New Solutions, Member Brokers, Committee Members, and Complaint Resolution Efficiencies
The first half (H1) of 2014 saw a number of positive new developments for Financial Commission, the Industry-driven organization operated by Hong-Kong based FinaCom PLC limited, and via FinancialCommission.org
Below we share our progress report for our members, their clients, and the public, as new brokerages and existing firms consider membership with the Financial Commission, in order to improve business relations by helping to resolve escalated matters use a cost-efficient and non-biased third party. The data presented below can help provide a window into the functions and results achieved by our organization during the first six months of 2014.
H1 2014 Statistics in Review:
During the first half of 2014 a total of 34 complaints were filed in total, of which 16 were against current members, and whereas 18 were against non-members of Financial Commission.
The claims involved amounts ranging from as low as $24.00 to $26,000. In total, 29 of the filed complaints were Forex related, and the remaining 5 were pertaining to Binary Options trading.
20 Complaints were successfully resolved, using the Financial Commission Dispute Resolution Process, and 2 complaints still remain in progress (as of this writing).
In addition there were 12 trading related complaints, from the totals above, 13 payment related, and 4 complaints related to fraud. Meanwhile 12 complaints lack sufficient information, with no status available.
| H1 Total Complaints 34 | Resolved | |
 |
 |
News Developments and Events for the Financial Commission During H1 2014
The Financial Commission continues to focus on growing its effort to help the industry and benefit online brokers and their respective traders, by expanding its solutions to more and more companies, as well as enhancing the number of solutions the Financial Commission offers to its members.
In order to achieve this outcome, during the first half of this year, the organization participated in a number of key forex conferences, appointed a new member to its DRC committee, and developed new methods to cover additional instruments and cater to a different segment of the market – related to binary options, by certifying platform technology.
Participation in Forex Industry Conferences:
 |
At the start of 2014, the Financial Commission participated in the iFX EXPO International Conference in Macau, an important industry conference in Asia bringing a diverse crowd of brokerages and platform vendors together in one place. |
 |
The FX Conference in Turkey, organized by Forex Magnates, was also another important event that the commission participated in, during the first half of 2014. |
 |
At FX Congress in Russia, organized by the first russian SRO CRFIN, where Anatoly Bulanov Head of DRC presented a benchmarking study of various local dispute resolution examples, highlighting their advantages and disadvantages. |
 |
At the end of H1 2014 the Financial Commission participated at the iFX EXPO International in Cyprus, and Chairman Peter Tatarnikov was a speaker, and presented a keynote speech regarding the functions of the organization as part of the presentation. |
Key Appointments and Membership:
 |
Juan Jutgla become a member of the Financial Commission’s Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC), thus strengthening the DRC’s already-diverse panel of forex industry executives who are involved in deciding on claims processed by the organization. |
New Solutions and Milestones:
 |
In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of the Financial Commission’s Dispute Resolution Process, the organization began publishing randomly selected complaints, that were subsequently anonymized in order to focus on the context of the issues that arose, and how they were later resolved through this unique mediation process. |
 |
In order to provide its membership benefits to the Binary Options industry, the Financial Commission underwent the process of certifying Binary Options platform technology, as a basis for helping to ensure binary options related complaints could be dealt with in an equitable manner, thus opening the doors for Binary Options brokers to become members. |
 |
The Financial Commission announced its first certified platform Binarystation for Binary Options, from the technology provider Binaryware LLC USA. |
Member Firms at End of H1 2014:
Current Members of the Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) include:
Upcoming Developments beyond H1 2014:
As part of the organizations core mission statement to help customers through educational channels, the Financial Commission plans on establishing tools for traders, such as webinars, and educational material for traders, as well as implementing some technological features such as enabling traders to check rates and order execution.
The organization is focused on adding more members, during the next quarter and second half of 2014, as well as certifying more binary options trading platforms, from both Binary options brokerages that have developed their own proprietary platforms, as well as platforms from 3rd-party binary options technology providers.
| SPEAKER | Peter Tatarnikov – the Financial Commission Chairman.Peter has 12 years experience in the Forex Industry. He started his career as trading desk assistant back in 1999 and in 2003 he filled a Chief Dealer position in one of the largest retail Forex broker in Russia. In-depth knowledge of FX operations and high managerial skills brought Peter to a COO position at Forex Club USA in 2006 and in 2010 he earned a CEO chair. During his career, Peter designed and held over 200 seminars on Forex Trading. His professionalism and commitment has made him a well known FX market commentator and spokesperson for the retail FX industry. |
| DETAILS | During this webinar we will discuss the selection criteria of the Forex broker;
|
| DATE/TIME | Every TUE 10:00 EST |
| REGISTRATION | Please choose the date of the webinar and complete registration:
After registration an email with a link to enter the virtual classroom will be automatically sent to your e-mail address. |
A New Player in the Forex Scene – Six-Months Up and Running, with a Promising Future Ahead
In the industry of Forex, there is a distinct collection of entities that interact; the brokers (and IBs), the clients and the regulatory bodies. Like in every field or industry, friction and disputes do arise, and up till now – it has often been a long and rigid process to reach resolutions and manage disputes. Moreover, there has always been a veil of mystery around these disputes, with resolutions not being found, or even sought. This is where Financial Commission comes into the picture.
What the Financial Commission is all about
The Financial Commission is a neutral, third party dispute resolution entity in the field of Forex trading; solving disputes between traders and their brokers. A new player indeed, Financial Commission has filled a big vacuum of need in the industry. The Commission bases its philosophy on the following pillars:
1. Education. Knowledge is power. Oftentimes, disputes arise from a lack of knowledge or misunderstandings on the side of the traders, about how the Forex industry works. Slippage, pip spread, spikes and more could throw traders off track and cause them to believe there has been misconduct. Whether the dispute has arisen from a lack of knowledge or not, the disgruntled trader will in both cases feel acute lack of fairness. The Financial Commission has outlined its mission to give knowledge to the traders, so they are partners in their success, as opposed to mere onlookers, and never in the dark about how the industry works. On the other side of the same coin, Financial Commission educates its members on how to better communicate with their traders, in order to make the relationship a healthy two-way dialogue. For Financial Commission, education is of utmost importance due to its mission to deal with the root of the problems, rather than only providing on-the-spot solutions. This is the very philosophy that, for all parties involved, will transform our industry into a clearer and fairer one.
2. Transparency. Having a neutral, professional and unaffiliated body you can trust in this tumultuous world of Forex can make all the difference. The interest-free Financial Commission and the Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) that is built up of a fascinating mosaic of experienced and esteemed figures in the industry, work together to review each and every case with one goal only; dispute resolution on the side of justice. With the bigger picture always in the background of making this industry clearer and granting traders more knowledge, Financial Commission zooms in on any complaint that arises in order to make sure that the parties walk away with the knowledge they need about the case, as well as an amicable and fair resolution. The healthiest dispute resolution that exists is one where a neutral body is pre-defined and gears into operation to objectively solve a dispute when needed. In the world of Forex, Financial Commission is it.
3. Swiftness and efficiency. The Financial Commission with the DRC at the heart of its operation works like clockwork on each and every complaint. In concretely organized steps, the DRC will reach a resolution of the case within several weeks, with intermediary milestones of communication along the way, with both sides of the dispute. Alongside the dedication to education and reliability, Financial Commission believes in the highest level of professionalism and meticulous conduct in every endeavor, in order to continue its impressive track record for years to come.
In Only Six Months, Impressive Results
During only six months of operation, the Financial Commission has resolved around 20 complaints from traders; most of which were only in the last 2 months. Alongside this, we are pleased to know that the traders’ community awareness regarding an independent arbitrator who can address their disputes against service providers in the financial markets has increased significantly. A remarkable fact is, that the bulk of claims are directly related to the most basic principles of Forex trading, which are still poorly understood by traders. This is purely in line with Financial Commission’s overall philosophy of giving education a major role within dispute resolution. Among these are some aspects of trading, such as execution of pending orders during the publication of important economic news, the way the margin for open positions is calculated in all trading platforms or for example, the purpose and the operation principle of Stop Out or Margin Call. Some traders get a better understanding of these things too late, and very often their open positions are closed by the broker because of lack of free margin. In this regard, the Financial Commission recommends that the brokerage companies pay more attention to the education of their customers. All brokers must do so in order to help their customers avoid some unpleasant situations while trading.
