Hello,
I'm going to detailed the second account i had with this broker. I opened it with 5k. After some trades it went up to 5.3k. The problem came on 10/10/2014 with cad big move. I opened a trade with 10.3 lots (ticket 4368731), it was filled at 1.11362, that was 24 pips below the REAL minimum of the candle that is at 1.11597. For this reasons I asked them to refund that ticket.
They anwsered saying order was rejected many times by their liquidity providers.
The thing it's that i signed a contract with ironfx not with liquidity provider, they show a specific minimum on that candle at that is the minimum price I should get. If the lp gives me lower price that is something they have to argue with lp and it's all about his contract with you.
After that they also told me that this can happen when volatility is high and so on. My anwser was that:
Although I do understand the nature of market volatility only too well, I also am aware of the nature of your methods of trade execution. When researching this matter online I have had it pointed out to me that you are executing the trades as a market maker first then having them approved by your LP; this is not true STP/ECN execution and as such your comments are meaningless.
“Furthermore and as per the Company’s Trading Terms and Conditions –STP/ECN which you have become aware and accepted prior to the opening of your trading account, you have acknowledged and accepted that the Company would not be responsible in case orders not being executed at the price requested (i.e. prevailing market price) since the quotes are derived from the liquidity providers using a bridge technology and market prices usually move fast during volatile periods.
Concluding, it is evident that the Company cannot be held liable and also based on the above analysis the orders have been executed at the prices provided by the Liquidity Providers.”
Considering you are acting contrary to how you explain yourselves then I am confident that were this matter to be taken to a legal footing and all the relevant authorities involved there would be some serious questions to answer.
Your reputation as a global service with regulation in just about every jurisdiction possible is starting to come apart publicly and I will be only too happy to push this along with total transparency of all that’s happened here.
I attach proofs of this.
Best Regards
I'm going to detailed the second account i had with this broker. I opened it with 5k. After some trades it went up to 5.3k. The problem came on 10/10/2014 with cad big move. I opened a trade with 10.3 lots (ticket 4368731), it was filled at 1.11362, that was 24 pips below the REAL minimum of the candle that is at 1.11597. For this reasons I asked them to refund that ticket.
They anwsered saying order was rejected many times by their liquidity providers.
The thing it's that i signed a contract with ironfx not with liquidity provider, they show a specific minimum on that candle at that is the minimum price I should get. If the lp gives me lower price that is something they have to argue with lp and it's all about his contract with you.
After that they also told me that this can happen when volatility is high and so on. My anwser was that:
Although I do understand the nature of market volatility only too well, I also am aware of the nature of your methods of trade execution. When researching this matter online I have had it pointed out to me that you are executing the trades as a market maker first then having them approved by your LP; this is not true STP/ECN execution and as such your comments are meaningless.
“Furthermore and as per the Company’s Trading Terms and Conditions –STP/ECN which you have become aware and accepted prior to the opening of your trading account, you have acknowledged and accepted that the Company would not be responsible in case orders not being executed at the price requested (i.e. prevailing market price) since the quotes are derived from the liquidity providers using a bridge technology and market prices usually move fast during volatile periods.
Concluding, it is evident that the Company cannot be held liable and also based on the above analysis the orders have been executed at the prices provided by the Liquidity Providers.”
Considering you are acting contrary to how you explain yourselves then I am confident that were this matter to be taken to a legal footing and all the relevant authorities involved there would be some serious questions to answer.
Your reputation as a global service with regulation in just about every jurisdiction possible is starting to come apart publicly and I will be only too happy to push this along with total transparency of all that’s happened here.
I attach proofs of this.
Best Regards
