Class Action Lawsuit: AMP Global Clearing LLC - futures io
futures io futures trading



Class Action Lawsuit: AMP Global Clearing LLC


Discussion in Brokers

Updated
      Top Posters
    1. looks_one Big Mike with 17 posts (86 thanks)
    2. looks_two RT777 with 14 posts (19 thanks)
    3. looks_3 SMCJB with 13 posts (52 thanks)
    4. looks_4 Mozart2112 with 4 posts (10 thanks)
      Best Posters
    1. looks_one Big Mike with 5.1 thanks per post
    2. looks_two SMCJB with 4.0 thanks per post
    3. looks_3 Mozart2112 with 2.5 thanks per post
    4. looks_4 RT777 with 1.4 thanks per post
    1. trending_up 9,670 views
    2. thumb_up 216 thanks given
    3. group 446 followers
    1. forum 75 posts
    2. attach_file 8 attachments




Welcome to futures io: the largest futures trading community on the planet, with well over 125,000 members
  • 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 and simple.

-- Big Mike, Site Administrator

(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)

 
Search this Thread
 

Class Action Lawsuit: AMP Global Clearing LLC

(login for full post details)
  #1 (permalink)
Toronto Canada
 
 
Posts: 41 since May 2020

"A class action lawsuit was filed today on behalf of three investors against AMP Trading, AMP Global Clearing LLC and AMP Futures for the breakdown, of their trading platforms on April 20, 2020, leaving many traders trapped in positions causing substantial market losses.

According to the federal complaint, the defendant AMP despite numerous warnings from the CME Group, Inc., took no steps to prepare it platforms, inform its customers or even tell its trading customers that they would not be prepared. The suit alleges breakdown of risk management systems that not only exposed trading customers to unlimited risk, but also risked customer segregated funds.

De Silva Law Offices’ investigation of the incident is ongoing. If you were a customer of AMP Global Clearing LLC, or AMP Futures on April 20, 2020 and experienced a non-functioning trading platform, please contact lead counsel, R Tamara de Silva directly at 866-566-1849 or tamara@desilvalawoffices.com."

https://www.desilvalawoffices.com/news/2020/december/amp-trading-amp-global-clearing-llc-and-amp-futu/

Reply With Quote

Can you help answer these questions
from other members on futures io?
S&P 500 from 1789 until today: free data
Emini and Emicro Index
Moores Research vs spread software SeasonAlgo
Trading Reviews and Vendors
Pyrapoint by Don Hall information
Traders Hideout
Simulated Playback Trading
EasyLanguage Programming
the link between CFDs brokers and bank spot liquidity?
Currencies
 
Best Threads (Most Thanked)
in the last 7 days on futures io
Big Mike in Ecuador
141 thanks
How did you learn to trade?
101 thanks
2020 profit and loss results
40 thanks
Finally Turning the Corner, tha "its 80% Psychology" thing...
27 thanks
Is NT8 the right platform for scalping?
26 thanks
 
(login for full post details)
  #2 (permalink)
Legendary Market Wizard
Houston, TX
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: Trading Technologies
Broker: Primary Advantage Futures. Also ED&F and Tradestation
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little ES, GE, GC, SI & Bitcoin
 
Posts: 3,781 since Dec 2013
Thanks: 3,059 given, 7,314 received

Be interesting to see how this pans out. A quick review of the AMP website shows their platforms as MetaTrader and their own SteroTrader. Suspect there is wording in the contract that indemnifies them against software failure. I personally think somebody is negligent if people were unable to trade at negative prices, but my opinion on negligence and legal liability are probably very different things.

Reply With Quote
The following 3 users say Thank You to SMCJB for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #3 (permalink)
Site Administrator,
Data Scientist & DevOps
Manta, Ecuador
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: My own custom solution
Trading: Emini Futures
 
Big Mike's Avatar
 
Posts: 49,317 since Jun 2009
Thanks: 32,002 given, 96,492 received


Also, I want to point out that although the thread title is similar, this new thread has nothing to do with the lawsuit between this community and AMP Global that took place back in 2014. futures io defended that lawsuit, and won, denying AMP's wishes to have certain content removed from our site.

We believe in allowing our users to post any content, whether it puts a vendor in good light or bad, without fear of it being removed so long as it is truthful and based on your experiences.



Mike

We're here to help -- just ask

For the best trading education, watch our webinars
Searching for trading reviews? Review this list

Follow us on Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook

Support our community as an Elite Member:
https://futures.io/elite/
Follow me on Twitter Visit my Facebook Visit my futures io Trade Journal Reply With Quote
The following 14 users say Thank You to Big Mike for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #4 (permalink)
Site Administrator,
Data Scientist & DevOps
Manta, Ecuador
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: My own custom solution
Trading: Emini Futures
 
Big Mike's Avatar
 
Posts: 49,317 since Jun 2009
Thanks: 32,002 given, 96,492 received

Attached is the PDF of the lawsuit.

Mike

We're here to help -- just ask

For the best trading education, watch our webinars
Searching for trading reviews? Review this list

Follow us on Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook

Support our community as an Elite Member:
https://futures.io/elite/
Attached Files
Register to download File Type: pdf Amp-Class-Action-Complaint-Dkt.-1.pdf (469.7 KB, 99 views)
Follow me on Twitter Visit my Facebook Visit my futures io Trade Journal Reply With Quote
The following 7 users say Thank You to Big Mike for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #5 (permalink)
Legendary Market Wizard
Cleveland Ohio/United States
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: Tradestation
Broker: Tradestation, DeCarley, others
Trading: futures
 
Posts: 2,909 since Jul 2012
Thanks: 1,527 given, 5,691 received

Didn't Interactive Brokers have the same issue, and they decided to make customers whole for their software deficiency?

Follow me on Twitter Reply With Quote
The following 6 users say Thank You to kevinkdog for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #6 (permalink)
Site Administrator,
Data Scientist & DevOps
Manta, Ecuador
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: My own custom solution
Trading: Emini Futures
 
Big Mike's Avatar
 
Posts: 49,317 since Jun 2009
Thanks: 32,002 given, 96,492 received


kevinkdog View Post
Didn't Interactive Brokers have the same issue, and they decided to make customers whole for their software deficiency?

Yes, they did. Not immediately, but eventually. Cost them around $100MM as I recall. The article is here somewhere...

Edit: found this. $104 million, initially they said $80m.

https://www.financemagnates.com/forex/brokers/interactive-brokers-loss-from-oil-collapse-swelled-to-104-million/

Mike

We're here to help -- just ask

For the best trading education, watch our webinars
Searching for trading reviews? Review this list

Follow us on Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook

Support our community as an Elite Member:
https://futures.io/elite/
Follow me on Twitter Visit my Facebook Visit my futures io Trade Journal Reply With Quote
The following 7 users say Thank You to Big Mike for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #7 (permalink)
Site Administrator,
Data Scientist & DevOps
Manta, Ecuador
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: My own custom solution
Trading: Emini Futures
 
Big Mike's Avatar
 
Posts: 49,317 since Jun 2009
Thanks: 32,002 given, 96,492 received

These are the accusations within the PDF:

Case: 1:20-cv-07169 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/03/20 Page 1 of 40


1. Plaintiffs assert this action pursuant to Section 6b(e)3 of the Commodity
Exchange Act (“CEA”), 7 U.S.C. § 9, et seq., and 17 C.F.R. Sec. 180.1 of the
regulations promulgated pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”), on behalf of themselves and
all similarly-situated customers of AMP GLOBAL CLEARING, LLC and
AMP FUTURES (AMP) dba AMP CLEARING, AMP GLOBAL, AMP
GLOBAL CLEARING, AMP GLOBAL US, AMP GLOBAL USA and AMP
TRADING.

2. AMP engaged in acts, practices, and a course of business that operated
recklessly as a fraud or deceit upon Plaintiffs and the class. As described
in detail below, AMP mishandled Plaintiff’s and class members futures
and options investments on April 20, 2020, in that AMP: i) failed to
provide material information to Plaintiffs regarding the possibility of the
price of their NYMEX Light Sweet May 20 Crude Oil Futures contracts
(May 20 Crude Oil) and associated contracts going to a price below zero; ii)
failed to provide Plaintiffs a way to exit, buy, trade, roll, modify or offset
their long positions in May 20 Crude Oil and associated contracts; iii)
failed to liquidate Plaintiffs’ and class members’ futures and options on
futures investments in a reasonable manner on April 20, 2020 when May
20 Crude Oil fell to a price of zero and proceeded to trade into negative
prices; iv) took no steps to provide correct price data; and, v) did not insure
that their trading platforms would be ready for negative oil prices, as a
result of which it left several of its customers trapped in market positions,
while receiving inaccurate information about their positions, the account
balances and price.

3. AMP knew about the potential for the markets’ volatile condition –
including the possibility that the price of the May 20 Crude oil contract
could trade into the negative, and that the crude oil contract becomes
more volatile during the delivery period

4. AMP was warned on April 3, April 8, April 15th and April 20th about the
possibility of negative oil prices. The Chicago Mercantile Exchange
(“CME”) notified all FCMs that they had prepared an environment in
which platforms could be tested to see how well they functioned with
negative prices.

5. Plaintiffs subscribed to all news alerts from AMP entitled, “Important
Notices” and “Emergency Broadcasts.” Yet at no time prior to April 20,
2020 or on April 20, 2020 did AMP convey information from the CME
contained in its three advisories to FCM back-offices. Just as importantly,
at no point were they warned that AMP would be taking no steps to
prepare and would be exposing their customers to unlimited risk.

6. Yet AMP took no steps to increase its margin requirements, warn its
customers about information it had received, or protect its customer
segregated accounts-exposing its customers to unlimited risk and
endangered its customer segregated accounts.

7. In offering trading services, AMP assumed a duty to ensure that its
systems and customer services were sufficiently equipped to reliably
deliver services under foreseeable customer demands and market
conditions as what occurred on April 20, 2020.

8. Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class understood and had the
reasonable belief that AMP would be prepared for a market event it was
warned of. Yet despite having knowledge of the possibility of crude oil
futures trading negatively for weeks, AMP failed to disclose this
possibility to its trading customers, correct its own deficiencies on its
online trading platform and customer service, and chose to ignore the
warning of the relevant exchanges.

9. AMP did not i) take action to alert its customers to the possibility that
the price of May 20 Crude Oil Contract could go to zero and below; ii)
prepare its trading systems to be able to accept trades if the price of the
May 20 Crude Oil contract declined to zero and into negative prices or,
alternatively provide a way for the customers to place orders manually or
through a separate vehicle, since its automated trading systems could not
accept negatively priced Crude Oil orders; iii) take action to promptly
liquidate positions in the May 20 Crude Oil contracts in accounts which
became under-margined when the May 20 Crude Oil contract declined to
zero and into negative prices, causing clients’ accounts to lose thousands
of dollars and in some instances incur debit balances; and iv) did not
adjust their margin requirements to reflect a market possibility they were
uniquely warned about.

10. AMPs’ failure to provide its clients with material information, and to
provide a means for customers to get accurate information about their
accounts and not be trapped in positions without any way of getting out
also violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing contained
in its Futures Client Agreement and acted with negligence and gross
negligence.

11. AMP’s reckless actions make them liable for hundreds of thousands of
dollars in damages incurred by Plaintiffs and the class.

We're here to help -- just ask

For the best trading education, watch our webinars
Searching for trading reviews? Review this list

Follow us on Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook

Support our community as an Elite Member:
https://futures.io/elite/
Follow me on Twitter Visit my Facebook Visit my futures io Trade Journal Reply With Quote
The following 5 users say Thank You to Big Mike for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #8 (permalink)
Casa Grande
 
Experience: Intermediate
Platform: NinjaTrader8
Trading: Futures
 
Posts: 4 since Aug 2020
Thanks: 0 given, 6 received

not terribly surprised .. went thru Optimus to access AMP futures .. could never get MetaTrader 5 to place trade on live account ..

Jake at Optimus suggested to use Optimus' in house software which was very awkward ..

then Jake suggested Multi-Charts and that was no better .. at one point the chart was not synchronized with the price action .. which can be seen in the attached images

my daughter lost $1000 before she realized the price was moving but price candle wasn't .. never got a good explanation from Jake/Optimus .. no explanation .. no business .. closed the account with Optimus/AMP ..

