Another slooooow market order

Execution, execution, where for art tho execution?

Ti’s now day 4 for my MGC order on the LSE

I’ve had the usual BS from support ‘its low liquidity’

5 million in share volume on Tuesday alone, bloomberg price is way off, yes I’m having a moan!

I’m watching the dips dissappear along with my gains and my hair, I’m trying my best but with these execution delays I’m in despair!

Come on 212 let’s sort this out, im trying to build weath and feast, but 1 week for order execution is no good to man nor beast!

1 Like

MGC pharmaceuticals? You know there’s like only 40 trades a day right?

Some days are slow yes I agree, as with all instruments, but there have been plenty of higher volume days also…

Key word: ‘volume’

Not really. Your talking £40k worth of trading on a 60m mcap security. Low liquidity/turnover.

The main points here Dougal are that the price is way out and the market orders are painfully slow. These issues need addressing.

Hey. :wave:

MGC Pharmaceuticals Ltd is traded via the SETSqx trading service. This service provides execution of orders only several times a day during the official auctions should the liquidity conditions be favourable. In some cases, orders placed with stocks traded via SETSqx might remain pending for days.

Slow market orders can only be resolved by more people willing to sell/buy the shares.

The price being way out, well it’s a supply and demand at the end of the day. Low supply / high demand = price increases.

None of these are down to any broker.

If you have a limit order, you may want to lower it if your goal is to make the trade execute more quickly.

I did ponder on that, they are larger volume orders.

When you’re all competing to buy the stock, a market order will always win. But obviously a market order is risky as you could get a terrible price, so I’d just set a limit order to make sure you don’t get screwed

1 Like

Hey Dougal, I think your misunderstanding what I meant by the price being out.

See below.


That’s been discussed so many times on this community. Here’s the simple answer:

So every other source is the wrong price and 212 is correct?

Your very right, it has been discussed numerous times, but because of the bigger price differences as in this instance, and the painfully slow execution, its very easy to get frustrated.

The best way to think about it, is that every source is indicative. I work in financial services and we use quotes from multiple sources and look at trade volume as well to scrub quotes to get the best fit. That all costs money for the multiple data feeds.

These are the most basic requirements which most people on here are looking for, accurate pricing and fast order execution, in this instance we have neither. If 212 could improve these 2 key elements of their services it really would be hard to beat. They have fast true layer instant banking which is awesome, but whats the point of having a speedy banking system in place if we then have to wait days or weeks for order execution?

‘indicative’ within 0.01 is fine and acceptable, but this is quite a way off that.

We definitely need to see some improvements in these key areas, afterall, who wants to place a large volume market order if the price is out by a country mile?

That’s not always possible. Imagine it as an auction house with very little bidders.

We know the value of the asset today - the market cap - but with no bidders we don’t know what they want to pay.

You’re talking about a very illiquid, very small asset in the scale of the market. You’re asking them to be highly accurate on something that in the grand scheme of the market, almost zero participants care about.

3 Likes

There’s is no true price, that’s what I don’t think you’re getting. Indicative meaning it’s trying to give you some sort of estimate of what price it is. But there are no guaranteed prices in the stock market, it just isn’t how it works. It may seem that way in highly liquid stocks, but the reality becomes a lot more clear in illiquid stocks.

1 Like

The point is this, most other sources seem to be more accurate than 212 in this instance, do you not agree?

1 Like