GUILTY Case# 2012-056 | Kovacs Norbert vs fxopen.com

[FXOpen NZ]

Wow... This is a horse of multiple colors!

Was Kovacs deliberately and willfully taking advantage of a technical glitch to increase his gains? Was he the victim of "bait and switch" pricing by the LP? Was FxOpen complicit in allowing false quotes or just incompetent with their technology?

These are all good questions I think and likely never answered definitively by either party. After all, with all the posturing to date, who's ready to admit wrongdoing?

My concern here is the business policy that chooses to hide behind legal clauses to escape responsibility for their own inefficiencies, errors, or omissions. While this may be perfectly LEGAL, it is morally and ethically reprehensible.

So, consider that FxOpen, when you decide your next step. How many professional traders will stay on board when the next target of your nefarious actions might be any one of them.

If FxOpen can prove beyond a doubt that Mr. Kovacs willingly and purposefully exploited a technical glitch to extract unwarranted profits from the firm, then present the evidence here, now. If not, I say you have no ethical basis to uphold your precious TOS clause and should make Mr. Kovacs whole while pursuing recourse through your apparently much valued LP.

Because, on the face of it as presented here, by both sides,... while you may be legally entitled to your actions, your behavior is that of a bucket shop and a scam.

So, sue me too if you think you can...

Dear dbrawner,
1) We do not want to sue anyone. We just say that blackmailing a Company and threat with e-mails using FPA's name is illegal and beyond any ethical rules. Can't understand why some members support this.
2) I wrote before: "He made trades with a very small volume. He just noted that due to technical problems his orders were executed with better prices than he observed in the Depth of Market. After that he immediately raised trade volume hundreds times. It is a red flag that he realised that trading terminal got the problem and he used it in his trading". In a simple words Client saw a real price in FXO's terminal but his trades were executed with a different price (much better form the real price), and once he indicated this he increased his trading volume to get benefits from this situation. This is the only reason how he could gain xxx% in very short period of the time (minutes). All the logs were sent to FPA and to the Client. More to say, the Company decided to compensate losses happened (around $1800) on a good will (execution with the real prices).

I repeat once again, the Company using FACTS to solve this dispute such as:
a) Trading Logs
b) Business agreement
c) Common practice
d) Business ethics
non of these was broken from our side

The Client using:
a) His dissatisfaction
b) Ignoring trading logs
c) Blackmailing the Company
d) Threats

"So, consider that FxOpen, when you decide your next step. How many professional traders will stay on board when the next target of your nefarious actions might be any one of them."
FPA is a famous place for the traders and let them decide. For any average experienced and professional trader or developer it is clearly obvious that there is no illegal things happened. I agree that there was a technical problem happened from FXO's side, but all loses happened due to this mistake were compensated by the Company. I am sure that any pro trader using our services will understand our position.

We will be more then happy to discuss ECN's model in a separate thread, share with technical and business details with the traders, explain every single moment but in a separate thread. I believe that the lack of knowledge and understanding of basic rules of this business leads to many emotional posts made in this thread.

 

[Kovacs Norbert]

Hello traders,

Let’s see FxOpen latest claims:

“I repeat once again, the Company using FACTS to solve this dispute such as:
a) Trading Logs
b) Business agreement
c) Common practice
d) Business ethics”

a, Trade Logs: What trade logs are you talking about? You mean those nonse txt files that were sent to me a month after?
Please attach them here again for a review. Let the crowd be the judge how convincing they are.

b, Business agreement? Your business agreement appears to be an excellent excuse to cover your wrongdoing. You can simply say” my business agreement does not let me be transparent. “Great.

c, Common practice: What common practice do you exactly mean? You mean stealing? No thanks!

d, Business ethics. What?