Mike




Reply With Quote
The following user says Thank You to mewddsltd for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #9 (permalink)
Site Administrator,
Data Scientist & DevOps
Manta, Ecuador
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: My own custom solution
Trading: Emini Futures
 
Big Mike's Avatar
 
Posts: 49,317 since Jun 2009
Thanks: 32,002 given, 96,492 received


mewddsltd View Post
closed the account with Optimus/AMP ..

Out of curiosity, where did you go after that?

And I would imagine @mattz would like to know what went wrong. He is usually a responsive guy.

Mike

We're here to help -- just ask

For the best trading education, watch our webinars
Searching for trading reviews? Review this list

Follow us on Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook

Support our community as an Elite Member:
https://futures.io/elite/
Follow me on Twitter Visit my Facebook Visit my futures io Trade Journal Reply With Quote
The following user says Thank You to Big Mike for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #10 (permalink)
Casa Grande
 
Experience: Intermediate
Platform: NinjaTrader8
Trading: Futures
 
Posts: 4 since Aug 2020
Thanks: 0 given, 6 received


Hi Mike,

I moved my daughter to NinjaTrader .. which is the platform I use .. using NinjaTrader 8 with custom indicators ..

What went wrong was
1) the Optimus representative could never get MetaTrader5 to work ..
2) the in-house platform the representative suggested seemed very awkward ..
3) the Multi-Charts platform did not display the price action correctly

lost time and money dealing with Optimus / AMP

Mike

Reply With Quote
The following 3 users say Thank You to mewddsltd for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #11 (permalink)
orlando
 
Experience: Beginner
Platform: esignal
Trading: forex emini oil gas
 
Posts: 49 since Jan 2017
Thanks: 19 given, 53 received

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 .

Reply With Quote
The following 3 users say Thank You to hoppy123 for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #12 (permalink)
Legendary Market Wizard
Houston, TX
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: Trading Technologies
Broker: Primary Advantage Futures. Also ED&F and Tradestation
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little ES, GE, GC, SI & Bitcoin
 
Posts: 3,781 since Dec 2013
Thanks: 3,059 given, 7,314 received

Do AMP make Metratrader 5 or Multi-Charts? Do they have their own proprietary price feeds?

Reply With Quote
 
(login for full post details)
  #13 (permalink)
Casa Grande
 
Experience: Intermediate
Platform: NinjaTrader8
Trading: Futures
 
Posts: 4 since Aug 2020
Thanks: 0 given, 6 received

Hoppy123

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 ..

Reply With Quote
The following 2 users say Thank You to mewddsltd for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #14 (permalink)
Minoqua Wi USA
 
 
Posts: 56 since Sep 2019
Thanks: 30 given, 34 received

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.

Reply With Quote
The following 5 users say Thank You to Mozart2112 for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #15 (permalink)
Legendary Market Wizard
Houston, TX
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: Trading Technologies
Broker: Primary Advantage Futures. Also ED&F and Tradestation
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little ES, GE, GC, SI & Bitcoin
 
Posts: 3,781 since Dec 2013
Thanks: 3,059 given, 7,314 received

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.

Reply With Quote
The following 3 users say Thank You to SMCJB for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #16 (permalink)
Site Administrator,
Data Scientist & DevOps
Manta, Ecuador
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: My own custom solution
Trading: Emini Futures
 
Big Mike's Avatar
 
Posts: 49,317 since Jun 2009
Thanks: 32,002 given, 96,492 received


Mozart2112 View Post
AMP is just a broker.

To be clear, AMP is an FCM.

Mike

We're here to help -- just ask

For the best trading education, watch our webinars
Searching for trading reviews? Review this list

Follow us on Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook

Support our community as an Elite Member:
https://futures.io/elite/
Follow me on Twitter Visit my Facebook Visit my futures io Trade Journal Reply With Quote
The following 4 users say Thank You to Big Mike for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #17 (permalink)
Legendary Market Wizard
Houston, TX
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: Trading Technologies
Broker: Primary Advantage Futures. Also ED&F and Tradestation
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little ES, GE, GC, SI & Bitcoin
 
Posts: 3,781 since Dec 2013
Thanks: 3,059 given, 7,314 received


Big Mike View Post
To be clear, AMP is an FCM.

