Jump to content

Forced CFD position closure by IG


Recommended Posts

So following the decision at the end of February 2021 by IG to exit certain share CFD markets of their choice  I have today, through no fault of mine, lost c.£7500.00 from my funds through forced position closures 

  • Sad 1
Link to post

Probably a lot of people in the same boat Colin.  I had a number of positions with running losses but with predictable news flow that would have set them right in due course.  Not only that, they also withdrew the share dealing service so I couldn't buy the underlying.  I am now still waiting for withdrawal processing to complete so that I can take by money elsewhere.

Link to post

As required I have lodged a complaint with IG compliance as I believe there are a number of contractual points that undermines their actions

Link to post
2 hours ago, ColinJ said:

So following the decision at the end of February 2021 by IG to exit certain share CFD markets of their choice  I have today, through no fault of mine, lost c.£7500.00 from my funds through forced position closures 

Don’t take this the wrong way but unless you have a 7 figure account you shouldn’t be losing that amount of money on one trade.. need to keep risk to 1-2% of capital.

They’re also only exiting the meme stocks aren’t they.. not large caps or anything where there’s liquidity. It’s always a risk that market conditions can change.. IG being unable to lay off trades on these shares is one such change in conditions.

They gave like a months notice they were doing it and the losses have already occurred, they occur daily when it moves against you not just when the trades are exited.

It would require a change in strategy to achieve long term profitability IMHO

Link to post
12 minutes ago, Mcg said:

Don’t take this the wrong way but unless you have a 7 figure account you shouldn’t be losing that amount of money on one trade.. need to keep risk to 1-2% of capital.

They’re also only exiting the meme stocks aren’t they.. not large caps or anything where there’s liquidity. It’s always a risk that market conditions can change.. IG being unable to lay off trades on these shares is one such change in conditions.

They gave like a months notice they were doing it and the losses have already occurred, they occur daily when it moves against you not just when the trades are exited.

It would require a change in strategy to achieve long term profitability IMHO

This is not correct.  Stocks on AIM for example, or pharmas, can have huge volatility between news/reports and a figure like 7k is easily possible even on a modest account.  That does not mean the above poster is a loser, just that he is (or was ...) probably waiting for some news or results to drive the stock forward.  As for just "meme" stocks, they withdrew about 900 products.

What IG have actually said is that they have lots of new clients and need to refocus their resources.  So effectively, they have withdrawn products types often used by long time clients in favor of new clients.  That is completely irrational.  Now they are going to lose long time clients.  And ... when things get back to "normal" they'll be losing a lot of those new clients also.

Link to post
50 minutes ago, ColinJ said:

As required I have lodged a complaint with IG compliance as I believe there are a number of contractual points that undermines their actions

You are not going to get any satisfaction out of IG's own team on this matter.  If you think you have some sort of case, discuss with a solicitor and/r raise the matter with the FCA for review.

Link to post
27 minutes ago, Mcg said:

Don’t take this the wrong way but unless you have a 7 figure account you shouldn’t be losing that amount of money on one trade.. need to keep risk to 1-2% of capital.

They’re also only exiting the meme stocks aren’t they.. not large caps or anything where there’s liquidity. It’s always a risk that market conditions can change.. IG being unable to lay off trades on these shares is one such change in conditions.

They gave like a months notice they were doing it and the losses have already occurred, they occur daily when it moves against you not just when the trades are exited.

It would require a change in strategy to achieve long term profitability IMHO

There is nothing in my post that suggests the loss value related to one trade - in fact it was a number of positions closed by IG that were currently in a loss state but could easily return to profit within a timescale acceptable to me; one such example being SAGA, regarded by me as a pandemic recovery stock

Link to post
8 minutes ago, StormChaser said:

This is not correct.  Stocks on AIM for example, or pharmas, can have huge volatility between news/reports and a figure like 7k is easily possible even on a modest account.  That does not mean the above poster is a loser, just that he is (or was ...) probably waiting for some news or results to drive the stock forward.  As for just "meme" stocks, they withdrew about 900 products.

What IG have actually said is that they have lots of new clients and need to refocus their resources.  So effectively, they have withdrawn products types often used by long time clients in favor of new clients.  That is completely irrational.  Now they are going to lose long time clients.  And ... when things get back to "normal" they'll be losing a lot of those new clients also.

In my opinion anyone who loses more than a few percent of their account on a trade is a losing trader on their way to blowing up. The stats show there are many of them. If someone is drawing down 7k on a modest account they’re simply doing it wrong.. they need to change what they’re doing if they want to be profitable long term. If risk was controlled right then the fact that the broker is pulling certain shares, whilst I can sympathise that it is annoying, it’s not a deal breaker because you just move on to trading a different stock. It’s only annoying so many people because there are lots of losing traders with no exit strategy, no stop losses, who are essentially just HODLing and risking a large chunk of their account, and they’re then being forced to crystallise the losses that they’d already accrued anyway. Leveraged trading products aren’t really designed for holding for months on end either as cost of carry is too much.

Im not saying this to be a d1ck, it’s just that we’ve all been there and it doesn’t work. Have to adapt to win.

Link to post
4 minutes ago, ColinJ said:

There is nothing in my post that suggests the loss value related to one trade - in fact it was a number of positions closed by IG that were currently in a loss state but could easily return to profit within a timescale acceptable to me; one such example being SAGA, regarded by me as a pandemic recovery stock

What id say to that is it sounds like you’re looking to invest in things for the long term rather than bet on their price moves. So purchasing the stocks would be preferable to spread betting where you just have an agreement with a broker and don’t actually own anything. I’m sure some of these stocks have huge vol so using leverage might not be appropriate. All I’m saying is when stuff like this happens it’s **** annoying, I get that, but often it can be mitigated by doing something different 

Link to post

Again there is nothing in my post that suggests I don't also hold actual shares, which I do, or that the loss value associated with IG's actions does not fall within the percentages you suggest; I also trade CFD's to take advantage of the leverage. What I expect is when I make a contract/deal I expect it to be honoured, I don't expect to be sh@fted because its in their business interest. If I decide to hold some trades for an extended period that is my choice and I pay accordingly. 

Link to post
44 minutes ago, Mcg said:

In my opinion anyone who loses more than a few percent of their account on a trade is a losing trader on their way to blowing up. The stats show there are many of them. If someone is drawing down 7k on a modest account they’re simply doing it wrong.. they need to change what they’re doing if they want to be profitable long term. If risk was controlled right then the fact that the broker is pulling certain shares, whilst I can sympathise that it is annoying, it’s not a deal breaker because you just move on to trading a different stock. It’s only annoying so many people because there are lots of losing traders with no exit strategy, no stop losses, who are essentially just HODLing and risking a large chunk of their account, and they’re then being forced to crystallise the losses that they’d already accrued anyway. Leveraged trading products aren’t really designed for holding for months on end either as cost of carry is too much.

Im not saying this to be a d1ck, it’s just that we’ve all been there and it doesn’t work. Have to adapt to win.

I had an exit strategy (four positions).  It required getting as far as some expected news in Q2.

Link to post

If an open position is at a loss, then that's its value.  By closing it, IG are equally likely to have saved you from further losses.

You can't argue that future news flow would return it to profitability.  Any expectation of that, and its likelihood, are already built into the price.  It might happen, but it also might not, and the current price is at precisely the level that reflects that balance of possibilities.

You did not lose £7500 the moment IG closed the position.  You had already lost it.

Bottom line, if you cannot tolerate losing £7500, then you should not let your positions reach a P&L of -£7500, because that's exactly what losing £7500 is.

 

 

Edited by Stonk
Link to post
18 minutes ago, Stonk said:

If an open position is at a loss, then that's its value.  By closing it, IG are equally likely to have saved you from further losses.

You can't argue that future news flow would return it to profitability.  Any expectation of that, and its likelihood, are already built into the price.  It might happen, but it also might not, and the current price is at precisely the level that reflects that balance of possibilities.

You did not lose £7500 the moment IG closed the position.  You had already lost it.

Bottom line, if you cannot tolerate losing £7500, then you should not let your positions reach a P&L of -£7500, because that's exactly what losing £7500 is.

 

 

This is complete boll1x.  Some of us who have done the deep DD on these issues are far better informed.  All we need is time.  IG took time away.   Probably for their own benefit.  I would never ever ever ever work with IG again after this total ****.

Link to post
1 minute ago, StormChaser said:

This is complete boll1x.  Some of us who have done the deep DD on these issues are far better informed.  All we need is time.  IG took time away.   Probably for their own benefit.  I would never ever ever ever work with IG again after this total ****.

 

Of course you believe you know better than the market.  You'd better rein that in: relegate it from "firm conviction that I cannot be wrong" to "well-researched belief with a stop-loss attached in case I'm wrong".

You mention a "predictable news flow that would have set them right in due course".  If it's all so predictable and your "deep DD" is so infallible, why didn't it tell you hold off and invest after the upcoming £7500 loss?

"Deep DD" also ought to have lead you to realise that CFDs are a bad way to take a position on something that needs considerable time.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
44 minutes ago, Stonk said:

If an open position is at a loss, then that's its value.  By closing it, IG are equally likely to have saved you from further losses.

You can't argue that future news flow would return it to profitability.  Any expectation of that, and its likelihood, are already built into the price.  It might happen, but it also might not, and the current price is at precisely the level that reflects that balance of possibilities.

You did not lose £7500 the moment IG closed the position.  You had already lost it.

