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)
it is in the fine print, their held harmless for any software problems. however if the account goes negative and the client owes a large sum of money , someone would have a problem collecting the negative balances. the clients that had their accounts damage by the problem will have a hard time collecting as well. that is the reason for the suit. AMP has told them it is just part of trading , futures are highly leveraged . better luck next time, like a pit boss at the craps table.
Can you help answer these questions from other members on NexusFi?
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
Your right that makes sense. The problem is things like this don't update as quickly as they should. My guess would be that field on the website is at best 1-2 days behind and at worst hard coded and potentially completely inaccurate. Does that make CME liable? Of course the CME have a massive disclaimer in the middle of the screenshots you posted. I'm not saying this is right, but it probably gives them a certain amount of legal immunity.
They weren't. CME public notices made it clear it could go negative. They just didn't research the product enough to know this.
You are right. It would be discrimination to stop them. It comes down to 'Risk/Reward'. We hear the stories of the few people who make millions, we don't hear the stories of the thousands that lose their account. They knew what the reward was but you are making the argument they didn't understand the risk, and that it's not their fault they didn't understand the risk. I understood the risk, as did anybody here who read the "The CL Crude-analysis Thread". CME made it clear for the month prior that under certain circumstances CL prices could go negative. They listed Negative Strike Price Options weeks beforehand. Only somebody completely removed from the market would not know that.
Again retail incorrectly assumed the market can't go below 0. CME notices made it clear that was possible. If it truely was impossible for CL to go below 0 don't you think that there would have been hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lots on the bid at 0.01? If it seems to good to be true, it's probably to good to be true.
Not the rules they were given, rules they were unaware that had changed. Not locked out, but unable to trade due to their flawed software. Not the CME. Not the FCM but flawed software (or data feed)
Don't understand the point. Sorry! CFTC report does show that the OI in CLK0 in the last 3 days to expiry was not typical of normal OI. Interpret that how you want.
Sorry again don't understand the point you are making. Agree CFTC report was disappointing.
Of course. But I don't expect the car manufacturer to notify me every time a speed limit changes???
Lacking a time machine I have no proof other than circumstantial evidence. Despite your assertions otherwise you also have no proof to support your claim either. Since your the one alleging TT malpractice isn't the burden of proof on you not me (or TT)?
Clearly stated, I traded 10 lots at negative prices, hence the other trades are ALL obviously at positive prices.
Do you consider 11000 in day vs 164 in a year normal?
Since you have so much evidence would you mind sharing more of it. I would be very interested in anything that show that TT couldn't trade negative prices???
When people turned on you in this thread I initially tried to support you. Now you are definitely beginning to sound a lot more like somebody with emotional attachment to this issue than somebody just interested in the lawsuits. While I do discuss issues like this with my friends (many of them are actual oil traders) I don't 'gather evidence with my friends' unless I need that evidence for a reason.
You are right. I can not show you a video of me trading at negative prices. I also do not have a video of me trading at positive prices either. Does that mean that its not possible to trade at positive prices. You also have provided zero evidence about TT at all. Please provide your video's or screenshots showing TT failed on negative prices. Lack of further evidence on this subject will result in me believing that you have no idea what you are talking about and deserve no further reply. Sorry.
So true. Reminds of a time when people alleged election fraud in the media but when it came to presenting evidence in front of judge there was none. Eventually got appealed to the highest court in the land, only to be rejected on a unanimous decision.
Your use of phrase "Kangaroo Court" may be appropriate ... (did it mean something different than you expected?)
And just to confirm I'm not full of it... To support my statement that I traded 11 lots in CLK0 on Apr 20.
EDIT 12/12 11:26AM. I had originally posted some account information here to back up statements I have previously made in this thread. Since this has been perceived to be nothing more than boasting and Tarzan like Chest Pounding I obviously did not achieve the purpose I had in mind. Since the information was personal in nature, and obviously not achieving the goal I intended I have now deleted it.
Now please post some of this supposed evidence you have.
