1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

NOT GUILTY Case# 2011-010 | babadan vs www.forex-swiss.com

Discussion in 'Not Guilty Verdicts' started by babadan, Feb 7, 2011.

?

Based on the available evidence, do you believe that Forex-Swiss is guilty?

Poll closed Mar 20, 2011.
  1. Guilty

    23 vote(s)
    44.2%
  2. Not Guilty

    29 vote(s)
    55.8%
  1. Teodor Jackson

    Teodor Jackson Sergeant

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2010
    Messages:
    222
    Likes Received:
    1
    Just came to my mind:

    The EA may be using Lot Normalization algorithm.
    It checks for broker requirements like minimal lot and lot increment and adjusts initial lot size. This is similar to rounding.

    But in most of examples I saw it's poorly implemented - it doesn't handle extremes properly.
    In effect if your broker minimal lot is 1 it will adjust anything bellow 1 to 1.
    While this should result in no trade.

    Again - the answer is in the logs. You need both of them.

    What is the exact name of the EA actually? I mean commercial name.

    BTW: after you found this unfortunate trade, did you backtest the EA over the same pair and the fatal period to check if it repeats the lot size pattern?
     
    #11 Teodor Jackson, Mar 10, 2011
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2011
  2. FXPulsator

    FXPulsator Private

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2010
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Babadan,

    The screenshot of the EA parameters shows the SL @15pips, how could you incurr the loss over $900 even if I believe that the incorrect lot size was opened by the broker platform. The trade should have stopped @ loss of $150 ??

    It clearly seems the bug in the EA, as it should have stopped taking any trades when the trade lots executed are not within its Risk parameters / fixed lots.

    Despite this I would still vote the broker guilty for willfully misquoting the trading conditions on their website.

    Regards.
     
  3. Teodor Jackson

    Teodor Jackson Sergeant

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2010
    Messages:
    222
    Likes Received:
    1
    Babadan,

    I'm sorry to say it but you didn't provide enough evidence.

    EA settings sceenshot is not any proof - it only shows your EA input parameters.
    The EA may be flawed and results in adjusting lot size it to minimal broker lot size if 0.1 is bellow the threshold.
    You said they lowered it to 0.5 and the EA traded 0.5 instead of 0.1.
    This also suggests buggy Lots Normalization algorithm implementation inside the EA.
    The answer is in the MT4 logs but you failed to provide any.

    Besides you should contact the EA vendor first to find out what could possibly went wrong. It's quite likely he's responsible for your loses, not the broker.

    I understand your frustration to find "hidden" trading limitation.
    But it's not enough to blame the broker for you loss.
    Please also remember "NO TRADING RESTRICTIONS" is a general rule but it doesn't exclude some limitations. Like minimal lot size or spread.
    You asked them general question and got general answer.

    I found this sentence: "• It is the customer’s responsibility to find out all necessary information about FXCH and make sure that all arrangements are discussed and clearly understood prior to any trading activity" in the agreements you have to confirm when opening account.
    Once confirmed you agreed to it like it or not. Did you find it by the time you opened the account?

    The broker plays tricks. On the main page he says:

    "No Slippage on Market Orders - the price you see is the price you get!
    Guaranteed Fills on stop Loss and Limit orders "

    In the terms you have to accepts he says:

    "2. Risk-reducing orders or strategies The placing of certain orders (e.g. ‘stop-loss’ order, where permitted under local law, or ‘stop-limit’ orders) which are intended to limit losses to certain amounts may not be effective because market conditions may make it impossible to execute such orders. Strategies using combinations of positions, such as ‘spread’ and ‘straddle’ positions may be as risky as taking simple ‘long’ or ‘short’ positions.
    Entry limits orders: Any entry limit orders may not be executed at the price and there are no guarantees that limits will be executed at all, because of market conditions (as due to the increased volatility and the gaps that tend to take place in the markets may make it impossible to execute such orders at the desired price)".

    But still - you accused them for turning your 0.1 lot into 1 and then 0.5 which resulted in excessive loss.
    I find no evidence they did.
     
    #13 Teodor Jackson, Mar 14, 2011
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2011
  4. whiterabbit

    whiterabbit Recruit

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    not enough evidence, you should look into logs of expert advisor
     
  5. f-man

    f-man 4Xangels Representative

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2010
    Messages:
    762
    Likes Received:
    14
    I really can't understand why the broker never reacted to this case.
    A statement of the account activity would be very helpful for me.

    Babadan mentioned
    "The first trade was indeed with 1 pip profit, then all the rest were losing trades"



    Why did you leave it running after you realized it was opening trades with 1 lot?
    Would you return the money if all the trades were profitable?

    We have to be realistic. You have a very big part of the responsibility for the loss.
     
  6. SystemTrader

    SystemTrader Private

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2011
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. After contemplation, I've found that "There are not any mistakes" is actually a grammatically correct sentence, as in "There aren't any mistakes." I'm a nut like that.

    2. I usually go for guilty, but I'm not sure in this case. I wish you'd saved the log/journal/account records before closing the account.

    3. I only trade EA's, but it's always a little scary turning them on when an account is first setup. I watch them very closely to be sure they act right. I don't think you were careful with the EA, especially if it opened numerous trades with the unintended lot value. $900 is a lot even with $1/pip. That's 900 points!
     
  7. vincam

    vincam Sergeant

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    322
    Likes Received:
    1
    That's just great, "Guaranteed Fills"(unless of course we can't fill them)
     
  8. Pharaoh

    Pharaoh Colonel

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2007
    Messages:
    19,679
    Likes Received:
    2,229
    I am a little disappointed that the broker hasn't responded in any way yet.

    I'm not sure a broker should be held accountable for lot size issues unless the trader directly addressed that question with customer support first.

    In general, I think it's a good idea to open one minimum possible sized trade on any new live account just to double check what the minimum lot size really is. Sometimes a broker may have given someone the wrong account. If they broker really screwed up, I'd think they'd refund a little on one trade.

    On the other hand, to turn an EA lose without checking and to not monitor it carefully can't be directly blamed on the broker. Maybe they did something bad, but maybe they didn't. More evidence is needed. Otherwise, we'd be finding them guilty for the reason of being a broker.
     
  9. LEIGNEL

    LEIGNEL Recruit

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    FXCH is a SCAM !!!

    2 years ago,I had a live ECN account of 3000 Euros with them , and they blowed my account up in a few hours with a spike of more than 20 pips, coming out of the blue , from nowhere, and out of the usual Big News.
    Just because you are winning and they want to SUCK your money in one way or another.
    To fund your account , the bank to where to send the money is to HSBC in TBILISSI GEORGIA ( NOT GEORGIA IN THE US ). SO IMAGINE HOW THE BASTARDS ARE WASHING WHITE CUSTOMERS ' MONEY.
    There is NOTHING SWISS but their NAME !!
    Just INTERNATIONAL CROOKS !!!
     
  10. WaveRider

    WaveRider Sergeant

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2011
    Messages:
    304
    Likes Received:
    15
    I can't vote yet but...

    This seems to be a scumbag broker but it looks not guilty on this one by a little. The plaintiff saw the lot difference on the first trade, didn't correct it and lost. The broker makes rediculous claims but it must be true if there are exclaimation points after the rediculous claim, right? I would vote a begrudging not guilty but likely this broker has done other scumbag things for which it has not been called on. If it was voted guilty, it wouldn't hurt my feelings.
     

Share This Page