (regulated by the Dubai Gold Exchange).
2. Second reason: Our decision as aforementioned was further enhanced by the forthcoming joint venture with one of the largest exchanges in the US wherein, for the first time in history, Ikon Group is the only company in the world at present transforming foreign exchange products from an OTC product to an exchange product. We wish to pause here and emphasize that had we not moved our Ikon Group clients from the US to other regulatory bodies in the UK and New Zealand and others, it is most certain that a conflict of interest would have arisen in that Ikon GM would be promoting both Forex OTC and Forex Exchange product, which would most likely have a detrimental and negative effect on our ground breaking project of the transforming forex from an OTC product to an Exchange Product. Simply put, the Board of Ikon believed, and quite rightly so, that it would be inimical to the whole ethos of the exchange product for the same company to at the same time offer OTC product. It was not open for Ikon GM to offer both products at the same time. This is one of the main reasons that we decided to move our clients from the US. This is for the benefit of our clients, no more no less.
3. Third reason: as stated earlier, with holding the highest standard of trading integrity and trustworthy industry standards, Ikon Group was faced with a dilemma that there were allegations, albert minor, about the performance of the staff of Ikon Royal, a subsidiary of Ikon GM, purchased in 2007. We felt it best both from an operational point of view and also restructuring perspective to limit the operations of Ikon GM. The Board of Ikon Group decided for the reason mentioned herein in this paragraph and the preceding paragraphs to limit the operations of Ikon GM as aforementioned.
Ikon Group and its affiliate are now regulated in a number of financial institutions all over the world, including US, UK, New Zealand, UAE, Singapore and China. As a global financial organization, we strive to operate effectively in each jurisdiction despite vastly different rules and, as always, support any and all regulation that serves to effectively protect retail traders. We have been working closely with the world largest exchanges to make Ikon act as a major counterparty of FX market.
ENGIN YIKILMAZOGLU
NASER TAHER
Ikon Group Announcement
In early Oct 2010., Ikon GM, one of the many Ikon Group companies, received and notice that from NFA about the supervision of a third party platform (MT4) supervised by Ikon GM staff. The complaint of the NFA against Ikon GM related mainly to clients of Ikon GM, through its subsidiary of Ikon Royal. Few customers of Ikon Group were involved.
In fact, even in the NFA case, the customers involved in this matter amounted to less than 0.2% of the Ikon Group clients and no more than 3% of the Ikon GM trading volume (as referred to and confirmed in the NFA complaint).
We say this to make it manifestly clear to our dear clients that the number of the Ikon Group clients involved in this matter are minimal and comprise a minute fraction of our client base of, as we stated earlier, no more than 0.2%. This is practically so because we at Ikon Group hold the highest standard of trading integrity and trustworthy industry standards and further we are proud to say that we always strive to supply our customers with the most competitive pricing and best possible price fills.
While this matter does not involve the vast majority of the Ikon Group clients, however, we feel it incumbent upon us, to deny the allegations of the NFA, albeit it they are not significant considering they only relate to circa 0.2% of the Ikon Group clients.
Further we say that the NFA complaint, has been derived without a full examination of the facts before the NFA, but rather was driven by the rapidly and cumbersome evolving regulatory framework in the United States.
In early October when we learned about the alleged shortcomings of the Ikon GM staff and the possible complaint of the NFA, the Board of Ikon Group, for the benefit of our dear customers, took the decision to terminate individual clients trading in Ikon GM and restrict it to institutional clients such as our partner banks, financial institutions and corporations.
We wish to emphasize that our decision to migrate our Ikon Group individual US operations involved a number of important factors and reasons which included, but not limited to the following:
1. First reason: the USA financial authorities have advanced a number of rules which we believe are not desired by our customers. These rules have been introduced over the last year and include for example the inability of our customers to trade FIFO, the reduction of the margin requirements from 200:1 to 100:1 and then to 50:1 and other rules. We simply believed, with or without the issuance of the NFA complaint, that it would be the benefit of our customers to move to our other regulated companies such as Ikon in the UK (regulated by the UK financial service authorities (FSA), which we believe has also one of the highest standards of regulatory regimes in the world) and IFSCL (regulated by the New Zealand Exchange) and Ikon Singapore (regulated by the Singapore Exchange) and Ikon FX (regulated by the Dubai Gold Exchange).
2. Second reason: Our decision as aforementioned was further enhanced by the forthcoming joint venture with one of the largest exchanges in the US wherein, for the first time in history, Ikon Group is the only company in the world at present transforming foreign exchange products from an OTC product to an exchange product. We wish to pause here and emphasize that had we not moved our Ikon Group clients from the US to other regulatory bodies in the UK and New Zealand and others, it is most certain that a conflict of interest would have arisen in that Ikon GM would be promoting both Forex OTC and Forex Exchange product, which would most likely have a detrimental and negative effect on our ground breaking project of the transforming forex from an OTC product to an Exchange Product. Simply put, the Board of Ikon believed, and quite rightly so, that it would be inimical to the whole ethos of the exchange product for the same company to at the same time offer OTC product. It was not open for Ikon GM to offer both products at the same time. This is one of the main reasons that we decided to move our clients from the US. This is for the benefit of our clients, no more no less.
3. Third reason: as stated earlier, with holding the highest standard of trading integrity and trustworthy industry standards, Ikon Group was faced with a dilemma that there were allegations, albert minor, about the performance of the staff of Ikon Royal, a subsidiary of Ikon GM, purchased in 2007. We felt it best both from an operational point of view and also restructuring perspective to limit the operations of Ikon GM. The Board of Ikon Group decided for the reason mentioned herein in this paragraph and the preceding paragraphs to limit the operations of Ikon GM as aforementioned.