The Client using:

a) His dissatisfaction

Who would not be dissatisfied if his or her profit would disappear without a single world overnight? Moreover you made no effort to inform me for month; phone call; no email explaining the situation. Is this that you call “ common practice” or it was more like your “ business ethics”? I could not decide yet.

b) Ignoring trading logs

As I mentioned, the tradelogs that you sent me a month after proves nothing. It is a txt file, let the reader decide whether a txt file can “ adobed”. Moreover, the file only contains a few trades not even the whole trades.

c) Blackmailing the Company

What? Blackmailing? Since I got no reply from FxOpen for a month, I informed it via email, I had no choice but to use FPA. You call this blackmailing? While English is my second language, I know for sure it is not blackmailing, it is informing. Since you know my intention aimed for transparency and my identity is know, it is not blackmailing, just simple informing. And guess what, once the FxOpen Scam alert was aired here at FPA, you act a little faster than before.

d) Threats

Thank you for empowering me, but I wonder what threat I can represent to FxOpen?

You claim you are using facts, I do not see them. Rather, I see fabricated facts: xxopen says:

"He made trades with a very small volume. He just noted that due to technical problems his orders were executed with better prices than he observed in the Depth of Market. After that he immediately raised trade volume hundreds times. It is a red flag that he realised that trading terminal got the problem and he used it in his trading"
Now lets see that real facts:

And now the facts, see my attached trade logs:

My first two “ warm up” trades were 0.1 lots. My third trade, 1 minute later than first two, was 3 lots already. Are you saying that in 60 second I realized Fxopen had technical issues, and immediately exploited it?

How on the Earth one can see FxOpen have technical problems? Nonsenses. In the next 6 trades, I traded with 3 lots. So the claim "There was immediately raised trade volume hundreds times" does not stand. Since I had errand to run, I could not trade for another 5 ½ hours. Then, I started with 4 lots and went up to 20. So again, there was no “immediately raised trade volume hundreds times.”

Had I figured out “ so called “ technical problems why did leave my desk after 9 quick trades, and returned to my desk after 5 1/2 hours? Why did I not bank immediately? Because it was no technical problems, or if it was I had not been awere of it.

Now comes the 1 million dollar question: how come the “ so called “ technical problems persisted 7-8 hours? It seems impossible that noone realized it for so long time. Or maybe there was no technical problem. Untill I do not see proofs, I hold my stance.

Last but not least. I repeat once again: I did not cheat. I did not use any unauthorized tools. I played fair game, as I traded the price had been on my screen.

I am up for the vote!

 

[FXOpen NZ]

Hello traders,

Let’s see FxOpen latest claims:

“I repeat once again, the Company using FACTS to solve this dispute such as:
a) Trading Logs
b) Business agreement
c) Common practice
d) Business ethics”

a, Trade Logs: What trade logs are you talking about? You mean those nonse txt files that were sent to me a month after?
Please attach them here again for a review. Let the crowd be the judge how convincing they are.

b, Business agreement? Your business agreement appears to be an excellent excuse to cover your wrongdoing. You can simply say” my business agreement does not let me be transparent. “Great.

c, Common practice: What common practice do you exactly mean? You mean stealing? No thanks!

d, Business ethics. What?


The Client using:

a) His dissatisfaction

Who would not be dissatisfied if his or her profit would disappear without a single world overnight? Moreover you made no effort to inform me for month; phone call; no email explaining the situation. Is this that you call “ common practice” or it was more like your “ business ethics”? I could not decide yet.

b) Ignoring trading logs

As I mentioned, the tradelogs that you sent me a month after proves nothing. It is a txt file, let the reader decide whether a txt file can “ adobed”. Moreover, the file only contains a few trades not even the whole trades.

c) Blackmailing the Company

What? Blackmailing? Since I got no reply from FxOpen for a month, I informed it via email, I had no choice but to use FPA. You call this blackmailing? While English is my second language, I know for sure it is not blackmailing, it is informing. Since you know my intention aimed for transparency and my identity is know, it is not blackmailing, just simple informing. And guess what, once the FxOpen Scam alert was aired here at FPA, you act a little faster than before.

d) Threats

Thank you for empowering me, but I wonder what threat I can represent to FxOpen?

You claim you are using facts, I do not see them. Rather, I see fabricated facts: xxopen says:

"He made trades with a very small volume. He just noted that due to technical problems his orders were executed with better prices than he observed in the Depth of Market. After that he immediately raised trade volume hundreds times. It is a red flag that he realised that trading terminal got the problem and he used it in his trading"
Now lets see that real facts:

And now the facts, see my attached trade logs:

My first two “ warm up” trades were 0.1 lots. My third trade, 1 minute later than first two, was 3 lots already. Are you saying that in 60 second I realized Fxopen had technical issues, and immediately exploited it?

