Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
that is scary when brokers are offline and u have a trade on . As far as optimus been using them for 6 months and love them compared to ninjatrader broker . But i do manual trades so not sure about your situation . you have to realise to get .50 commision u arent getting much customer service . Thinkorswim my 1st broker they had perfect customer service but $2.25 fee each side .
Didn't have a problem with Optimus customer service .. Jake did everything he could .. but he could not get MetaTrader5 to work .. the in-house platform was awkward for a new trader and Multi-Charts price action on the chart did not coincide with the actual prices in the data box ..
NinjaTrader 8 may not be great .. and may not be my last platform .. but it is doing a good job for now ..
Seems to me, that these claimants are trying to place the whole situation blame on AMP and then using IB as the example. There is a big difference between Interactive Brokers and AMP. IB has their own data feed and trading infrastructure. AMP offers CQG, Rithmic and TT which are all majors (certified with the CME). If any failures, would be on CQG, Rithmic or TT... not AMP. AMP is just a broker.
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little Equities, Fixed Income, Metals and Crypto.
Frequency: Many times daily
Duration: Never
Posts: 5,049 since Dec 2013
Thanks Given: 4,388
Thanks Received: 10,207
Agree @Mozart2112. And just to clarify TT had no issues with negative prices. Negative prices are not new in the energy industry and TT has been handling them for 20 years.
Hmm, not sure if he edited it or what but that's not what it says. Anyway, I get his point. But it's dangerous for people to think that AMP is only a broker, since they are also acting as the FCM. That is key information that everyone should know and clearly understand.
We don't need more users losing everything like past FCM blow-ups, Segregated Funds be damned. It's a nice thought but it doesn't mean your money is truly protected, especially from negligence that might expose your firm to a $100 million dollar mistake. Pretty sure AMP can't write that check. In fairness, obviously they are just a fraction of the size of IB. But the point remains the same.
Understand where your money is, which FCM, and do your homework. And if you have substantial funds, it's prudent to diversify those funds across FCM's.
One particular reason I personally like Interactive Brokers is their option that allows me to sweep funds to a SPIC account, which currently is providing $2.75M in per-account protection. Plus, IB has excess capital of $4 billion according to the latest CFTC FCM report. By comparison, AMP has $5 million.
The average, btw, is $2 billion. There are only 8 FCM's that have lower excess capital than AMP, out of 64 FCM's in the report.
Just a note on the trading platforms and data feeds on AMP.
I have no particular knowledge about AMP's role or liability in this matter (although I would not want to be in their shoes, given the wording of the lawsuit and the history of what happened with IB), but I did take a look at their site because I remembered them as basically a sort of kitchen-sink firm in terms of platforms and feeds.
I was going to list them here, but I counted about 50 platforms. For all I know, they might have their own platform as well -- there were some very well-known names there and some I didn't know. Data feeds listed were CQG, Rithmic, TT and CTS T4.
None of which means anything one way or another about whether AMP is or is not responsible for their platforms or feeds not handling the negative prices correctly, and I don't know how well or poorly any of the feeds or platforms did it. I have no idea how this suit will or should be adjudicated, and as I said, I would not want to be in their shoes, and it's certainly not my call.
But I did get the impression in this thread so far that we were talking about just a few, and in fact we're talking about a lot of industry leaders -- both trading platforms and data feeds. I don't know if any of this changes AMP's responsibility or not. But it is part of the whole picture.
Bob.
When one door closes, another opens.
-- Cervantes, Don Quixote
,
remind me of SierraChart w/ Track Data's data feed, at that time I also had Esignal and TradeSration. I was trading on SC and eventually found out SC chart didn't look the same as the charts from other brokers. When I complained to SC they remind me they are not responsible for data feed quality. When I complained to Track Data they reminded me I signed the Indemnity Agreement on the data quality.
