Yes, they can do that. This is their choice, the minimum is their stipulation and they are legally free to depart from it. It might be for their best customers they might readily do this, but they under no obligation to stick to an advertised minimum.
but if the leverage change is to target maliciously to close out on the positions
how does that owrk
hang on ... I've just found a case which might be useful ... wait there a sec.
I was looking at a case, which isn't really on the point we're discussing, but it does show how seemingly easy it is to manipulate prices. I suppose every broker/trader etc. has different abilities on different systems, but you might find this case an interesting read anyway: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/478.html
To answer your question, if the change is done deliberately to manipulate positions (as appears to have happened in this case I just gave you), then this is going to be fraud if it's not permitted or consented to - which I seriously doubt!!!
lol 20 k
what happened with this
:) God knows!
an actual case against a broker
there are a few actually ...
Hang on ....
The cases are really useful, because they give you the background on the regulatory framework and the arguments people like yourselves have tried to run in the past. So, some interesting cases:
but back to the question
if the leverage is aimed to close the positions
Oh yea.... sorry.
how does that fair then
no thanks for these
The botXXXXX XXXXXne has to be this: if customers are targeted with a dishonest intention, in breach of the agreement, to force them to lose money, that has to be unlawful and possibly criminal. Irrespective of the "fiddle" if there is one - and how it happens - the fact of the fiddle is enough to be criminal, and cause the broker to be unable to sue on what it says is due. If anything, the right to sue will be the other way around!
sorry what does the fiddle mean
Sorry, I'm just saying - that if they're trying to close you out to make money, and they do so unlawfully, that's a manipulation of the figures (which should really be reflecting real-time market conditions), and must be unlawful.
what about close me out to minimise their risk
but i am willing to uphold my risk
Why do they say they did it?
Basically, do their T&Cs allow them to do it?
It always depends on their agreement. In fact, if you look at the second case I sent you of the second lot, it's a similar thing to what you're asking here. If certain margin requirements are not met, for example, they can close out and protect themselves.
No it doesnt
they said they are execution only.
it's not margin requirements
existing trades were opened at 1:200
they were like
hey we will reduce you to 1:50 cause it's risky
which is just complete garbage
okay - you've read more than me of that one ... I skim read much more quickly :)
Requirement for risk warnings
A firm must not:
(1) make a personal recommendation of a transaction; or
(2) act as a discretionary investment manager; or
(3) arrange (bring about) or execute a deal in a warrant or derivative; or
(4) engage in stock lending activity;
with, to or for a private customer unless it has taken reasonable steps to ensure that the private customer understands the nature of the risks involved."
This one was margin requirements ....
The botXXXXX XXXXXne though - it depends what their terms allow to happen.
But fraud unravels everything, so the saying goes, so if there is an intention to do something unlawful which is done to cause you loss or them to make money - that gives you a good starting point to argue that you've had a fraud committed against you.
if fraud was found
do i get compensated
If you suffered due to it ... then yes, you should do.
In stuff like
does it mean the claimant won?
Yes, it does.
if the claimant won
and they claim for 300k
means the claimant gets all 300 k?
Because the counterclaim as dismissed, so nothing to offset the claim.
wow i thought they usually go to a very um
unfavourable scale for the claimant
right .... the wife is shouting me to go eat tea .... can carry on with you in a bit or have you had enough of me? :)
how old are you btw
i assume out of law school recently?
cause you use the word "lol"
Not quite .... 36! So not many grey hairs, although it's going that way!!
btw my friend says thanks a lot for everything
he got his subscription lifted hahaha
anytime - to you both :)
Got it lifted?
so he wasn't able to chat with you
You mean he cancelled?
apparently asking too many law questions
He cancelled, or they cancelled him?
they cancelled him
Bummer, wondered why he'd gone quiet!
That is a shame ... I liked our chats!
Have to do it via you :)
Tell him good luck!
yeah no problem he could come on
see you and have fun
please lock this
You too dude. Adios.
can you pick this up?
If you want to chat, you'll need to post a new question for me now, as this is Q&A and I can't change it back.