How on the Earth one can see FxOpen have technical problems? Nonsenses. In the next 6 trades, I traded with 3 lots. So the claim "There was immediately raised trade volume hundreds times" does not stand. Since I had errand to run, I could not trade for another 5 ½ hours. Then, I started with 4 lots and went up to 20. So again, there was no “immediately raised trade volume hundreds times.”

Had I figured out “ so called “ technical problems why did leave my desk after 9 quick trades, and returned to my desk after 5 1/2 hours? Why did I not bank immediately? Because it was no technical problems, or if it was I had not been awere of it.

Now comes the 1 million dollar question: how come the “ so called “ technical problems persisted 7-8 hours? It seems impossible that noone realized it for so long time. Or maybe there was no technical problem. Untill I do not see proofs, I hold my stance.

Last but not least. I repeat once again: I did not cheat. I did not use any unauthorized tools. I played fair game, as I traded the price had been on my screen.

I am up for the vote!

Dear Mr.Kovacs,
a) I am very sorry, but we sent you a trading logs in a standard format, and you are free to post them. So your distrust is not an argument.
b) You had a choice, everything is written in the agreement. It is approved by regulator so it is legal. Your dissatisfaction with business agreement is not an argument.
c) I have proposed to open a separate thread and discuss all the questions related to OTC FOREX market, especially technical things. We have much more experience in facing different kind of technical mistakes from the 3rd parties and solve them in a good manner according to the business agreements we signed. If you didn't face something similar before it doesn't mean that it is untrue. Your denial is not an argument.
d) Yes, business ethics! Actual P/L of your trades was -1800.00$, it was covered by FXOpen.


Mr.Kovacs, this can become an endless story, you will blame FXOpen, we will show logs and your e-mails to us, both parties will be unhappy, so please allow me to apologize for any inconvenience happened due to this situation, we are unhappy as well. Unfortunately we are not able to compensate you more than we did already and if this not satisfy your expectations you are free for any legal actions.

Regards,
Denis Peganov.

 

[Hanif Akbar]

Moderators I think its time for polling.

 

[along]

mmmm, delay in price do occurred. I had this same situation before, that time I was using real account with a broker who called itself as a none dealing desk. It happened during US opening, 15 minutes delay and it took about 1 hour before the price back to normal again. you already know where the direction of the price. I during that time can simply increase my size and make tonne of money. but I don't feel right with such act, instead of doing so, I just closed my account with that broker, because I don't feel safe. to notice the delay, you need to run several brokers at the same time.

I'm not sure who is right or wrong.....
I hold my vote and leave this to public

 

[AsstModerator]

Things are very busy at the FPA this week with staff traveling. Because of this, I'm going to delay this vote until next week. I hope that this extra time for discussion results in a successful resolution.

 

[RahmanSL]

If this case comes up to vote FxOpen as a "scam", I will vote "No" because, as far as I know, FxOpen is not a scam broker as I have live accounts with them for over two years and have spent a considerable amount of time at their forum which have many loyal forumers populating their site. There really are a great bunch of people there. However, some four months back, when FxOpen started their "pay to post" campaign, I don't agree with them in that decision as it drew too many Newbies posting mindless posts to get paid for doing that. Since then, I have posted very little (next to none) in FxOpen forum.

I don't really know how AsstModerator is going to classify this case when it comes up for vote since, in my opinion, it's FxOpen LP which is at fault for the false price feeds and there is doubt whether Kovacs (and he is no Newbie) knew & recognized the false price feeds and capitalized on that (hence the large size trades).
Both ForexVerified and my friend "along" have posted that they have seen and experienced such false price feeds but did not take advantage of that. So, that alone gives me cause to ponder over this case.

The fault of FxOpen is in not handling this case adequately and chooses to hide behind their TOS and using that despicable word "sue", and, of course, no apparent action against their LP.