In addition to offering a dispute resolution framework and enhancing the education of the traders in order to reduce the overall number of disputes and grievances in the long run, the most important aspect of this mechanism, is that it helps the brokers to retain their critical mass of clientele. That is, due to the fact that many small traders never actually file complaints, but simply leave negative feedback in traders’ forums and spread the word in their communities, (often stemming from lack of knowledge), brokers could slowly but surely lose a significant number of traders, who will simply wander elsewhere in these cases.
Financial Commission also helps to expose new trends and phenomena that come up in the industry, based on the claims it receives. It is particularly interesting to note one category of claims, which included cases where clients of brokerage firms either intentionally or unknowingly used special software (Expert Advisors), which was designed to cheat, using trading technologies. The Financial Commission has taken a tough stance on this issue and believes that the use of such methods to generate profits is a violation of generally accepted norms and principles of doing business based on fair and mutually beneficial partnership. We feel it`s very important to mention here that Financial Commission may never be used as a bargaining tool for the traders who utilize such methods. The founders of the Financial Commission have repeatedly witnessed situations where a person using such techniques was identified and expelled from the ranks of customers of the affected companies. However, in some cases, such clients managed to withdraw some dishonest profits from their accounts. The official position of the Financial Commission on this issue is that on regulated markets such actions should be classified as fraud. Finally, we selected a specific category of claims related to failures in the technical provision of brokerage companies. Typically, such claims do not cause any problems and are resolved in favor of traders.
Looking at the final statistics on claims admitted to the Financial Commission during the period of its existence, around 26% of the claims were resolved in favor of traders .
In addition to the aforementioned claims, the Financial Commission has received 12 complaints from clients of brokerage firms, who are not yet members of our organization. The geographical span of these customers is very extensive; clients from Russia, other countries of Eastern Europe and the CIS, China and Southeast Asia, the Arab countries and more. This again reinforces that fact that the problem of lack of a fair dispute resolution mechanism, actually exists. We are communicating with brokerage companies from these regions and highly recommend to them to join the Financial Commission in order to further work together to solve these problems in a more efficient way. Finally, there is a mechanism to do so, which will be favorable for all.
The Members of the Financial Commission
Over the course of only six months, Financial Commission has already had the pleasure of welcoming seven of the biggest names of the industry as members, and the activity of the Financial Commission is gaining speed, as this new and exciting mechanism is gaining its well-deserved place on the map.
AForex, Alpari, FXOpen FXFair, Lionstone Investment ,MFX Broker and RoboForex are among the recent members to join the Commission, many of which have already experienced successful and satisfactory dispute resolution. The companies are from various regions around the world, and some are already members of local EDRs, yet still saw the need to join the Commission. This clearly reinforces the fact that the Commission fills an important need in the industry, and that its geographical grasp and popularity are spreading.
The Dispute Resolution Committee
The driving mechanism of the Commission as a whole is the Dispute Resolution Committee, the DRC. Top and esteemed figures from the industry; no less than the CEOs and Presidents of the leading Forex educational bodies and technical provider companies come together to make up the DRC, which solves each and every dispute that reaches it.
The disputes are addressed, investigated and solved by a combined endeavor of this impressive group of top figures. The goal is to create a framework where rich experience and knowledge are key, as well as giving a multi-dimensional view of every dispute, based on the variety and diversity of expertise these top figures bring with them, after years in their respective fields. When having one’s dispute resolved by the Financial Commission, and in essence by the DRC, every Forex trader knows that his/her dispute will be overseen by the absolute top levels, with the highest and most refined levels of expertise, and of course – with full neutrality and objectivity.
The Current DCR Members are:
Anatoly Bulanov – Head of the DRC
Ilan Azbel – CEO, AutoChartist
Francesc Riverola – CEO, FX Street
Carl Elsammak – CEO, Kammas
Ilya Sorokin – CEO, ACT Forex
Simon Grunfeld – Partner, Stone Street Solutions
Andrew Ralich – Co-Founder, oneZero Financial
Lior Nabat – CEO, Tradency
Aleksey Kutsenko – CEO, Tools4Brokers.com
Kevin Millien – President, Millien Consulting Group
Financial Commission is on a constant quest to enrich the DRC, by welcoming no less than the very top figures of the industry. These leading individuals in the field come together to form the ultimate dispute resolution setting; a trader or broker could not ask for more. The accumulated years of experience and profound knowledge, sitting in one room, to deal with each and every dispute is the very reason why the Financial Commission has made such a grand appearance on the scene of the Forex industry.
The DRC is expanding and enriching its collection of members, and this manifests itself especially in the latest new appointment; Anatoly Bulanov as the Head of the DRC. Mr. Bulanov is a well-known figure in the industry, having over a decade and a half’s worth of acumen; with an emphasis on traders’ education, live trading, analysis and the technical aspects of trading and platforms as well.
Financial Commission in the Press
With the appearance of the unique Financial Commission onto the scene, the media and press have noted this as a turning point in the field and have been covering its developments closely. Big names in the media such as the examples below, have been seeking to tell the FX world about the Commission and its mission;
FXStreet; “if the commission should succeed, no doubt it is a good and a right step towards making FX a real asset class for traders all over the world”
iLearney alluded to the importance of Financial Commission’s role in Russia; “protecting the rights of the traders and investors is vital, because according to experts, Russia has around 400 thousand people in the FX industry, and with this growth brings with it a higher number of claims against brokers”
Interfax, a leading news agency in Russia, has been following Financial Commission and included its developments in their prestigious Annual FX Market Development Research outlining the fact that Financial Commission is an important and effective tool in the field of Forex, bridging traders and brokers and playing a crucial role.
In addition to this buzz in the media, Financial Commission is invited to many global FX events and Conferences; the Forex Magnates Summits in London and Tokyo in 2013, as well as the iFX expo in Macau, 2014 are just a few examples of the global presence Financial Commission has gained in the industry.
Financial Commission has received vast support from the industry, on regional and international levels, and this reinforces the notion that this unique type of operation is much needed in the FX field and shows very clearly, where it is going from here.
At the Start of 2014; Looking Forward
After six months, it is safe to say that the Financial Commission has paved its way into the Forex industry, and was certainly welcomed by it. It is clear that the need for neutral and hassle-free dispute resolution has been around for a while, and the time has come to address this need. As the famous phrase says; “necessity is the mother of invention” – this was indeed the case in the creation and introduction of this first-ever neutral and professional dispute resolution body, which seeks to resolve disputes as well as transform the whole industry and the way Forex traders’ grievances are addressed and handled. Looking forward to following years, the Financial Commission will be welcoming additional members, and will be expanding its activity to more and more geographical locations.
Most importantly, and being the very fabric of the Financial Commission’s activity, the Commission will be responsible for a new way of thinking. Finally, for the traders, there is a body, which is there to resolve disputes. For the brokers, there is a way to show reliability and enhance credibility and thus confidence, for existing and potential clients. In addition to constant expansion and global exposure, Financial Commission is also enhancing its capabilities on a professional and technical level. That is, Financial Commission is extending its operation to cover more financial instruments and trading mechanisms, as well as branching out to more and more areas within the FX industry where disputes could arise.
A New Player in the Forex Scene – Six-Months Up and Running, with a Promising Future Ahead
In the industry of Forex, there is a distinct collection of entities that interact; the brokers (and IBs), the clients and the regulatory bodies. Like in every field or industry, friction and disputes do arise, and up till now – it has often been a long and rigid process to reach resolutions and manage disputes. Moreover, there has always been a veil of mystery around these disputes, with resolutions not being found, or even sought. This is where Financial Commission comes into the picture.
