|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
The main problem is that they do not trust the internet. That is why
the point of execution is always on THEIR side. So when the Internet
goes down after you hit the botton but before they get the message
then you are out of luck.
I have seen very ugly problems because of this. So far there is no
other solution than using the phone because no broker will ever make
the point of execution/order on your PC. One small safeguard is a
good confirmation mechanism by the mainframe that confirms IMMEDEATLY
any action. However even this does not help: Suppose your line goes
down after you hit the button and before you receive the
mainframe confirmation. Thinking that the other side didn't receive
your order you will then execute twice...........
The problems are endless when you try to syncronise to remote systems
over a faulty line (internet).
I can't blame the brokers for their disclaimers.
Gerrit Jacobsen
> -- [ From: Larry McBride * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] --
>
> Recently I started to set up a new account specifically for speed of
> execution in trading the e-mini mainly. I was going to try a broker,
> let's refer to as FTG, who clears through a house I'll designate as RC.
> I was going to try FTG because they specifically claimed to have an e-
> trading system that has enough parallel paths that it does not go down
> and that trades are considered "held" by them.
>
> Then I get RC's account paperwork with the following paragraph on
> electronic trading to sign:
>
> "Trading on an electronic trading system may differ not only from
> trading in an open-outcry market but also from trading on other
> electronic trading systems. If you undertake transactions on an
> electronic trading system you will be exposed to risk associated with
> the system including the failure of hardware and software. The result
> of any system failure may be that your order is either not executed
> according to your instructions or is not executed at all."
>
> How's that last sentence for a disclaimer?? When I asked FTG about
> their claims that they were "held," they repeated the claim. When I
> asked for something in writing to this effect, instead of the statement
> above that says ultimately they have no responsibility whatsoever, I was
> told "Sorry, this is a verbal claim only. Too hard to define. You must
> sign the RC disclaimer."
>
> My question to the group is, is this approach of claims and disclaimers
> really as slimy as it feels or is it instead a sincere attempt to
> provide quality service when the exchanges themselves won't take
> responsibility for their systems? Do all brokers ultimately disclaim
> responsibility to the same level that the above paragraph does? FTG
> claims this is an industry standard account application/disclaimer
> statement.
>
> Any insight would be appreciated!
>
> Larry
>
>
|