Jump to content

Out of here !!


Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, ChrisIrwin19 said:

£11 per trade .. Thats £22 to close. wouldn't be so bad if it was a real trade.. Quote we only make money from our spreads!!!! what a joke.

There's not enough people to take up the opposite side of your trade.

You think that's bad, a big company like Greggs has a £16 spread.  That's £32 to close.

Games Workshop has a £42 spread!!!

Edited by dmedin
Link to post

The worst thing about it, is that it shows you are in profit when you are actually not. started with a small account today. closed a few trades to find that their extortionate commissions were swallowing any profits i made. so with huge commissions and spreads once again the house always wins !! another bullsh1t broker !!

Edited by ChrisIrwin19
Link to post
On 19/02/2020 at 06:03, ChrisIrwin19 said:

The worst thing about it, is that it shows you are in profit when you are actually not. started with a small account today. closed a few trades to find that their extortionate commissions were swallowing any profits i made. so with huge commissions and spreads once again the house always wins !! another bullsh1t broker !!

Hey Chris Irwin, 

fees are not good I agree but could you tell me is there a way to search for fees paid the same way you can load your “Deals” On the platform ? 

Link to post

There is no display of the commission's in the deal or order screen. So you pay a spread plus commission for an asset you've never bought . I'm sure it's cheaper to actually go with a real stock broker and carry out real trades. All these pretend brokers are just here to steal as much of your money as quickly as possible. Commissions !! Commissions for what ???? Were not actually buying anything. Were just playing on a gambling machine where they make the rules.. I'm supprised they haven't charged a commission for using this forum or have they ??? 

Link to post
  • 1 month later...

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
      15,389
    • Total Posts
      73,857
    • Total Members
      62,261
    • Most Online
      7,522
      10/06/21 10:53

    Newest Member
    darrylantonio0
    Joined 12/06/21 18:09
  • Posts

    • Oh, so underlying conditions are significant now we have the vaccines, ''98% of ALL COVID-19 deaths in English hospitals were people with underlying conditions. The evening standard is trying to defend the vaccine by saying that the people who died with two doses had underlying health issues. See the problem?'' datatosee.com  @dontbetyet     MEANWHILE, - What? ''WHOA!! 73% *HIGHER* death rate in this vaccinated UK cohort compared to the unvaccinated (19/9344 vs 23/19573, p=0.07). Pause. We need more transparency on this data, not more politics with people ... misrepresenting the data.''  Dr Ah Kahn Syed @arkmedic   Also meanwhile, ''Pandemrix was pulled for causing narcolepsy in 20 in a million doses. The crude reporting rate for myocarditis is 35 per million doses for 16-17 year olds [covid vaccines] ''  Dr Clare Craig @ClareCraigPath  (Chart taken from FDA video below).        .
    • UK following the US in rewriting the rules for testing and counting the Chinese virus. Before vaccines every thing possible was done to inflate the numbers, post vaccine rollout now new rules to deflate the numbers. ''NEW: Hospitals have been told to differentiate between those actually sick with coronavirus and those who test positive while seeking treatment for something else. The move will reduce the official numbers in hospital for coronavirus Via @Independent.''  @PoliticsForAlI   Meanwhile Ferguson's fake models finally getting the sort of attention they deserve. Matt Ridley  @mattwridley: ''I was misled by Prof Neil Ferguson at a select committee hearing.'' 'Researchers at Uppsala University adapted the ICL model and on 30 April estimated that, without mitigation, Sweden’s Covid deaths would hit 96,000 by the end of May. The actual number on 1 June was just 4,403. Questioned about the disparity by Matt Ridley in the House of Lords on 2 June, Ferguson insisted: ‘they did not use our model, they didn’t adapt our model’ and ‘We had no role in parameterising it’. ICL itself tweeted sniffily on 6 May, ‘Professor Ferguson and the Imperial Covid-19 response team never estimated 40,000 or 100,000 Swedish deaths’.  In fact ICL did and the Excel spreadsheet they produced showing just that is still up on the internet for all to see. So what about Sweden, huh? | The Spectator Australia   Also,   .
    • probably missing the point, but I don't get the growth stocks (QQQ) short to hedge against correction in cyclical commodities, sorry.  NDX went nowhere since mid Feb, while oil is up 20% or so.  That doesn't mean tech is cheap, nor that QQQ would rise (again...) when cyclicals crash.  but hasn't the narrative been reflation-rotation for a while...?  if that simply unwinds - QQQ obviously will outperform.  on the other hand, in case of a general risk-off, with multiple compression in the center, you'll do very well.  Personally, I see too much risk of NDX catching up first.  next week expiry date - not that I would have much data on these things, but wouldn't be the first time that range breakouts come just in time, almost like manipulationgic...      
×
×
  • Create New...