What the Financial Commission is all about
The Financial Commission is a neutral, third party dispute resolution entity in the field of Forex trading; solving disputes between traders and their brokers. A new player indeed, Financial Commission has filled a big vacuum of need in the industry. The Commission bases its philosophy on the following pillars:
1. Education. Knowledge is power. Oftentimes, disputes arise from a lack of knowledge or misunderstandings on the side of the traders, about how the Forex industry works. Slippage, pip spread, spikes and more could throw traders off track and cause them to believe there has been misconduct. Whether the dispute has arisen from a lack of knowledge or not, the disgruntled trader will in both cases feel acute lack of fairness. The Financial Commission has outlined its mission to give knowledge to the traders, so they are partners in their success, as opposed to mere onlookers, and never in the dark about how the industry works. On the other side of the same coin, Financial Commission educates its members on how to better communicate with their traders, in order to make the relationship a healthy two-way dialogue. For Financial Commission, education is of utmost importance due to its mission to deal with the root of the problems, rather than only providing on-the-spot solutions. This is the very philosophy that, for all parties involved, will transform our industry into a clearer and fairer one.
2. Transparency. Having a neutral, professional and unaffiliated body you can trust in this tumultuous world of Forex can make all the difference. The interest-free Financial Commission and the Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) that is built up of a fascinating mosaic of experienced and esteemed figures in the industry, work together to review each and every case with one goal only; dispute resolution on the side of justice. With the bigger picture always in the background of making this industry clearer and granting traders more knowledge, Financial Commission zooms in on any complaint that arises in order to make sure that the parties walk away with the knowledge they need about the case, as well as an amicable and fair resolution. The healthiest dispute resolution that exists is one where a neutral body is pre-defined and gears into operation to objectively solve a dispute when needed. In the world of Forex, Financial Commission is it.
3. Swiftness and efficiency. The Financial Commission with the DRC at the heart of its operation works like clockwork on each and every complaint. In concretely organized steps, the DRC will reach a resolution of the case within several weeks, with intermediary milestones of communication along the way, with both sides of the dispute. Alongside the dedication to education and reliability, Financial Commission believes in the highest level of professionalism and meticulous conduct in every endeavor, in order to continue its impressive track record for years to come.
In Only Six Months, Impressive Results
During only six months of operation, the Financial Commission has resolved around 20 complaints from traders; most of which were only in the last 2 months. Alongside this, we are pleased to know that the traders’ community awareness regarding an independent arbitrator who can address their disputes against service providers in the financial markets has increased significantly. A remarkable fact is, that the bulk of claims are directly related to the most basic principles of Forex trading, which are still poorly understood by traders. This is purely in line with Financial Commission’s overall philosophy of giving education a major role within dispute resolution. Among these are some aspects of trading, such as execution of pending orders during the publication of important economic news, the way the margin for open positions is calculated in all trading platforms or for example, the purpose and the operation principle of Stop Out or Margin Call. Some traders get a better understanding of these things too late, and very often their open positions are closed by the broker because of lack of free margin. In this regard, the Financial Commission recommends that the brokerage companies pay more attention to the education of their customers. All brokers must do so in order to help their customers avoid some unpleasant situations while trading.
In addition to offering a dispute resolution framework and enhancing the education of the traders in order to reduce the overall number of disputes and grievances in the long run, the most important aspect of this mechanism, is that it helps the brokers to retain their critical mass of clientele. That is, due to the fact that many small traders never actually file complaints, but simply leave negative feedback in traders’ forums and spread the word in their communities, (often stemming from lack of knowledge), brokers could slowly but surely lose a significant number of traders, who will simply wander elsewhere in these cases.
Financial Commission also helps to expose new trends and phenomena that come up in the industry, based on the claims it receives. It is particularly interesting to note one category of claims, which included cases where clients of brokerage firms either intentionally or unknowingly used special software (Expert Advisors), which was designed to cheat, using trading technologies. The Financial Commission has taken a tough stance on this issue and believes that the use of such methods to generate profits is a violation of generally accepted norms and principles of doing business based on fair and mutually beneficial partnership. We feel it`s very important to mention here that Financial Commission may never be used as a bargaining tool for the traders who utilize such methods. The founders of the Financial Commission have repeatedly witnessed situations where a person using such techniques was identified and expelled from the ranks of customers of the affected companies. However, in some cases, such clients managed to withdraw some dishonest profits from their accounts. The official position of the Financial Commission on this issue is that on regulated markets such actions should be classified as fraud. Finally, we selected a specific category of claims related to failures in the technical provision of brokerage companies. Typically, such claims do not cause any problems and are resolved in favor of traders.
Looking at the final statistics on claims admitted to the Financial Commission during the period of its existence, around 26% of the claims were resolved in favor of traders .
In addition to the aforementioned claims, the Financial Commission has received 12 complaints from clients of brokerage firms, who are not yet members of our organization. The geographical span of these customers is very extensive; clients from Russia, other countries of Eastern Europe and the CIS, China and Southeast Asia, the Arab countries and more. This again reinforces that fact that the problem of lack of a fair dispute resolution mechanism, actually exists. We are communicating with brokerage companies from these regions and highly recommend to them to join the Financial Commission in order to further work together to solve these problems in a more efficient way. Finally, there is a mechanism to do so, which will be favorable for all.
The Members of the Financial Commission
Over the course of only six months, Financial Commission has already had the pleasure of welcoming seven of the biggest names of the industry as members, and the activity of the Financial Commission is gaining speed, as this new and exciting mechanism is gaining its well-deserved place on the map.
AForex, Alpari, FXOpen FXFair, Lionstone Investment ,MFX Broker and RoboForex are among the recent members to join the Commission, many of which have already experienced successful and satisfactory dispute resolution. The companies are from various regions around the world, and some are already members of local EDRs, yet still saw the need to join the Commission. This clearly reinforces the fact that the Commission fills an important need in the industry, and that its geographical grasp and popularity are spreading.
The Dispute Resolution Committee
The driving mechanism of the Commission as a whole is the Dispute Resolution Committee, the DRC. Top and esteemed figures from the industry; no less than the CEOs and Presidents of the leading Forex educational bodies and technical provider companies come together to make up the DRC, which solves each and every dispute that reaches it.
The disputes are addressed, investigated and solved by a combined endeavor of this impressive group of top figures. The goal is to create a framework where rich experience and knowledge are key, as well as giving a multi-dimensional view of every dispute, based on the variety and diversity of expertise these top figures bring with them, after years in their respective fields. When having one’s dispute resolved by the Financial Commission, and in essence by the DRC, every Forex trader knows that his/her dispute will be overseen by the absolute top levels, with the highest and most refined levels of expertise, and of course – with full neutrality and objectivity.
The Current DCR Members are:
Anatoly Bulanov – Head of the DRC
Ilan Azbel – CEO, AutoChartist
Francesc Riverola – CEO, FX Street
Carl Elsammak – CEO, Kammas
Ilya Sorokin – CEO, ACT Forex
Simon Grunfeld – Partner, Stone Street Solutions
Andrew Ralich – Co-Founder, oneZero Financial
Lior Nabat – CEO, Tradency
Aleksey Kutsenko – CEO, Tools4Brokers.com
Kevin Millien – President, Millien Consulting Group
Financial Commission is on a constant quest to enrich the DRC, by welcoming no less than the very top figures of the industry. These leading individuals in the field come together to form the ultimate dispute resolution setting; a trader or broker could not ask for more. The accumulated years of experience and profound knowledge, sitting in one room, to deal with each and every dispute is the very reason why the Financial Commission has made such a grand appearance on the scene of the Forex industry.
The DRC is expanding and enriching its collection of members, and this manifests itself especially in the latest new appointment; Anatoly Bulanov as the Head of the DRC. Mr. Bulanov is a well-known figure in the industry, having over a decade and a half’s worth of acumen; with an emphasis on traders’ education, live trading, analysis and the technical aspects of trading and platforms as well.
Financial Commission in the Press
With the appearance of the unique Financial Commission onto the scene, the media and press have noted this as a turning point in the field and have been covering its developments closely. Big names in the media such as the examples below, have been seeking to tell the FX world about the Commission and its mission;
FXStreet; “if the commission should succeed, no doubt it is a good and a right step towards making FX a real asset class for traders all over the world”
iLearney alluded to the importance of Financial Commission’s role in Russia; “protecting the rights of the traders and investors is vital, because according to experts, Russia has around 400 thousand people in the FX industry, and with this growth brings with it a higher number of claims against brokers”
Interfax, a leading news agency in Russia, has been following Financial Commission and included its developments in their prestigious Annual FX Market Development Research outlining the fact that Financial Commission is an important and effective tool in the field of Forex, bridging traders and brokers and playing a crucial role.
