dbrawner
Private, 1st Class
- Messages
- 49
I'm having a hard time accepting their defense... How can any customer see (let alone later prove) what the bid/ask was by a particular broker (and from it's LP) at any given past time of sale beyond what was presented to them on the broker's platform? And why should the quote ever be something different than that displayed on their platform?
Using such an excuse as "technical difficulties" to explain (fabricate) price disparities is so very conveniently in favor of the broker. The plaintiff's posts show trades that were accepted by the broker's trading desk, executed, and confirmed at the prices.
Their "get out of jail" clause (Clause 6 I think?) not withstanding, if there are discrepancies between what was accepted, executed, and confirmed and what was available to the broker by the LP, that should be between the broker and the LP, NOT the customer (unless someone can prove the customer had knowledge of such price discrepancy when placing the trade... i.e. some kind of complex arbitrage strategy was being employed).
Unfortunately, as in most customer contracts, the contract language is crafted by the firm's lawyers to favor the broker, not the customer, and; whether morally or ethically right or wrong, the proof of any deception lies with the customer.
Therein lies the rub... It will be nearly impossible for a customer to obtain any verifiable log or quotes between the broker and it's anonymous LP. Commented server logs are NOT proof of anything as they are simply text files that are easily edited before presentation.
This is another example of the value FPA provides to the trading community if traders will only avail themselves of it during their due diligence rather than trusting the slick advertising or whatever intuitive process by which they select the most critical element of their trading environment. I check here first before buying or considering business with ANY forex vendor (including systems, software, brokers, etc.) It has alerted me to potential issues more times than not and I suspect has saved me countless dollars and hours of frustration.
All that said, I deplore tactics by broker's who hide behind contract language designed to protect their firm against outright fraud. Technical "issues" and commented server logs are insufficient "evidence" to use against a customer's complaint. Add to this an apparent history of this behavior and FXOpen will get a guilty vote from me...
Using such an excuse as "technical difficulties" to explain (fabricate) price disparities is so very conveniently in favor of the broker. The plaintiff's posts show trades that were accepted by the broker's trading desk, executed, and confirmed at the prices.
Their "get out of jail" clause (Clause 6 I think?) not withstanding, if there are discrepancies between what was accepted, executed, and confirmed and what was available to the broker by the LP, that should be between the broker and the LP, NOT the customer (unless someone can prove the customer had knowledge of such price discrepancy when placing the trade... i.e. some kind of complex arbitrage strategy was being employed).
Unfortunately, as in most customer contracts, the contract language is crafted by the firm's lawyers to favor the broker, not the customer, and; whether morally or ethically right or wrong, the proof of any deception lies with the customer.
Therein lies the rub... It will be nearly impossible for a customer to obtain any verifiable log or quotes between the broker and it's anonymous LP. Commented server logs are NOT proof of anything as they are simply text files that are easily edited before presentation.
This is another example of the value FPA provides to the trading community if traders will only avail themselves of it during their due diligence rather than trusting the slick advertising or whatever intuitive process by which they select the most critical element of their trading environment. I check here first before buying or considering business with ANY forex vendor (including systems, software, brokers, etc.) It has alerted me to potential issues more times than not and I suspect has saved me countless dollars and hours of frustration.
All that said, I deplore tactics by broker's who hide behind contract language designed to protect their firm against outright fraud. Technical "issues" and commented server logs are insufficient "evidence" to use against a customer's complaint. Add to this an apparent history of this behavior and FXOpen will get a guilty vote from me...
Last edited: