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.
|Financial Commission Complaint Response|
|Name of the Applicant||Broker – Company|
|Complaint to Financial Commission||# ХХ|
|Date of complaint||Date of complaint submission|
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.
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|
|If you have any questions regarding this complaint review, please send them to email@example.com|
|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.|
|Head of Dispute Resolution Committee||10/4/2014|