In addition to this buzz in the media, Financial Commission is invited to many global FX events and Conferences; the Forex Magnates Summits in London and Tokyo in 2013, as well as the iFX expo in Macau, 2014 are just a few examples of the global presence Financial Commission has gained in the industry.
Financial Commission has received vast support from the industry, on regional and international levels, and this reinforces the notion that this unique type of operation is much needed in the FX field and shows very clearly, where it is going from here.
At the Start of 2014; Looking Forward
After six months, it is safe to say that the Financial Commission has paved its way into the Forex industry, and was certainly welcomed by it. It is clear that the need for neutral and hassle-free dispute resolution has been around for a while, and the time has come to address this need. As the famous phrase says; “necessity is the mother of invention” – this was indeed the case in the creation and introduction of this first-ever neutral and professional dispute resolution body, which seeks to resolve disputes as well as transform the whole industry and the way Forex traders’ grievances are addressed and handled. Looking forward to following years, the Financial Commission will be welcoming additional members, and will be expanding its activity to more and more geographical locations.
Most importantly, and being the very fabric of the Financial Commission’s activity, the Commission will be responsible for a new way of thinking. Finally, for the traders, there is a body, which is there to resolve disputes. For the brokers, there is a way to show reliability and enhance credibility and thus confidence, for existing and potential clients. In addition to constant expansion and global exposure, Financial Commission is also enhancing its capabilities on a professional and technical level. That is, Financial Commission is extending its operation to cover more financial instruments and trading mechanisms, as well as branching out to more and more areas within the FX industry where disputes could arise.
July 22, 2014 – Hong Kong & New York: The Financial Commission has today-announced that it has begun binary option trading technology certification. Binary options firms and binary options technology providers seeking membership eligibility with the Hong Kong domiciled organization can now request certification of their platforms.
The industry-driven independent organization provides an unparalleled dispute resolution process between online brokerages and their end-customers, helping to avoid costly arbitration and/or regulatory complaints which typically leave the customer and brokerage with a negative relationship experience, and customer dis-loyalty. The announcement marks the start of a potential new wave of member applicants from the binary options industry to join the commission.
Commission Infrastructures Paves Way to Help Binary Options Industry
The unique ability that the Financial Commission brings as part of its resolution process includes having a diverse committee of senior foreign exchange industry executives and applying a non-bias systematic approach to the investigation process when resolving escalated customer-complaints.
In addition to the advantages afforded to Forex brokerages that are members of the Financial Commission, the organization aims to provide such benefits to the binary options trading industry as it continues to evolve, and certifying trading platforms standards is a first step in establishing a basis.
Just last week the commission completed a successful certification of Binaryware LLC, the binary options technology provider operating binarystation.com, which was the first binary options provider to be certified by the Financial Commission.
Financial Commission Chairman Peter Tatarnikov said regarding the news, “We are pleased to announce the certification of Binarystation’s platform, for binary options, by the Financial Commission. Now forex and binary options brokers that are using the Binarystation platform have the opportunity to become Members of the Financial Commission.”
Binaryware Managing Director Mikhail Chistyakov said, “Having already completed the Financial Commission’s certification, Binaryware will focus on binary option brokers around the world and also offer our solutions to companies that are already members of Financial Commission.”
Technology Certification Required for Membership Approval
As part of the membership approval process for firms seeking to join the financial commission, the commission will require that binary options platforms undergo a specialized review by the commission, which will check key points throughout the platform execution process to help ensure that an equitable decision process can be provided when reviewing claims from binary options traders using such platforms.
As part of the review process the commission has established a detailed list of points to verify covering the following sections:
Binary options firms seeking membership status with the Financial Commission can learn more about the process and expected requirements as part of the technology certification process in advance of applying for membership or in preparation of submitting an application.
COMPLAINT DETAILS
After opening his trading account #XXXXX on February 14, 2013 the complainant made several funding operations using a variety of payment methods. The total amount of funds deposited by client on his trading account had reached $32143.25. On September 5, 2013 the client made a trial withdrawal of funds in the amount of $170. On November 8, 2013 the client filed his first request for withdrawal of funds in the amount of $3000. On November 11, 2013 the client filed his second request for withdrawal of funds in the amount of another $3000. The client confirms that all his withdrawal requests were sent to the broker`s back-office and his personal manager.
The dispute situation occurred on November 12, 2013. On that day the broker has blocked the client`s trading account and closed his positions with a total loss of $25980. In justification of his actions, the broker cites the fact that the client initiated a chargeback against his funding operation dated July 8, 2013. The Broker claims that his payment counterparty notified him about the chargeback operation related to funding transaction #ZZZZZ dated July 8,2013 for the amount of $3000. The chargeback operation ARN was provided as well. The chargeback was executed on November 8,2013.
On November 22, 2013 the client received the wire transfer in the amount of $3000 from the broker. For the period of next three months the client was trying to deal with the broker and resolve the dispute. The client insists that he did not initiate chargeback operation and provides investigation with his bank notice as confirmation. On February 25, 2013 the client withdrew remaining funds in the amount of $ 15780.15 from his trading account.
DRC DECISION
| Financial Commission Complaint Response | ||||
| Name of the Applicant | Broker – Company | |||
| CLIENT | BROKER | |||
| Complaint to Financial Commission | # ХХ | |||
| Date of complaint | Date of complaint submission | |||
| 11/12/2013 | 03/14/2014 | |||
| Complaint Matter
CLEINT submitted a complaint to the Financial Commission regarding the following: Trading account number XXXXX. Starting from February 2013, the client conducted active trading activity in his account. The client used several different funding methods, including plastic cards of several banks. The total amount of the funds invested by client had reached $ 32143.25. On November 12, 2013 the broker had blocked the client`s trading account and closed his positions with a total loss of $25980. According to the broker, the reason for blocking customer’s account was a chargeback operation, initiated by the client. The client claims that the broker brings against him baseless accusations because he had never initiated chargeback operations. The client believes that the broker unreasonably blocked his trading account, and thus made a significant material and moral damage to him. The client requires compensation from the broker in the form of refund of the remaining part of invested funds ($ 13193.10). |
||||
| Complaint Response
Decision on the complaint was made on the basis of information provided by the BROKER and the CLIENT.First of all, it should be noted that in accordance with the rules of the Financial Commission “Customer may submit a claim to the Financial Commission within 45 days of the incident.” Such restrictions are not accidental, because, in our opinion, prolonged inactivity of the parties only exacerbates the situation and complicates its fair settlement. Second, the both parties of the dispute have enough solid evidence that there were no violations of regulations and rules of engagement for business partners. Here we are referring to the fact that: a) the customer has provided sufficient documentary evidence of the absence of any intention to initiate a chargeback operation and thus cause material damage to his partner (broker); b) on the other hand, we are convinced that the brokerage company also acted within the rules (para. XX and ZZ of the Customer Agreement) and blocked legitimately the trading account of the customer to learn more about the chargeback operation. After verification of the information provided by the parties of the dispute, members of the DRC came to the unanimous opinion that this claim cannot be the subject of investigation by the Financial Commission according to para.11 (e) of the Rules of the Financial Commission. DRC members believe that in this situation all the responsibility lies on the BROKER`s financial counterparty (CONTRACTOR), which in accordance with its security policy for any reasons beyond the control of the BROKER initiated chargeback operation. Thus, formally speaking, this claim cannot be resolved in one’s favor. However, the general opinion of the members of the DRC, as an act of goodwill BROKER could meet some of CLIENT`s requirements for compensation of material damage. It is out of question to fully compensate the customer`s material damage, because at the moment of the incident the customer’s account was at a loss. Furthermore, because of limitation period of the incident we also cannot consider any recovery of the client`s positions. This complaint was reviewed by the members of the Dispute Resolution Committee and was processed by the head of Committee Anatoly Bulanov. |
||||
| Decision in favor of | Compensation | |||
| Client | At Broker’s discretion | |||
| If you have any questions regarding this complaint review, please send them to [email protected] | ||||
| Confirmation | ||||
| I certify that the Dispute Resolution Committee considered all information and I confirm that the decision was made fairly, impartially and without anyone’s intervention. I am sure that the information provided in the document is true. | ||||
| Signature | Position | Date | ||
| Head of Dispute Resolution Committee | 03/31/2014 | |||
COMPLAINT DETAILS
The client led simultaneous trading on three micro accounts: #XXXXX, #YYYYY and #ZZZZZ.