All you've shown is a settlement price of -37.63. Almost all the class actions, which are public documents, show statements that settled at -37.63. In fact one showed -376.30 for a while! These are all journal entries. According to your statement, you never traded an outright let alone one at negative pricing. You trade spreads and TAS. So what you're showing there, is the settlement mechanism, not an outright trade, or did I miss the outright trades? So once again it appears to me you continue to beat your chest about this issue as if your claim is foolproof, but it's completely meaningless in the context of this claim regarding outrights. What even makes this worse, it that you tried to pass it off as an actual outright trade. So go ahead Mr Market Wizard, go ahead and explain your way out of this puffery!
Regarding your comment about people turning on me and being all emotional. I'm not the one that just posted a text wall full of inaccuracies. I never claimed TT failed, not once, how many times do I have to repeat myself. I'm counting at least 3 anyone else keeping tabs on this non-sense? OBJECTION YOUR HONOR! Also please feel free to ask me what I care about the opinion of what people, with little or dangerous knowledge, think of me? Also at the same time, please feel free to ask me my opinion of what it's like to be trolled by a defendant in this new and glorious modern era of social media. Go ahead ask pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease , then I could talk more about AMP's alleged behavior during this crisis.
Kangaroo be stoned. He's guilty as the government...get it yet?
I don't think you've said anything else worthy of responding to, you keep making the same claim against me regarding TT. As to suggesting my reasons for testing all these deficiencies somehow makes me ...ummm I dunno exactly what accusation you're trying to make their, but it's pedantic. It also begins to show a little about your true level of sophistication. Software certification is part of my gig, so if you find it odd that after witnessing a potential once in a lifetime software event such as this on such a global scale, that I wouldn't completely immerse myself in it, you have absolutely no clue what I do for a living and what I'm capable of. You are also completely out of your league with respect to anything at this level.
I'm also pretty sure I'm not the one with the emotional problems here. Maybe you're worried about losing that money? I have no clue what your issue is. You certainly couldn't wait for an opportunity to boast about your account. So in that sense you should be thankful I gave you that opportunity, more likes for you! Also kudo's to you for making such profitable trades if that is in fact what you really wanted to show, it did take more than 1/2 the wall up so geometrically speaking, ya we saw it! I sense you need this affirmation, so here have it ... you're awesome doooooood
Feel better now? you really are a pro, but this thread is about a lawsuit and facts, capish?
I'll provide facts as I feel I want to, not to appeal to your Tarzan approach to this discussion.
Maybe I'm just an ambulance chaser, who knows, maybe I'm this guy below, it's none of your business!
Actually the latest report I found stated 95% whole, so it sounds like more lawsuits pending. There is also speculation IB might be suing CME, but nothing has been confirmed. It must be a tough decision to face, to sue or not to sue your business partner!
"The company declined to provide the number of traders it compensated or more information about why some traders were refused and others were not."
This article says that prices went below Zero? Prices of what? and how can the price of anything trade below zero? Technically, wouldn't that be begging someone to take something that no one wants?
I personally find the exchange between you two guys to be informative. I think it strikes a nerve here and there simply because there is real money on the line here, and if in fact @RT777 is part of the lawsuit, then of course we know his point of view and naturally he would feel strongly compelled to defend that.
Regardless, I ask two things please: a) continue contributing to the thread as it is informative, and b) keep things civil, helpful and positive as always. @SMCJB knows our site rules well as a long-term Legendary Member. But for @RT777 let me make it clear again, we do not allow any type of personal attacks, name calling, or otherwise childish behavior. We simply are not that kind of place.
If anyone in this thread desires a street fight, you'll have to go elsewhere. Here, we will be respectful of each others opinions, even when we strongly disagree with them. And if the other person is not being receptive or understanding of what we are trying to ask or communicate, then we can either choose to try explaining it politely a different way, or we can choose to remain silent. I always prefer the first approach, as the later (silence) doesn't benefit anyone reading and learning.
Several sources are indicating the today very low oil price might fall to zero or into negative numbers. (see Bloomberg and other this month).
The point is the crucial oil storage which is no longer there: …
This language/tone is not welcome here. Always remember that it can be incredibly difficult to read someone's tone over the internet, and it can easily be mistaken. But my interpretation of your tone leads me to warn you.
I welcome you to be a solid contributor to our community, just simply refrain from the above and take a breath + an extra minute before submitting the post, so you can do so with professionalism.
