Pharaoh
Brigadier General
- Messages
- 20,308
So, if PPM had already met the volume requirements, then and only then would the answer given by Roman have become correct.
However, since PPM was just starting out and CLEARLY did not include any information about trading volume, I think it should have been OBVIOUS to Roman that the question was NOT based on having fulfilled additional requirements. Additionally, for Roman to fail to mention that his answer had extra conditions required to make it true lead PPM to make trading decisions based on information that was inaccurate when applied to his account.
All things considered, my best recommendation would be to make an exception to the rules (since they were explained in a way that clearly influence the client to trade in a more risky fashion) and allow PPM to continue trading.
Before MasterForex's representative says that this is unfair, I'd like to point out that my proposal is clearly a compromise. If the rules had been FULLY AND COMPLETELY explained by Roman, PPM could have stopped trading long before losing the amount of his initial deposit and withdrawn some of his funds.
MasterForex risks nothing by this. If PPM's trading style doesn't become more cautions and more successful, he's unlikely to have the account survive to meet the 300 lots minimum. If PPM does end up meeting the volume requirements, MasterForex is very likely to have made back the bonus from charges on the spread.
I also recommend that MasterForex make sure that Roman and all other live chat agents be required to give FULL AND COMPLETE answers to questions like this. Let them know that any more partial answers will make the agents themselves personally liable for repaying any losses their incomplete or inaccurate answers cause.
However, since PPM was just starting out and CLEARLY did not include any information about trading volume, I think it should have been OBVIOUS to Roman that the question was NOT based on having fulfilled additional requirements. Additionally, for Roman to fail to mention that his answer had extra conditions required to make it true lead PPM to make trading decisions based on information that was inaccurate when applied to his account.
All things considered, my best recommendation would be to make an exception to the rules (since they were explained in a way that clearly influence the client to trade in a more risky fashion) and allow PPM to continue trading.
Before MasterForex's representative says that this is unfair, I'd like to point out that my proposal is clearly a compromise. If the rules had been FULLY AND COMPLETELY explained by Roman, PPM could have stopped trading long before losing the amount of his initial deposit and withdrawn some of his funds.
MasterForex risks nothing by this. If PPM's trading style doesn't become more cautions and more successful, he's unlikely to have the account survive to meet the 300 lots minimum. If PPM does end up meeting the volume requirements, MasterForex is very likely to have made back the bonus from charges on the spread.
I also recommend that MasterForex make sure that Roman and all other live chat agents be required to give FULL AND COMPLETE answers to questions like this. Let them know that any more partial answers will make the agents themselves personally liable for repaying any losses their incomplete or inaccurate answers cause.