|
|
原帖由 Mike@JQFX 于 2010-7-20 22:28 发表 
你好，
谢谢您提的宝贵意见，虽然我们很少在这里发言但每天都会有人关注。你提到的那几点，有些我们已经在和各方面沟通希望能尽快落实，但有些确实因客观上法律法规方面的约束或障碍而无法操作。当然随着MBT将来的 ...
主要是三个问题，一个是平台稳定性，断线的问题，第二个是订单服务器连接没问题但是成交不可知的问题，第三个是佣金水平能达到百分之一，过高的问题
三个，都是关键性问题，而且除了佣金方面对国人有歧视外（凭什么米国人就便宜将近一半），其他两个问题米国人也经常遇到，这样一来，本来一百倍杠杆风险就大，加上上面的，基本上风险就更大了，策略问题是客户自己问题，但是平台总出问题，恐怕各位仰仗此收入的都不好受。本身跟我没有什么利益关系，我只是提个建议。*^_^*：
http://www.forexfactory.com/showthread.php?t=10002&page=371
Jul 18, 2010 2:33pm
| | 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoflanel 
Simple solution for the above problem : HAVE A BACK-UP BROKER !
|
Thats no solution. According to JLeBlang they didnt know if the trade got executed or not until a few hours after the fact. So you cant hedge it since you dont know your position, or you might even rack up 2x the losses if you are unlucky.
Besides, adjusting that fill hours after the fact would be clearly against NFA rules. In order for MBT to adjust an order, it is neccessary to give written notification to the customer within 15 minutes. According to the NFA Q&A about rule 2-43 it doesnt even matter if the liquidity provider informs MBT about a malfunction 20 minutes after order submission, it would still be illegal. See:
http://www.nfa.futures.org/news/news...ArticleID=2273
and
http://www.nfa.futures.org/nfa-faqs/...e-2-43-QA.HTML
So any fill after 15 minutes must stand, no matter what (except of its adjusted in the customers favour).
Another thought: what if you had opend an offsetting position (i understand, even if you couldn't close that individual position because it was 'stuck', you could have still opened new positions, right?). In that case, MBT would have immediately been in violation of the FIFO rule.
Im unsure MB's approach in this case is NFA compliant. Its certainly against the spirit of the new regulation, which essentialy is that if you got a fill, after 15 mins you got it, everything else is the brokers problem.
|
|
|
狗仔卡
发表于 2010-7-20 21:44:29
显身卡