 

[FXCobra]

If this case comes up to vote FxOpen as a "scam", I will vote "No" because, as far as I know, FxOpen is not a scam broker as I have live accounts with them for over two years and have spent a considerable amount of time at their forum which have many loyal forumers populating their site. There really are a great bunch of people there. However, some four months back, when FxOpen started their "pay to post" campaign, I don't agree with them in that decision as it drew too many Newbies posting mindless posts to get paid for doing that. Since then, I have posted very little (next to none) in FxOpen forum.

I don't really know how AsstModerator is going to classify this case when it comes up for vote since, in my opinion, it's FxOpen LP which is at fault for the false price feeds and there is doubt whether Kovacs (and he is no Newbie) knew & recognized the false price feeds and capitalized on that (hence the large size trades).
Both ForexVerified and my friend "along" have posted that they have seen and experienced such false price feeds but did not take advantage of that. So, that alone gives me cause to ponder over this case.

The fault of FxOpen is in not handling this case adequately and chooses to hide behind their TOS and using that despicable word "sue", and, of course, no apparent action against their LP.

-----------------------------------


Fxopen broker is a Scam(at least in prices they show clients). I did not reply to this thread before tried them in a live account, ofcourse not mad to use my money even a cent, it's a no deposit account the broker offer as promotion.
Their representatives talk of their LP gave different prices and all that nonsense excuses in Norbert case.

Fxopen broker gives clients unreal prices all day. For example the most traded pair EuroUsd, their given price for it is 3pips difference than other brokers in a live account too.
For example if Euro/Usd price in their mt4 is Bid/Ask 1.2305/1.2307, at other brokers mt4 account with same spread(2) it's 1.2308/1.2310.
Stay far of this broker, with a no deposit account, found it disgusting to continue the trade with them anymore.

And, because I don't like to talk with no proofs, this is a screenshot of both Fxopen mt4 live account and another broker live account, both have same 2 pip spread for EuroUsd. For you to see that Fxopen play with market prices all day, it's even more than 3 pip difference because the other broker offer 5 digit price.
This is a Real Proof that it's not just about their LP problem at sometime or by accident day! It's a normal action by Fxopen through the day hours.
I have nothing against them but this is the Full Truth. Do not deal with Fxopen, if you don't have an account and withdraw your money if you have an account with them. You deserve to see the right market prices not fake ones!!

 

[FXCobra]

And, because I don't like to talk with no proofs, this is a screenshot of both Fxopen mt4 live account and another broker live account, both have same 2 pip spread for EuroUsd. For you to see that Fxopen play with market prices all day, it's even more than 3 pip difference because the other broker offer 5 digit price.
This is a Real Proof that it's not just about their LP problem at sometime or by accident day! It's a normal action by Fxopen through the day hours.
I have nothing against them but this is the Full Truth. Do not deal with Fxopen, if you don't have an account and withdraw your money if you have an account with them. You deserve to see the right market prices not the fake ones!!

 

[Pharaoh]

One Traders Court verdict doesn't make a scam finding. In this case, FxOpen has taken their usually good standards and thrown them out the window.

1. Telling a client "take us to the NZ regulators if you don't like it" is not the best way to begin negotiations.

2. Admitting that the LP provided fake prices, but refusing to disclose who the LP is casts considerable doubt on the whole claim of providing a true ECN broker. I see no move on FxOpen's part to alter NDAs to either remove secrecy in cases like this or to move towards real transparency in showing who all LPs are. What do the LPs and FxOpen have to hide?

3. Threatening to sue a client for publicly complaining about an issue has to be one of the worst moves I've seen any broker take. We aren't talking about a client who made something up and is blackmailing a broker. We are talking about a client who is angry and has a factual basis for his anger. Slapsuits like this (or threats to file them) are incredibly unethical.

A threat to sue under these circumstances is the sort of thing that scam brokers like InvestTech do. I'm shocked and repulsed to see FxOpen take this course. If that lawsuit threat is not withdrawn, that will permanently put FxOpen in my personal list of brokers to recommend against opening accounts with.

Unless something radically changes, I'll feel obligated to vote guilty.