On each of these accounts were opened several short positions in GBPUSD. In accordance with the terms of trade established by the broker for micro accounts a client can choose the leverage from 1:1 to 500:1, but the account balance should not exceed the amount of $3000. Furthermore, in case of the account balance exceeds $3000, the leverage is being automatically reduced by 100 times.
The dispute occurred on February 14,2014 after the emergence of the free margin deficit caused by an adverse movement in price of GBPUSD. The client decided to add some money to the account in order to prevent positions liquidation (Stop Out), hoping for a favorable price movement in the near future. The client informed the broker (online support representative) about the fact and asked him to keep his account leverage ratio unchanged (500:1) because after adding money to his account the balance exceeded the limit of $3000. In response to the customer`s request the broker recommended him to reduce the balance by withdrawing a part of funds from his account. The client submitted a request to withdraw the funds but ultimately, his losing positions were closed on stop out.
The customer is not satisfied with the brokerage company actions, because he believes that misleading terms of trade established by the broker for micro account led to his losses.
DRC DECISION
| Financial Commission Complaint Response | ||||
| Complainant | Broker | |||
| CLIENT | BROKER | |||
| Financial Commission Complaint | #XX | |||
| Complaint Raising Date | Complaint Filing Date | |||
| 2/4/2014 | 3/1/2014 | |||
| Complaint Matter
CLIENT has lodged his complaint with Financial Commission because of the following: Simultaneous trading was conducted by the client on three micro accounts: #XXXXX, #YYYYY and #ZZZZZ. Several short positions in GBPUSD were opened on each account with different time intervals. Later on, due to margin deficit caused by an adverse movement in exchange rate of GBPUSD all losing positions were liquidated by the broker (Stop Out operation). The client is not satisfied with the broker actions, and believes that “misleading terms of trade” established for micro account were the main reason of his losses. According to the client, he had no choice to save his account under such trading rules. In connection with the above, the client believes that a fair resolution of his complaint would be to require the broker to compensate his losses (about $ 7500) caused by the forced liquidation of his positions on three accounts. |
||||
| Complaint Response
Decision on this complaint is based on the information provided by BROKER and CLIENT. In accordance with the terms of trade established by the broker for micro accounts, any client can choose the leverage from 1:1 to 500:1, but the account balance should not exceed the amount of $3000. Furthermore, in case of the account balance exceeds $3000, the maximum leverage is reduced automatically 100x (leverage ratio can vary from 1:1 to 5:1). The Stop Out level is also clearly stated on the broker`s web site (20%). The company shows all trading terms in “Terms of Trade” section on its website. Also, trading terms are communicated to the client upon account registration. By accepting these trading terms the client confirms his understanding of the margin requirements and changes in margin requirements based on trading account balance as well. Summarizing all above, it is obvious that the broker has provided the customer with acceptable conditions for trading, despite the fact that these conditions were not the best in terms of the customer. Thus, the DRC sees no violations of the trading terms and does not find any ground for raising claims against the broker. This complaint was considered by the members of the Dispute Resolution Committee of the Financial Commission and framed by the head of the committee Anatoly Bulanov. |
||||
| Ruling in favor | Compensation | |||
| BROKER | None | |||
| If you have any questions regarding this investigation, please send them to the following address [email protected] | ||||
| Acknowledgement | ||||
| I certify that all information was considered by the Dispute Resolution Committee of the Financial Commission and hereby confirm that the decision was made fairly, impartially and without interference. I am confident that the information provided in the document is true. | ||||
| Signature | Designation | Date | ||
|
Head of DRC |
03/13/2014 | |||
COMPLAINT DETAILS
After opening his trading account #XXXXX on February 14, 2013 the complainant made several funding operations using a variety of payment methods. The total amount of funds deposited by client on his trading account had reached $32143.25. On September 5, 2013 the client made a trial withdrawal of funds in the amount of $170. On November 8, 2013 the client filed his first request for withdrawal of funds in the amount of $3000. On November 11, 2013 the client filed his second request for withdrawal of funds in the amount of another $3000. The client confirms that all his withdrawal requests were sent to the broker`s back-office and his personal manager.
The dispute situation occurred on November 12, 2013. On that day the broker has blocked the client`s trading account and closed his positions with a total loss of $25980. In justification of his actions, the broker cites the fact that the client initiated a chargeback against his funding operation dated July 8, 2013. The Broker claims that his payment counterparty notified him about the chargeback operation related to funding transaction #ZZZZZ dated July 8,2013 for the amount of $3000. The chargeback operation ARN was provided as well. The chargeback was executed on November 8,2013.
On November 22, 2013 the client received the wire transfer in the amount of $3000 from the broker. For the period of next three months the client was trying to deal with the broker and resolve the dispute. The client insists that he did not initiate chargeback operation and provides investigation with his bank notice as confirmation. On February 25, 2013 the client withdrew remaining funds in the amount of $ 15780.15 from his trading account.
DRC DECISION
| Financial Commission Complaint Response | ||||
| Name of the Applicant | Broker – Company | |||
| CLIENT | BROKER | |||
| Complaint to Financial Commission | # ХХ | |||
| Date of complaint | Date of complaint submission | |||
| 11/12/2013 | 03/14/2014 | |||
| Complaint Matter
CLEINT submitted a complaint to the Financial Commission regarding the following: Trading account number XXXXX. Starting from February 2013, the client conducted active trading activity in his account. The client used several different funding methods, including plastic cards of several banks. The total amount of the funds invested by client had reached $ 32143.25. On November 12, 2013 the broker had blocked the client`s trading account and closed his positions with a total loss of $25980. According to the broker, the reason for blocking customer’s account was a chargeback operation, initiated by the client. The client claims that the broker brings against him baseless accusations because he had never initiated chargeback operations. The client believes that the broker unreasonably blocked his trading account, and thus made a significant material and moral damage to him. The client requires compensation from the broker in the form of refund of the remaining part of invested funds ($ 13193.10). |
||||
| Complaint Response
Decision on the complaint was made on the basis of information provided by the BROKER and the CLIENT.First of all, it should be noted that in accordance with the rules of the Financial Commission “Customer may submit a claim to the Financial Commission within 45 days of the incident.” Such restrictions are not accidental, because, in our opinion, prolonged inactivity of the parties only exacerbates the situation and complicates its fair settlement. Second, the both parties of the dispute have enough solid evidence that there were no violations of regulations and rules of engagement for business partners. Here we are referring to the fact that: a) the customer has provided sufficient documentary evidence of the absence of any intention to initiate a chargeback operation and thus cause material damage to his partner (broker); b) on the other hand, we are convinced that the brokerage company also acted within the rules (para. XX and ZZ of the Customer Agreement) and blocked legitimately the trading account of the customer to learn more about the chargeback operation. After verification of the information provided by the parties of the dispute, members of the DRC came to the unanimous opinion that this claim cannot be the subject of investigation by the Financial Commission according to para.11 (e) of the Rules of the Financial Commission. DRC members believe that in this situation all the responsibility lies on the BROKER`s financial counterparty (CONTRACTOR), which in accordance with its security policy for any reasons beyond the control of the BROKER initiated chargeback operation. Thus, formally speaking, this claim cannot be resolved in one’s favor. However, the general opinion of the members of the DRC, as an act of goodwill BROKER could meet some of CLIENT`s requirements for compensation of material damage. It is out of question to fully compensate the customer`s material damage, because at the moment of the incident the customer’s account was at a loss. Furthermore, because of limitation period of the incident we also cannot consider any recovery of the client`s positions. This complaint was reviewed by the members of the Dispute Resolution Committee and was processed by the head of Committee Anatoly Bulanov. |
||||
| Decision in favor of | Compensation | |||
| Client | At Broker’s discretion | |||
| If you have any questions regarding this complaint review, please send them to [email protected] | ||||
| Confirmation | ||||
| I certify that the Dispute Resolution Committee considered all information and I confirm that the decision was made fairly, impartially and without anyone’s intervention. I am sure that the information provided in the document is true. | ||||
| Signature | Position | Date | ||
| Head of Dispute Resolution Committee | 03/31/2014 | |||
COMPLAINT DETAILS
The client led simultaneous trading on three micro accounts: #XXXXX, #YYYYY and #ZZZZZ.