Bottom line, if you cannot tolerate losing £7500, then you should not let your positions reach a P&L of -£7500, because that's exactly what losing £7500 is.

 

 

This 100%. Wasting your time explaining this though because these people have no interest in modifying what they do to protect their capital better 

Link to post
12 hours ago, Stonk said:

 

Of course you believe you know better than the market.  You'd better rein that in: relegate it from "firm conviction that I cannot be wrong" to "well-researched belief with a stop-loss attached in case I'm wrong".

You mention a "predictable news flow that would have set them right in due course".  If it's all so predictable and your "deep DD" is so infallible, why didn't it tell you hold off and invest after the upcoming £7500 loss?

"Deep DD" also ought to have lead you to realise that CFDs are a bad way to take a position on something that needs considerable time.

 

You are assuming you could precisely predict the size of a draw down or the exact timing of news.  You would never actually know when the right time would be to "be back in" and therefore likely to be outside of the market when aforementioned 'event' occurs.

Link to post
17 minutes ago, coolebenji said:

Can l ask here?  Will these spikes knock me out of my trade, either by stop loss or margin?

If l see this l avoid, but l would like to know more about it?

..

 

 

36329651-D109-421D-BB1C-A4A5C07A8302.jpeg

9D8A605E-1820-4E1F-ABE4-B81F0E7F0644.jpeg

Hi, sometimes false spikes can occur for a number of reasons but are chart artifacts and not linked to your account.

  • Like 1
Link to post

guys apologies I lost also few money with this - is it illegal IG to close positions that has been opened before the announcement without refund us only because it is not anymore profitable for this company.

Is there any organisation to protect us and to create a group legally to ask for refund- this is pure steal. 

 

Link to post
47 minutes ago, Caseynotes said:

Hi, sometimes false spikes can occur for a number of reasons but are chart artifacts and not linked to your account.

Ahh, thanks Casey, much appreciated.. :)

Link to post

Has anybody contacted the fca? I’m struggling to find the correct Avenue but this absolutely stinks,

also can anybody suggest an alternative broker to ig I am sick and tired of them moving the goalposts whenever it suits them I don’t mind paying higher fees I’m just done lining the pockets of this company to have stunts like this pulled.

josh 

Link to post
18 hours ago, Stonk said:

If an open position is at a loss, then that's its value.  By closing it, IG are equally likely to have saved you from further losses.

You can't argue that future news flow would return it to profitability.  Any expectation of that, and its likelihood, are already built into the price.  It might happen, but it also might not, and the current price is at precisely the level that reflects that balance of possibilities.

You did not lose £7500 the moment IG closed the position.  You had already lost it.

Bottom line, if you cannot tolerate losing £7500, then you should not let your positions reach a P&L of -£7500, because that's exactly what losing £7500 is.

 

 

Nowhere within my original post does it state that I cannot tolerate losing £7500, also, my post states that the £7500 loss is from my FUNDS, NOT P&L, the pertinent issue is that it is my decision if and when a P&L loss is crystallised, not IG's.

Link to post

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • General Statistics

    • Total Topics
      15,437
    • Total Posts
      74,000
    • Total Members
      62,375
    • Most Online
      7,522
      10/06/21 10:53

    Newest Member
    Paulml
    Joined 19/06/21 11:22
  • Posts

    • GREAT CONUNDRUMS OF OUR TIMES:   1/ The WHO, having originally said it wanted a ban on alcohol for pregnant women now proposes the ban should apply to all women of childbearing age.  | BPAS HOWEVER, the WHO also says it's perfectly fine to inject pregnant women with an experimental vaccine. 🤔   2/ THORPE PARK says; ''in line with our ride restrictions, all our guests who are mask exempt are required to sit in the row farthest to the back to reduce the risk of air transmission aboard our attractions.''  BUT, as @dontbetyet points out, ''The risk of a ride malfunctioning and someone being injured / killed is a greater risk to someone in the theme park than outdoor transmission. Therefore it would be prudent for THORPEPARK to shut for good as the risk is far too great!''  🤔   OR THIS; 3/   OR THIS; 4/ You're the head of the NHS and are asked for your thoughts on Mad Matt Hancock - what do you do? 🤔     .      
    • This is how you do it. China went to near zero cases simply by changing the definition. To have a disease you must have symptoms, it is the very definition of having a disease. You need to have symptoms in order to be infectious (be productive of virus in droplets or aerosol). To be infected does not mean you have the disease nor that you might be infectious because you might have immunity which kills the infection and prevents you catching the disease and having symptoms.     h/t  david @davinci_mora   Unfortunately this is all too complicated for our govt's ''scientific experts'' (half of whom are psychologists) to understand so it's forever onward with Project Fear.    
    • This weekend don't forget the rules to SAVE LIVES!!!!!   ... unless of course you happen to be going to Ascot 👍
×
×
  • Create New...