Ikon Group and its affiliate are now regulated in a number of financial institutions all over the world, including US, UK, New Zealand, UAE, Singapore and China. As a global financial organization, we strive to operate effectively in each jurisdiction despite vastly different rules and, as always, support any and all regulation that serves to effectively protect retail traders. We have been working closely with the world largest exchanges to make Ikon act as a major counterparty of FX market.
MODERATION NOTE: Please notice the "Last Edited: Dec 30, 2014" note at the bottom. This post release was modified by user Ikonforex four years after it was posted to hide some information. In 2017, this thread was included in a legal threat from MEX Australia designed to hide all factual connections between IKON and MEX. This thread was included in the legal threat even though there was no mention of MEX in it. Below is the unedited version of the post, which includes the name of the owner of the MEX group of companies in his former job as the CEO of Ikon Group.
Ikon Group Announcement
Joint Statement of the President of Ikon Group (Engin Yikilmazoglu) and CEO of Ikon Group (Naser Taher)
In early Oct 2010., Ikon GM, one of the many Ikon Group companies, received and notice that from NFA about the supervision of a third party platform (MT4) supervised by Ikon GM staff. The complaint of the NFA against Ikon GM related mainly to clients of Ikon GM, through its subsidiary of Ikon Royal. Few customers of Ikon Group were involved.
In fact, even in the NFA case, the customers involved in this matter amounted to less than 0.2% of the Ikon Group clients and no more than 3% of the Ikon GM trading volume (as referred to and confirmed in the NFA complaint).
We say this to make it manifestly clear to our dear clients that the number of the Ikon Group clients involved in this matter are minimal and comprise a minute fraction of our client base of, as we stated earlier, no more than 0.2%. This is practically so because we at Ikon Group hold the highest standard of trading integrity and trustworthy industry standards and further we are proud to say that we always strive to supply our customers with the most competitive pricing and best possible price fills.
While this matter does not involve the vast majority of the Ikon Group clients, however, we feel it incumbent upon us, to deny the allegations of the NFA, albeit it they are not significant considering they only relate to circa 0.2% of the Ikon Group clients.
Further we say that the NFA complaint, has been derived without a full examination of the facts before the NFA, but rather was driven by the rapidly and cumbersome evolving regulatory framework in the United States.
In early October when we learned about the alleged shortcomings of the Ikon GM staff and the possible complaint of the NFA, the Board of Ikon Group, for the benefit of our dear customers, took the decision to terminate individual clients trading in Ikon GM and restrict it to institutional clients such as our partner banks, financial institutions and corporations.
We wish to emphasize that our decision to migrate our Ikon Group individual US operations involved a number of important factors and reasons which included, but not limited to the following:
1. First reason: the USA financial authorities have advanced a number of rules which we believe are not desired by our customers. These rules have been introduced over the last year and include for example the inability of our customers to trade FIFO, the reduction of the margin requirements from 200:1 to 100:1 and then to 50:1 and other rules. We simply believed, with or without the issuance of the NFA complaint, that it would be the benefit of our customers to move to our other regulated companies such as Ikon in the UK (regulated by the UK financial service authorities (FSA), which we believe has also one of the highest standards of regulatory regimes in the world) and IFSCL (regulated by the New Zealand Exchange) and Ikon Singapore (regulated by the Singapore Exchange) and Ikon FX (regulated by the Dubai Gold Exchange).
2. Second reason: Our decision as aforementioned was further enhanced by the forthcoming joint venture with one of the largest exchanges in the US wherein, for the first time in history, Ikon Group is the only company in the world at present transforming foreign exchange products from an OTC product to an exchange product. We wish to pause here and emphasize that had we not moved our Ikon Group clients from the US to other regulatory bodies in the UK and New Zealand and others, it is most certain that a conflict of interest would have arisen in that Ikon GM would be promoting both Forex OTC and Forex Exchange product, which would most likely have a detrimental and negative effect on our ground breaking project of the transforming forex from an OTC product to an Exchange Product. Simply put, the Board of Ikon believed, and quite rightly so, that it would be inimical to the whole ethos of the exchange product for the same company to at the same time offer OTC product. It was not open for Ikon GM to offer both products at the same time. This is one of the main reasons that we decided to move our clients from the US. This is for the benefit of our clients, no more no less.
3. Third reason: as stated earlier, with holding the highest standard of trading integrity and trustworthy industry standards, Ikon Group was faced with a dilemma that there were allegations, albert minor, about the performance of the staff of Ikon Royal, a subsidiary of Ikon GM, purchased in 2007. We felt it best both from an operational point of view and also restructuring perspective to limit the operations of Ikon GM. The Board of Ikon Group decided for the reason mentioned herein in this paragraph and the preceding paragraphs to limit the operations of Ikon GM as aforementioned.
Ikon Group and its affiliate are now regulated in a number of financial institutions all over the world, including US, UK, New Zealand, UAE, Singapore and China. As a global financial organization, we strive to operate effectively in each jurisdiction despite vastly different rules and, as always, support any and all regulation that serves to effectively protect retail traders. We have been working closely with the world largest exchanges to make Ikon act as a major counterparty of FX market.
ENGIN YIKILMAZOGLU
NASER TAHER
Last edited:
