New: Knock-outs

[Caseynotes]

That's an interesting one @Kodiak, haven't seen anything like that myself but it would indeed be interesting.

I can see the attraction for trying to make the KOs perform more like a spread bet and less like an option but they are an option at core. The ability to place a stop loss inner order would make a big difference, hopefully that is still coming. 

[Tancredi]

31 minutes ago, Caseynotes said:

the attraction for trying to make the KOs perform more like a spread bet

What I'm trying to say is this, Caseynotes:

It doesn't matter how the instrument is actually derived, or even how it actually performs, but rather how the consequences of being in the trade are displayed numerically.  So, if, for example, an opening level of, say, 100 were to be the case for a KO trade, and the level of the underlying was, at that point, say 1000, then, rather than have running p/l displayed only with reference to the KO level, let's have it displayed also with respect to the underlying.  In that way a tear-off ticket can be displayed alongside the price chart and trade-relevant calculations can be made without a lot of mental gymnastics needed to relate the ticket to the chart.

[Caseynotes]

Not an unreasonable suggestion @Tancredi but I suspect it would be a case of either/or rather than both side by side. You can see where IG are coming from though, they need an options type instrument to satisfy the new esma regs while trying to lure those used to the SB format.

[Guest PandaFace]

How about just having a new work stationwhoch you can tear out and have just one function on? Ie close deal? 

[Tancredi]

1 hour ago, Caseynotes said:

the attraction for trying to make the KOs perform more like a spread bet

What I'm trying to say is this, Caseynotes:

It doesn't matter how the instrument is actually derived, or even how it actually performs, but rather how the consequences of being in the trade are displayed numerically.  So, if, for example, an opening level of, say, 100 were to be the case for a KO trade, and the level of the underlying was, at that point, say 1000, then, rather than have running p/l displayed only with reference to the KO level, let's have it displayed also with respect to the underlying.  In that way a tear-off ticket can be displayed alongside the price chart and trade-relevant calculations can be made without a lot of mental gymnastics needed to relate the ticket to the chart.

[Tancredi]

1 hour ago, Caseynotes said:

a case of either/or

To save unnecessary confusion I think it would be simpler for the user to have one ticket with either a "show more" option (forgive play on words) or just an always-on alternative view giving the KO position in points of the underlying rather than just points of the KO risk.

 

59 minutes ago, PandaFace said:

How about just having a new work stationwhoch you can tear out and have just one function on? Ie close deal? 

I can already simulate that, PandaFace, by reducing the browser window set to show the "Positions" tab.  What I'd like to see is a tear-off ticket from which I can close an open trade. 

By the way, once I was into my KO trade I found both "stop" and "limit" buttons became available to me from the "Positions" tab and I closed my position overnight on a limit order.

[Caseynotes]

2 minutes ago, Tancredi said:

What I'd like to see is a tear-off ticket from which I can close an open trade. 

Don't forget the KOs are still being developed and we are waiting for the 'inner' stop loss function that we were told IG was working on when the KOs arrived on the platform.

[Tancredi]

10 minutes ago, Caseynotes said:

KOs are still being developed

I'm hoping that someone will see the merit of what I'm suggesting so that it can figure in the process.

[Guest Valdemar]

So, what happened to these? I get an e-mail yesterday about the widening of stops, now they require as much margin as just trading the original instrument, thus negating the whole point of KOs. Is this permanent?

 

I’m not seeing the point in having this product now if it’s exactly the same as what we had prior to it being introduced. 

[Guest disgruntled trader]

KO margins increased supposedly to remain in line with esma regulations, moving goal posts gain with no prior notification 

[LeoTrader]

Re yesterday's email about the changes to knock-outs, with them now requiring the same margin as a standard spread bet, there's very little reason to trade them. They're now inferior to a standard spread bet (no customiseable/closer stop, market orders only, higher minimum position sizes). I assume IG's hands are tied and have been forced to make these changes to adhere to ESMA regulations. Such a shame. R.I.P. knock-outs. 

[Caseynotes]

Thank's @LeoTrader,  I've not had that email yet. That may be what's happened to @jasonlal's attempt to trade them today.

[LeoTrader]

I think so, @Caseynotes. The change is that the minimum 'knock-out level' is much further away; the distance from entry (in percentage) now matching the margin requirement of a spread bet for the given instrument.

Edited September 21, 2018 by LeoTrader

[Caseynotes]

@LeoTrader, would you mind reproducing the main part of the email here (blocking out any personal detail). I definitely haven't received anything from IG about it. Cheers. 

[Tancredi]

24 minutes ago, LeoTrader said:

I assume IG's hands are tied and have been forced to make these changes

I guess that's also why they haven't been able to address the suggestions I've made here.  To do so would mean their being forced to address in public what they hoped might remain tacit.  But I really don't think IG's customers' want that approach.  I think they want either evidence of a robust rejection of the grounds given by the ESMA for their changes or, simply, a statement acknowledging the difficulty they now face in democratising trading.

PS  here's the content of the email I received on 20/9/18:

"We have made some changes to our new knock-out product. On all new knock-out trades, the knock-out level you select will have to be further away from the current market price than was previously the case.

"We apologise for any inconvenience caused. "

[Guest jasonlal]

So they bring a product in which helps traders who do not want to put thousands in an account to trade. Then take it away. Well done IG, taking my trading elsewhere now. 

[LeoTrader]

3 hours ago, Caseynotes said:

@LeoTrader, would you mind reproducing the main part of the email here (blocking out any personal detail). I definitely haven't received anything from IG about it. Cheers. 

@Tancredi has beaten me to it! ?

That's all the email says, @Caseynotes. No explanation given.  Have you traded knock-outs? Perhaps the email only went out to clients who've traded them. Just a thought. 
 

3 hours ago, Tancredi said:

I guess that's also why they haven't been able to address the suggestions I've made here.  To do so would mean their being forced to address in public what they hoped might remain tacit.  But I really don't think IG's customers' want that approach.  I think they want either evidence of a robust rejection of the grounds given by the ESMA for their changes or, simply, a statement acknowledging the difficulty they now face in democratising trading.

I completely agree with you. 
 

1 hour ago, jasonlal said:

So they bring a product in which helps traders who do not want to put thousands in an account to trade. Then take it away. Well done IG, taking my trading elsewhere now. 

I think you'll find much of the same with any broker operating from the EU.

[Guest PandaFace]

The total lack of explaination can only mean one thing. Like what was said above... this is going to be a legal / regulation thing for sure. They can’t have buggered up the product otherwise they’d pull it. 

Remeber that FCA announcement a few days before the knock outs where available to trade on? The one saying basically “don’t try and get around this ya wee bastards” - maybe they’ve been told off. It did sound a bit too good to be true (effectively getting 1% margin/ 100:1 lev)

  @jasonlal I doubt you’d find anything similar from a uk broker but if you do holla. 

 

[Guest PandaFace]

Shame it’s the Friday PM - guess we’ll have to wait until @JamesIG is in on Monday for further explanation. Unless someone calls them and reports back? 

[Caseynotes]

Not giving away much in the email that only some seem to have received. Was just looking at the demo platform that still has the old formula and the difference is quite startling. (see pics below). It all seems a bit odd though or maybe just wishful thinking on the part of IG and they have had their card marked by the FCA, wait and see. Certainly if things stand as they are the whole KO thing would seem to have been a waste of IG's time and money, maybe they still have a trick up their sleeve, who knows.

[Guest PandaFace]

Wooooah!!! That’s big. Casey - have you traded on them? How did you find them if you have? It’s no where near as smooth but options and futures seem to be the only products outside the remit and legislation. 

...maybe we should move to Oz and just deal with the CFD cap gain tax. 

[Caseynotes]

I haven't traded live ko's no, only played about on demo to get a feel of them as they were a new product. Fortunately I can adjust my account size to be of sufficient proportion to carry on trading my fairly conservative risk level with the higher margin rate plus get the added bonus of negative account protection hence not worried about going for 'professional' status. 

[Guest PandaFace]

Neg balance protection on a leverage account is truly an amazing bit of the legislation. 

...the rest can do one ?

[Kodiak]

14 hours ago, Caseynotes said:

Not giving away much in the email that only some seem to have received. Was just looking at the demo platform that still has the old formula and the difference is quite startling. (see pics below). It all seems a bit odd though or maybe just wishful thinking on the part of IG and they have had their card marked by the FCA, wait and see. Certainly if things stand as they are the whole KO thing would seem to have been a waste of IG's time and money, maybe they still have a trick up their sleeve, who knows.

I suppose FCA and ESMA thinks its better for us in the 80% "club" to lose 625 instead of 135?

[phillo]

yes, noticed the increase of minimum position size , which again, was a little disappointing

[Guest 202925]

23 hours ago, Kodiak said:

I suppose FCA and ESMA thinks its better for us in the 80% "club" to lose 625 instead of 135?

Yes another master stroke from the tools in Regulation!

Can the last person in IG turn off the lights on the way out?

[Guest 202925]

On 21/09/2018 at 14:20, LeoTrader said:

Re yesterday's email about the changes to knock-outs, with them now requiring the same margin as a standard spread bet, there's very little reason to trade them. They're now inferior to a standard spread bet (no customiseable/closer stop, market orders only, higher minimum position sizes). I assume IG's hands are tied and have been forced to make these changes to adhere to ESMA regulations. Such a shame. R.I.P. knock-outs. 

No trailing stop to protect yourself either!

This whole ESMA transition has been handled poorly by IG. There was no plan B, and zero regard for the smaller clients (Those of us who don't have half a million in our account)

I asked them to drop the bet sizes on all markets (10p a point etc), and got no reply. Whilst the margin ratio will be the same under the new rule- the size of the margin and potential losses will be lower. I (and everyone else ) would be quiet happy to trade smaller amounts and build it up from there.

 

 

[mbb1983]

can not place limits on knock-outs positions any idea, is it for me or for all?

 

"Stop or limit can not be placed on this market"

Edited November 30, 2018 by mbb1983

[Caseynotes]

Hi @mbb1983,  Knock-outs are an 'Options' type trade unlike 'Spread Bets' or 'Contracts For Difference' and so don't have the same limit and stop order type choices. 

[mbb1983]

able to place limits until last week.  now no longer accepts.