On each of these accounts were opened several short positions in GBPUSD. In accordance with the terms of trade established by the broker for micro accounts a client can choose the leverage from 1:1 to 500:1, but the account balance should not exceed the amount of $3000. Furthermore, in case of the account balance exceeds $3000, the leverage is being automatically reduced by 100 times.
The dispute occurred on February 14,2014 after the emergence of the free margin deficit caused by an adverse movement in price of GBPUSD. The client decided to add some money to the account in order to prevent positions liquidation (Stop Out), hoping for a favorable price movement in the near future. The client informed the broker (online support representative) about the fact and asked him to keep his account leverage ratio unchanged (500:1) because after adding money to his account the balance exceeded the limit of $3000. In response to the customer`s request the broker recommended him to reduce the balance by withdrawing a part of funds from his account. The client submitted a request to withdraw the funds but ultimately, his losing positions were closed on stop out.
The customer is not satisfied with the brokerage company actions, because he believes that misleading terms of trade established by the broker for micro account led to his losses.
DRC DECISION
| Financial Commission Complaint Response | ||||
| Complainant | Broker | |||
| CLIENT | BROKER | |||
| Financial Commission Complaint | #XX | |||
| Complaint Raising Date | Complaint Filing Date | |||
| 2/4/2014 | 3/1/2014 | |||
| Complaint Matter
CLIENT has lodged his complaint with Financial Commission because of the following: Simultaneous trading was conducted by the client on three micro accounts: #XXXXX, #YYYYY and #ZZZZZ. Several short positions in GBPUSD were opened on each account with different time intervals. Later on, due to margin deficit caused by an adverse movement in exchange rate of GBPUSD all losing positions were liquidated by the broker (Stop Out operation). The client is not satisfied with the broker actions, and believes that “misleading terms of trade” established for micro account were the main reason of his losses. According to the client, he had no choice to save his account under such trading rules. In connection with the above, the client believes that a fair resolution of his complaint would be to require the broker to compensate his losses (about $ 7500) caused by the forced liquidation of his positions on three accounts. |
||||
| Complaint Response
Decision on this complaint is based on the information provided by BROKER and CLIENT. In accordance with the terms of trade established by the broker for micro accounts, any client can choose the leverage from 1:1 to 500:1, but the account balance should not exceed the amount of $3000. Furthermore, in case of the account balance exceeds $3000, the maximum leverage is reduced automatically 100x (leverage ratio can vary from 1:1 to 5:1). The Stop Out level is also clearly stated on the broker`s web site (20%). The company shows all trading terms in “Terms of Trade” section on its website. Also, trading terms are communicated to the client upon account registration. By accepting these trading terms the client confirms his understanding of the margin requirements and changes in margin requirements based on trading account balance as well. Summarizing all above, it is obvious that the broker has provided the customer with acceptable conditions for trading, despite the fact that these conditions were not the best in terms of the customer. Thus, the DRC sees no violations of the trading terms and does not find any ground for raising claims against the broker. This complaint was considered by the members of the Dispute Resolution Committee of the Financial Commission and framed by the head of the committee Anatoly Bulanov. |
||||
| Ruling in favor | Compensation | |||
| BROKER | None | |||
| If you have any questions regarding this investigation, please send them to the following address [email protected] | ||||
| Acknowledgement | ||||
| I certify that all information was considered by the Dispute Resolution Committee of the Financial Commission and hereby confirm that the decision was made fairly, impartially and without interference. I am confident that the information provided in the document is true. | ||||
| Signature | Designation | Date | ||
|
Head of DRC |
03/13/2014 | |||
Financial Commission is constantly working with brokers and traders resolving various types of complaints. Having processed a fair number of disputes we can see similarity in many types of complaints. Oftentimes, disputes arise from a lack of knowledge or misunderstandings on the side of the traders, about how the Forex industry works. Trade execution during important news releases, margin calls, stop orders execution and more could throw traders off track and cause them to believe there has been misconduct. For Financial Commission, education is of utmost importance due to its mission to deal with the root of the problems, rather than only providing on-the-spot solutions. Besides ongoing explanatory work we now providing traders with the Case Examples, so they can study how things are working from other traders’ complaints and make sure that the disputes are being handled properly at the same time.
Visit our new section Case Examples where we will publish a random selection of cases for illustrative purposes. Please note that some content of the complaints was modified to simplify the understanding of the material.
Detalles de la reclamación
Al haber estudiado los materiales de la reclamación, presentados por las partes de la disputa, el día 31 de diciembre del año 2013, CRD ha sido revelado, que el cliente tenía algunos problemas con el relleno de órdenes en la compañía de corredores de bolsa, en julio del año 2013. De conformidad con la información del cliente, la cantidad aproximada de la reclamación es igual a $200000, teniendo él la cuenta propia PAMM, sobre la cual han sido realizadas, aproximadamente, 2000 operaciones en un mes. El cliente asegura, que en el proceso de comercio en la cuenta indicada, a menudo surgían demoras, a la hora de cumplir órdenes aplazadas. Además, estas órdenes aplazadas, como norma, se cumplían con la peor cotización del historial de gestiones, en el período de 6 segundos, y cada vez después de llegar al mercado el nivel de los precios, indicados en la orden. El cliente asegura también, que todas aquellas órdenes eran órdenes aplazadas; él presentaba aquellas órdenes con anticipación de varias horas, antes de su cumplimiento. Tal práctica de cumplimiento de las órdenes, se usaba por el corredor de bolsa, independientemente del estado del mercado y del volumen de las órdenes. De conformidad con la información del cliente, el deslizamiento a la hora de cumplir la orden, estaba ausente tan sólo en el momento, cuando en la historia de los puntos no había ninguna cotización peor, que los 10 puntos (0,00001) en comparación con el precio de la orden aplazada (que es el deslizamiento mínimo para una cuenta estándar).
Decisión deL CRD
| Respuesta de la Comisión Financiera en relación a la Reclamación | ||||
| Nombre del Solicitante | Compañía – Corredor de bolsa | |||
| Cliente | Corredor de bolsa | |||
| Reclamación a la Comisión Financiera | # ХХ | |||
| Fecha de Reclamación | Fecha de entrega de la Reclamación a la Comisión | |||
| 7/30/2013 | 12/30/2013 | |||
| Contenido de la Reclamación:El Cliente entregó la reclamación a la Comisión Financiera, en vista de lo siguiente:
Cuenta comercial № ХХХ. A lo largo del período de comercio activo, en la cuenta de inversión a partir del día 1 hasta el día 30 de julio del año 2013 (se cumplieron aproximadamente 2000 operaciones, a lo largo del mes), el corredor de bolsa estaba cumpliendo sistemáticamente las órdenes aplazadas – Stop, con el aplazamiento en varios segundos y con el deslizamiento en varios puntos, limitando con esto la ganancia potencial del cliente. De conformidad con las calculaos del cliente, se trata sobre la ganancia no recibida, que corresponde a $200000. El cliente demanda la compensación de la ganancia no recibida, por medio de recálculo del precio de cumplimiento e indemnización de la diferencia. |
||||
| Respuesta a la reclamación:La decisión por la reclamación dada, ha sido tomada a base de la información, presentada por la compañía Corredor de bolsa y por el Cliente.
Antes de todo, vale señalar, que las órdenes Buy Stop y Sell Stop, por su género no garantizan el cumplimiento del encargo del cliente, por el precio, precisamente indicado en ellas. Dependiendo de la situación de mercado, tales órdenes pueden cumplirse tanto por el precio, precisamente indicado en ellos, como por el precio, que es peor del precio indicado. Una orden aplazada Buy Stop (Sell Stop) se hace activa, enseguida, cuando tan sólo una cotización en el flujo de los precios, trasladados por el corredor de bolsa, llega al valor, indicado por el cliente. Al haberse activado la orden aplazada, se cumple por la primera cotización, que se encuentra al alcance en el flujo de precios, transmitidos por el corredor de bolsa. En el caso de una volatilidad elevada del mercado, el precio de cumplimiento de la orden aplazada puede variar en varios puntos, del precio, indicado por el cliente. Esta práctica de cumplimiento de órdenes aplazadas de ningún modo contradice a la respuesta oficial de la compañía Corredor de bolsa, recibida por el cliente como respuesta a su reclamación. De conformidad con los documentos reglamentarios de la compañía Corredor de bolsa,” todas las órdenes aplazadas y las órdenes “IF-Done” se cumplen por la Compañía por el precio declarado, o por el precio, accesible en el momento de cumplimiento de la orden, con esto el precio de cumplimiento puede diferenciarse del nivel de la orden” (apartado ХХ.ХХ Reglamento de operaciones comerciales). En la reclamación del cliente, se trata sobre una cantidad bastante amplia de operaciones, realizadas en un período, bastante prolongado, de tiempo. Se puede suponer, que las condiciones de mercado no siempre pudieron servir de justificación para el corredor de bolsa para el cumplimiento de órdenes aplazadas con demora y con deslizamiento. Sin embargo, el informe comercial del cliente demuestra, que una gran parte de los encargos del cliente fue cumplida en el período de actividad alta del mercado (apogeo de la sesión comercial europea o americana), y, como regla, poco antes, o durante, o al publicarse unas novedades económicas importantes. Como norma, tales eventos se acompañan con el crecimiento de volatilidad del mercado, lo que inevitablemente causa el aumento del spread y del deslizamiento. Consideramos, que no sería correcto, afirmar que el cumplimiento no debido de las órdenes aplazadas por el corredor de bolsa, era su mala intención, porque no se infringió ningún punto del Reglamento. Resumiendo de lo anteriormente expuesto, se puede confirmar, que el corredor de bolsa garantizó al cliente unas condiciones bastante aceptables, para realizar operaciones de comercio, a pesar del hecho, que aquellas condiciones no eran las mejores, desde el punto de vista del cliente. De tal modo, el comité de arbitraje no ve ningunas infracciones por parte del corredor de bolsa, y no encuentra ningunas fundamentaciones para la reclamación del cliente. La reclamación dada fue estudiada por los miembros del comité de arbitraje de la Comisión Financiera y formalizada por el jefe del comité Anatoly Bulanov. |
||||
| Decisión a favor | Compensación | |||
| Corredor de bolsa | Ausente | |||
| Si le han quedado dudas, en relación al estudio expuesto, por favor contáctenos a la dirección [email protected] | ||||
| Confirmación | ||||
| Confirmo, que toda la información ha sido estudiada por el Comité de la Comisión Financiera y confirmo también, que la decisión ha sido tomada de buena fe, imparcialmente y sin intervención de persona alguna. Estoy seguro, que la información presentada en el documento es auténtica. | ||||
| Firma | Cargo | Fecha | ||
| Jefe del Comité de Arbitraje |
01/30/2014 |
|||
COMPLAINT DETAILS
The complainant conducted trading operations on his account #XXXXX. The dispute situation occurred on Feb 28, 2014.
On that day a short position was opened by EA on the instrument USDJPY:
2014.02.28 00:00:56 ‘XXXXX’: order #ZZZZZ, sell 0.33 USDJPY at 102.23200
Immediately after position opening the EA had set a pair of OCO orders (Stop Loss and Take Profit):
00:00:57.353 ‘XXXXX’: order #ZZZZZ sell 0.33 USDJPY at 102.232 was modified -> sl: 102.422 tp: 102.162
A few minutes later the EA changed the parameters of OCO orders (Stop Loss and Take Profit):
00:05:50.151 ‘XXXXX’: order #ZZZZZ sell 0.33 USDJPY at 102.232 was modified -> sl: 102.192 tp: 102.162
Finally, the client`s position # ZZZZZ was closed after market price had reached Take Profit level. This fact was confirmed by the log file of the broker`s server:
2014.02.28 00:11:29 ‘XXXXX’ order #ZZZZZ take profit 0.33 ‘USDJPY’ closed at 102.16200
2014.02.28 00:11:29 ‘XXXXX’: order #ZZZZZ sell 0.33 ‘USDJPY’ closed at 102.15700
The dispute between two parties aroused because subsequently the broker completely annulled the deal on the instrument USDJPY, justifying his actions by the fact that at the time of client`s order execution (02/28/14 00:00, MT4 platform time) there was a “non-market spike” on the instrument USDJPY which was registered on the ECN server. As a result, the prices had been recognized as non-market by liquidity provider, and position # ZZZZZ was canceled, which is confirmed by the server log file:
2014.02.28 02:09:12 order #ZZZZZ for ‘XXXXX’ deleted – sell 0.33 USDJPY at 102.23200, profit: 24.23
The complainant believes that the broker distorts price feed and utilizes price manipulation practices. According to the client a fair resolution of the dispute would be to require the broker to compensate his unrealized profit which was cancelled due to annulled deal. Also, he insists on public recognition of the fact that price distortions on the ECN server resulted from broker`s manipulation.
DRC DECISION
| Financial Commission Complaint Response | ||||
| Name of the Applicant | Broker – Company | |||
| CLIENT | BROKER | |||
| Complaint to Financial Commission | # ХХ | |||
| Date of complaint | Date of complaint submission | |||
| 28/2/2014 | 31/3/2014 | |||
| Complaint Matter
CLEINT submitted a complaint to the Financial Commission regarding the following: Trading account number XXXXX. Short position on USD/JPY, opened with the help of the expert advisor and subsequently closed after reaching Take-Profit order, was completely annulled by broker: Ticket ZZZZZ sell 0.33 USDJPY @ 102.23200 sl: 102.192 tp: 102.162 Client demands compensation for lost profit because he believes that the cancellation of the position was ungrounded. |
||||
| Complaint Response
Decision on the complaint was made on the basis of information provided by the BROKER and the CLIENT.After analyzing the information, members of the Dispute Resolution Committee came to the conclusion that the broker had no grounds for cancelling the client’s trading action, which led to the opening of the short position, as it was the result of the natural price movement. Before the occurrence of the disputed price spike customer had already set the orders to close the position: Thus, the client’s position had to be closed after the first price movement following the price spike and which reached one of the client’s pending orders. In any case, the result of the short position should be the profit credited to the customer’s account. Broker must justify closing a position (on the Buy-Stop or Buy-Limit order) by providing Time & Sales information to the client. This complaint was reviewed by the members of the Dispute Resolution Committee of the Financial Commission and was processed by the head of Committee Anatoly Bulanov. |
||||
| Decision in favor of | Compensation | |||
| CLIENT | $24.23 | |||
| If you have any questions regarding this complaint review, please send them to [email protected] | ||||
| Confirmation | ||||
| I certify that the Dispute Resolution Committee considered all information and I confirm that the decision was made fairly, impartially and without anyone’s intervention. I am sure that the information provided in the document is true. | ||||
| Signature | Position | Date | ||
| Head of Dispute Resolution Committee | 10/4/2014 | |||
COMPLAINT DETAILS
During the investigation of claim materials provided by the client on December 30th , 2013 the DRC found out that during the period of three months (from late August until the end of December 2013), the client made her trades using trading adviser (EA) specifically designed for MT4 platform and managed to earn some profit on her trading account . On November 5th, 2013 the client withdrew a portion of the profits ($400) from her account and continued to trade. After some time, the broker found a violation of trading rules on the client`s side and made a decision on December 24th, 2013 to cancel all accumulated profits the client had made by that time. In their arguments broker refers to the fact that during the period from November 5th to December 4th , 2013 the expert adviser, used by the client, was able to identify financial instruments with quotations, lagging behind the real market, thus allowing the client to conduct transactions on obsolete or non-existent prices. In addition to canceling most of client`s profitable trades results the broker company requires the client to close her live account. In turn, the client does not find any violations of trade rules in her actions and demands compensation for wrongfully canceled profit of 586.16USD.
