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

[Dedethoven]

Humm... What would you have done in the contrary ? If it was you who had lost thousands because of an invalid bid/ask price ? You would have checked if the price was true with another broker feed and cry hey !!! It's a false bid/ask price. The price never really reached there, therefore you owe me my lost !! You certainly would not accepted your lost.

The fact is you are profiting from an error and I think you would have profited from it anyway.

I agree that they should not be recommended for that kind of error, but I would not accept you as a client neither.

Good luck anyway.

 

[Pharaoh]

Sadly, this was no technical glitch. This was a deliberate action on the part of an LP. Had a pricing error (deliberate or due to a glitch) happened with a US regulated broker, any adjustments against a client would have needed to be done within an hour, leaving the broker and LP to discuss how to resolve the issue between themselves.

 

[Dedethoven]

Sadly, this was no technical glitch. This was a deliberate action on the part of an LP. Had a pricing error (deliberate or due to a glitch) happened with a US regulated broker, any adjustments against a client would have needed to be done within an hour, leaving the broker and LP to discuss how to resolve the issue between themselves.

In that case my sincere apologies, and I take back what I said and i swallow it.

Good luck.

 

[fxfrench]

fxopen has definitively learned a lot from this case, as I'm sure a lot of other onlooking brokers have also. After reading their FxOpen Au Product Disclosure Statement, it is clear that they are not attempting to hide behind any "legalese"; they did a good job of explaining all of the aspects of their retail offerings in plain English with easy to follow examples and full disclosure. In fact, it is one of the clearest PDS i've ever seen from any forex broker (most are written in a more legalese format). Here are some improvements I see:

Section 11.13 (inactive accounts) should have a clearer definition of what an inactive account is (no pending trades, no login, etc). And 6 months instead of 3 months should be the waiting period.

Section 12.3 (withdrawals) should have a stated processing time in which withdrawals can be expected to be processed once received. (1 business day, 2 business days, etc). Define what a business day is.

Section 13 (dispute resolution). Add the word "days" after "business" so that it reads "5 business days". 30 business days is a long time to research a normal trading dispute. There should be more clarity as to the category of dispute, and what information dispute should include. Different timeframes of investigation may be more appropriate depending on the category of dispute. Define what a business day is.

Section 16 (privacy). More details should be given about how data is stored and what FxOpen's responsibility in safeguarding that information. Include examples of steps taken to safeguard the data if possible.

Thanks 4evermaat. Your suggestions appreciated and will be considered when next we update the PDS.

 

[FXCobra]

Humm... What would you have done in the contrary ? If it was you who had lost thousands because of an invalid bid/ask price ? You would have checked if the price was true with another broker feed and cry hey !!! It's a false bid/ask price. The price never really reached there, therefore you owe me my lost !! You certainly would not accepted your lost.

The fact is you are profiting from an error and I think you would have profited from it anyway.

I agree that they should not be recommended for that kind of error, but I would not accept you as a client neither.

Good luck anyway.

Why don't you and others read what the case is about before posting!

**contrary ? If it was you who had lost thousands**

Do you know that Kovacs lost thousands because Fxopen made an excuse of LP fault and prices were different at that time- FPA members know the rest nonsense!

Profiting from what error?! 3-5 pips? The regular fxopen manipulation prices error?? I do not believe at first that's an error but broker manipulation.

Error is like the screenshot I had shown(check it)

A Trader must for each trade check other brokers to see if the price is right to after click the bid or ask bottom

Who defines that the trader took advantage of a broker-LP error if it was really like that(an error)?

Kovacs took advantage of nothing, it's nothing but 3-5 pips and it was a trading style followed by Kovacs to make that big amount of money.

If there was an error or not, Kovacs could had same profit if price went to his order direction as it had done.

If Kovacs lots were small like micro or mini lots, fxopen had not gave this excuse because profit was nothing to mention but Kovacs trading style of little pips and big lot size with high leverage lead to thousands in profit.

 

[FXCobra]

Sadly, this was no technical glitch. This was a deliberate action on the part of an LP. Had a pricing error (deliberate or due to a glitch) happened with a US regulated broker, any adjustments against a client would have needed to be done within an hour, leaving the broker and LP to discuss how to resolve the issue between themselves.

Not sure it was just from the LP technical part but a fabricated excuse by fxopen with LP combination.

I'll not be surprised if the illusion LP fxopen talked about knows anything of this(if LP exists at first).

Scam Manipulator brokers like fxopen wait for the client to ask for withdrawal to then makeup an excuse

 

[FXCobra]

Thanks 4evermaat. Your suggestions appreciated and will be considered when next we update the PDS.

Don't be very happy. Fxopen is Guilty with High percentage of 82.43% of Votes.

Tell us to what address would you wish us send you your Scam Trophy Gift

You can sign 4evermaat for a lawyer position at fxopen company. Get rid of the lawyer who created your agreement

Are you serious! Kovacs case turned to be how brokers must improve its agreements and disclosure to better cheat its clients!!

An important question to be asked: Kovacs is the only fxopen client affected by this LP wrong price feed

Looks like that

With the thousands robbed from Kovacs, fxopen can fire many LP's and sign new ones if there are LP's working at first, not market maker!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[fxfrench]

Don't be very happy. Fxopen is Guilty with High percentage of 82.43% of Votes.

I'm not happy for them. fxopen.com has a lot of good and honest people working there. My personal opinion was that there was a bit of a witch hunt here. Nobody trusts a broker apparently no matter what they say or do.

Bottom line. FXOpen has 200,000+ clients. If only one complains they are doing something right.

Tell us to what address would you wish us send you your Scam Trophy Gift

FXOpen NZ has their address on the website.

You can sign 4evermaat for a lawyer position at fxopen company. Get rid of the lawyer who created your agreement

We have senior associate at one of the most prestigious law firms in Australia. I don't think we will be getting rid of him anytime soon.

Are you serious! Kovacs case turned to be how brokers must improve its agreements and disclosure to better cheat its clients!!

To be fair, FXOpen AU is a separate company. Our agreements have been written to comply with Australian Law and strictly adhere to ASIC guidelines. There is no safer place for your money than an ASIC regulated broker. We cannot and would not cheat our clients or we would lose our licence!

An important question to be asked: Kovacs is the only fxopen client affected by this LP wrong price feed

Looks like that

No he wasn't the only one. He was just the loudest.

With the thousands robbed from Kovacs, fxopen can fire many LP's and sign new ones if there are LP's working at first, not market maker!!!!!!!!!!!

All LPs are market makers.

 

[Kovacs Norbert]

If fxopen Australia is a different company, then why on Earth fxfrench speaks on behalf of them? One might wonder whether the " other fxopen" is incompetent.

Which hunt? What a nonse! Do not try to hide behind this clishe! More importantly do not belittle the judging capacity of the FPA readers. They voted fx open guilty by the presented facts. Had you provided some real evidences and good faith, the members would have voted differently. So you are wrong on the witch hunt, and you also know you are gulity.

Yes, I am loudest and toughest. Who hated to be cheated.

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

I played fair game. I traded what was offered to me.

 

[fxfrench]

If fxopen Australia is a different company, then why on Earth fxfrench speaks on behalf of them? One might wonder whether the " other fxopen" is incompetent.

I don't speak on behalf of FXOpen NZ but I am allowed to offer my opinion like anyone else here. Anyway I was only replying to FXCobra.