I’m unsure how you can say T212 have done the best they can in regards to the CFD platform when you do not work for T212, and judging by your response neither do you understand the CFD platform. T212 have purposely Lied to their CFD customers and acted unjust, which is why people have stated feeling scammed/robbed, as spreads don’t happen to be $50 on any other platform, other than T212.
T212 did Not act in the best way possible, as a manager who is fit for purpose would have been able to Not act impulsively, brainstorm effectively, reduce the risk towards T212 without greatly misguiding the truth to its customers, and communicate in the first instance of stocks to be affected by 1:2 leverage, not the forth after so much damage has been done to peoples accounts which didn’t need to occur!
CFD issues seem to be brushed under the carpet as if its the Norm for a financial company to act in this way, it isn’t. 75 stocks affected out of 1000’s, and not one staff member could have figured that answer out sooner, i’d be a fool to be optimistic.
I hope you consider the Realistic T212 approach towards CFD customers, and not be Naive to their behaviour.
I remember reading that post at the time. they tried to launch a group lawsuit. from what I can tell, it went nowhere at all.
this is an article after the fact that looked into the 2017 price spike of bitcoin and the large number of people that found their assets frozen as a result.
It’s a bit like all these well I’m going to run to FCA.
Well the FCA will first point you back at getting in touch with T212, and then for most cases they can show you the Ts&C’s where they take no responsibility for third parties.
I think a lot of these angry posts we see are because people assume that T212 handles the trades to the exchange.
Take the recent chaos where orders had the appearance of being stuck when most had actually been executed.
I haven’t seen staff confirm this but as T212 piggy backs on Interactive Brokers it’s my assumption that T212 called IBs API and then IB failed to pass the responses back.
I don’t know if it’s because T212 want to hide the fact it’s IB underneath but if they had been more transparent with the issue then they might have had a more sympathetic audience if it’s a case of we are waiting for IB to fix it their end. It’s literally out of our hands.
What T212 could have done is put a warning up temporary to say it’s unstable atm and people could then chose to ignore it. The same popup system like when a new IPO hits, and it can sit in notifications with a brief explanation of the issue.
I don’t think the FCA is relevant for the above, you’re right, but it certainly governs and has a keen interest in the other areas discussed in the realms of CFDs over the past week or so.
@Richard.W The might not have been picked up but it was just a tongue in cheek response to T212s approach and if they would then go back on them outright removing crypto in CFD.
Basically the rules were meant to be hold and sell only so you could sell at your discretion, not force positions to close within a short space of time which has a massive negative impact that the FCA probably hadn’t thought through how brokers may react.
T212s game, they can set their rules and risks, but it can’t be nice if you were trading crypto and had unrealised losses that you wanted to see how it would play out holding.
But if T212 was selling real Cryptos, not some derivative price.
What stops one from rebuying same position on different platform?
Surely sour taste in the mouth due to T212 miscommunication, I agree.
But you don’t need to lose money at least, no? Not sure how capital gains tax for crypto, but if you sell stock for profit, you can reenter position to avoid capital gains?
So maybe same analogy could be used for crypto.
Anyway bottom line, communication wasn’t clear, but at least one had options to avoid capital losses.
I’m not sure if I’m the right person to answer having no real experience with either coins or CFD.
T212 have mentioned they may plan to sell crypto next year.
Basically if you buy the coins you can take them with you. But that’s a separate issue and shouldn’t be merged with derivatives discussion.
The crypto issue is not that the FCA say no more buying for retail CFD people.
It’s the fact that T212 are forcing the selling.
It would be the same if you were holding a unrealised loss in Invest or ISA and T212 said right next week we are forcing you to take that hit, rather than just take away the buy button.
The BTCE is a good example where you can sell at your leisure. If they instead said nope everyone must sell now, people would be chucking furniture about.
This is a fair point, and it raises another point that I’ve been meaning to make.
If T212 had just forced the sale of cryptos then I would’ve done exactly what @Vedran suggests. However, the margin change was originally supposed to take place on the same day as the cryptocurrency closure. I was forced to leave my crypto profits in FREE FUNDS in order to prevent my positions from being closed. The margin change resulted in my FREE FUNDS dropping from £25K to £-18K, which is a ridiculous change considering we got 1 day’s notice. The subsequent delay didn’t really help me with this predicament at all; it just gave me some more time to be sure I understood the impact of the margin change.
Increase margin and no remaining quantity for long position “The maximum remaining quantity for long positions with this instrument is 0”
Tesla, Moderna, or take any popular stock.
Why no transparency on the stocks that have 0 remaining quantity available. It would be good that a list is compiled for the stocks that have 0 quantity available? Will save so much time and effort. We try to read, analyze, explore and then go to CFD to get it and get 0.
Else, people just use DEMO mode and have fun seeing there ideas growing in a virtual mode!
might not have been picked up but it was just a tongue in cheek response to T212s approach and if they would then go back on them outright removing crypto in CFD.
meant! 