DRC DECISION
| Financial Commission Complaint Response | ||||
| Name of the Applicant | Broker – Company | |||
| CLIENT | BROKER | |||
| Complaint to Financial Commission | # ХХ | |||
| Date of complaint | Date of complaint submission | |||
| 12/13/2013 | 12/30/2013 | |||
| Complaint Matter
CLEINT submitted a complaint to the Financial Commission regarding the following: |
||||
| Complaint Response
Decision on the complaint was made on the basis of information provided by the BROKER and the CLIENT.After thoroughly analyzing the information provided by dispute parties, the Dispute Resolution Committee came to the conclusion that the client employed an expert advisor (EA) which exploited vulnerabilities in broker quotation system. Such actions are unacceptable for honest and mutually beneficial relationships between business partners.According to the trading policy of the BROKER, in such cases the company has every right to cancel a client’s orders and to annul the trading result of the incorrectly executed trades.In addition, it is also worth noting that while using such practices, the client was able to withdraw from her trading account $ 400 of the dishonestly earned profit. Based on the above information, the Dispute Resolution Committee sees no violations in the broker’s actions and believes its actions are lawful. This complaint was reviewed by the members of the Dispute Resolution Committee of the Financial Commission and was processed by the head of Committee Anatoly Bulanov. |
||||
| Decision in favor of | Compensation | |||
| BROKER | No | |||
| If you have any questions regarding this complaint review, please send them to [email protected] | ||||
| Confirmation | ||||
| I certify that the Dispute Resolution Committee considered all information and I confirm that the decision was made fairly, impartially and without anyone’s intervention. I am sure that the information provided in the document is true. | ||||
| Signature | Position | Date | ||
| Head of Dispute Resolution Committee | 01/20/2014 | |||
COMPLAINT DETAILS
The complainant conducted trading operations on his account #XXXXX. The dispute situation occurred on Feb 28, 2014.
On that day a short position was opened by EA on the instrument USDJPY:
2014.02.28 00:00:56 ‘XXXXX’: order #ZZZZZ, sell 0.33 USDJPY at 102.23200
Immediately after position opening the EA had set a pair of OCO orders (Stop Loss and Take Profit):
00:00:57.353 ‘XXXXX’: order #ZZZZZ sell 0.33 USDJPY at 102.232 was modified -> sl: 102.422 tp: 102.162
A few minutes later the EA changed the parameters of OCO orders (Stop Loss and Take Profit):
00:05:50.151 ‘XXXXX’: order #ZZZZZ sell 0.33 USDJPY at 102.232 was modified -> sl: 102.192 tp: 102.162
Finally, the client`s position # ZZZZZ was closed after market price had reached Take Profit level. This fact was confirmed by the log file of the broker`s server:
2014.02.28 00:11:29 ‘XXXXX’ order #ZZZZZ take profit 0.33 ‘USDJPY’ closed at 102.16200
2014.02.28 00:11:29 ‘XXXXX’: order #ZZZZZ sell 0.33 ‘USDJPY’ closed at 102.15700
The dispute between two parties aroused because subsequently the broker completely annulled the deal on the instrument USDJPY, justifying his actions by the fact that at the time of client`s order execution (02/28/14 00:00, MT4 platform time) there was a “non-market spike” on the instrument USDJPY which was registered on the ECN server. As a result, the prices had been recognized as non-market by liquidity provider, and position # ZZZZZ was canceled, which is confirmed by the server log file:
2014.02.28 02:09:12 order #ZZZZZ for ‘XXXXX’ deleted – sell 0.33 USDJPY at 102.23200, profit: 24.23
The complainant believes that the broker distorts price feed and utilizes price manipulation practices. According to the client a fair resolution of the dispute would be to require the broker to compensate his unrealized profit which was cancelled due to annulled deal. Also, he insists on public recognition of the fact that price distortions on the ECN server resulted from broker`s manipulation.
DRC DECISION
| Financial Commission Complaint Response | ||||
| Name of the Applicant | Broker – Company | |||
| CLIENT | BROKER | |||
| Complaint to Financial Commission | # ХХ | |||
| Date of complaint | Date of complaint submission | |||
| 28/2/2014 | 31/3/2014 | |||
| Complaint Matter
CLEINT submitted a complaint to the Financial Commission regarding the following: Trading account number XXXXX. Short position on USD/JPY, opened with the help of the expert advisor and subsequently closed after reaching Take-Profit order, was completely annulled by broker: Ticket ZZZZZ sell 0.33 USDJPY @ 102.23200 sl: 102.192 tp: 102.162 Client demands compensation for lost profit because he believes that the cancellation of the position was ungrounded. |
||||
| Complaint Response
Decision on the complaint was made on the basis of information provided by the BROKER and the CLIENT.After analyzing the information, members of the Dispute Resolution Committee came to the conclusion that the broker had no grounds for cancelling the client’s trading action, which led to the opening of the short position, as it was the result of the natural price movement. Before the occurrence of the disputed price spike customer had already set the orders to close the position: Thus, the client’s position had to be closed after the first price movement following the price spike and which reached one of the client’s pending orders. In any case, the result of the short position should be the profit credited to the customer’s account. Broker must justify closing a position (on the Buy-Stop or Buy-Limit order) by providing Time & Sales information to the client. This complaint was reviewed by the members of the Dispute Resolution Committee of the Financial Commission and was processed by the head of Committee Anatoly Bulanov. |
||||
| Decision in favor of | Compensation | |||
| CLIENT | $24.23 | |||
| If you have any questions regarding this complaint review, please send them to [email protected] | ||||
| Confirmation | ||||
| I certify that the Dispute Resolution Committee considered all information and I confirm that the decision was made fairly, impartially and without anyone’s intervention. I am sure that the information provided in the document is true. | ||||
| Signature | Position | Date | ||
| Head of Dispute Resolution Committee | 10/4/2014 | |||
COMPLAINT DETAILS
During the investigation of claim materials provided by the client on December 30th , 2013 the DRC found out that during the period of three months (from late August until the end of December 2013), the client made her trades using trading adviser (EA) specifically designed for MT4 platform and managed to earn some profit on her trading account . On November 5th, 2013 the client withdrew a portion of the profits ($400) from her account and continued to trade. After some time, the broker found a violation of trading rules on the client`s side and made a decision on December 24th, 2013 to cancel all accumulated profits the client had made by that time. In their arguments broker refers to the fact that during the period from November 5th to December 4th , 2013 the expert adviser, used by the client, was able to identify financial instruments with quotations, lagging behind the real market, thus allowing the client to conduct transactions on obsolete or non-existent prices. In addition to canceling most of client`s profitable trades results the broker company requires the client to close her live account. In turn, the client does not find any violations of trade rules in her actions and demands compensation for wrongfully canceled profit of 586.16USD.
DRC DECISION
| Financial Commission Complaint Response | ||||
| Name of the Applicant | Broker – Company | |||
| CLIENT | BROKER | |||
| Complaint to Financial Commission | # ХХ | |||
| Date of complaint | Date of complaint submission | |||
| 12/13/2013 | 12/30/2013 | |||
| Complaint Matter
CLEINT submitted a complaint to the Financial Commission regarding the following: |
||||
| Complaint Response
Decision on the complaint was made on the basis of information provided by the BROKER and the CLIENT.After thoroughly analyzing the information provided by dispute parties, the Dispute Resolution Committee came to the conclusion that the client employed an expert advisor (EA) which exploited vulnerabilities in broker quotation system. Such actions are unacceptable for honest and mutually beneficial relationships between business partners.According to the trading policy of the BROKER, in such cases the company has every right to cancel a client’s orders and to annul the trading result of the incorrectly executed trades.In addition, it is also worth noting that while using such practices, the client was able to withdraw from her trading account $ 400 of the dishonestly earned profit. Based on the above information, the Dispute Resolution Committee sees no violations in the broker’s actions and believes its actions are lawful. This complaint was reviewed by the members of the Dispute Resolution Committee of the Financial Commission and was processed by the head of Committee Anatoly Bulanov. |
||||
| Decision in favor of | Compensation | |||
| BROKER | No | |||
| If you have any questions regarding this complaint review, please send them to [email protected] | ||||
| Confirmation | ||||
| I certify that the Dispute Resolution Committee considered all information and I confirm that the decision was made fairly, impartially and without anyone’s intervention. I am sure that the information provided in the document is true. | ||||
| Signature | Position | Date | ||
| Head of Dispute Resolution Committee | 01/20/2014 | |||
The Financial