Mike you missed half the sentence.
To be clear, AMP is an FCM, and not a software developer or price feed distributor.

Reply With Quote
The following 5 users say Thank You to SMCJB for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #18 (permalink)
Site Administrator,
Data Scientist & DevOps
Manta, Ecuador
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: My own custom solution
Trading: Emini Futures
 
Big Mike's Avatar
 
Posts: 49,317 since Jun 2009
Thanks: 32,002 given, 96,492 received


SMCJB View Post
Mike you missed half the sentence.
To be clear, AMP is an FCM, and not a software developer or price feed distributor.

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.

* Please feel free to check my math!

IB sweep to SPIC:
https://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php?f=25276

CFTC FCM report:
https://www.cftc.gov/MarketReports/financialfcmdata/index.htm

Be safe, and smart out there!

Mike

We're here to help -- just ask

For the best trading education, watch our webinars
Searching for trading reviews? Review this list

Follow us on Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook

Support our community as an Elite Member:
https://futures.io/elite/
Follow me on Twitter Visit my Facebook Visit my futures io Trade Journal Reply With Quote
The following 19 users say Thank You to Big Mike for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #19 (permalink)
Site Moderator
Sarasota FL
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: Sierra Chart
Trading: ES, YM
 
bobwest's Avatar
 
Posts: 6,213 since Jan 2013
Thanks: 47,491 given, 20,861 received

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.

(Source: https://www.ampfutures.com/platforms/ )

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
Visit my futures io Trade Journal Reply With Quote
The following 5 users say Thank You to bobwest for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #20 (permalink)
the coin hunter
virginia
 
Experience: Intermediate
Platform: ninja
Trading: NQ
 
cory's Avatar
 
Posts: 6,010 since Jun 2009
Thanks: 834 given, 7,849 received


mewddsltd View Post
not terribly surprised .. went thru Optimus to access AMP futures .. could never get MetaTrader 5 to place trade on live account ..

Jake at Optimus suggested to use Optimus' in house software which was very awkward ..

then Jake suggested Multi-Charts and that was no better .. at one point the chart was not synchronized with the price action .. which can be seen in the attached images

my daughter lost $1000 before she realized the price was moving but price candle wasn't .. never got a good explanation from Jake/Optimus .. no explanation .. no business .. closed the account with Optimus/AMP ..

Mike

..

,
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.

Reply With Quote
The following 4 users say Thank You to cory for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #21 (permalink)
Legendary Market Wizard
Houston, TX
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: Trading Technologies
Broker: Primary Advantage Futures. Also ED&F and Tradestation
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little ES, GE, GC, SI & Bitcoin
 
Posts: 3,781 since Dec 2013
Thanks: 3,059 given, 7,314 received

If it's okay to sue AMP for their platforms which are not their own product on the grounds its negligence, isn't the extension of this you could actually sue CME for 'certifying' the same platform?

Reply With Quote
The following 5 users say Thank You to SMCJB for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #22 (permalink)
W.Coast, USA.
 
Experience: Intermediate
Platform: Anything
Trading: Emini
 
Posts: 71 since Jul 2017
Thanks: 16 given, 48 received


mewddsltd View Post
not terribly surprised .. went thru Optimus to access AMP futures .. could never get MetaTrader 5 to place trade on live account ..

Jake at Optimus suggested to use Optimus' in house software which was very awkward ..

then Jake suggested Multi-Charts and that was no better .. at one point the chart was not synchronized with the price action .. which can be seen in the attached images

my daughter lost $1000 before she realized the price was moving but price candle wasn't .. never got a good explanation from Jake/Optimus .. no explanation .. no business .. closed the account with Optimus/AMP ..

Mike

Attachment 307181

Attachment 307182

Your attachment shows e-mini S&P.

The lawsuit alleges the negative pricing of oil contracts failed on Multi Charts.

Are you claiming the same price issue happened for you with e-mini S&P?

Just curious about the problem you had, since the only problem related to this that I've had in the past was with the CQG data feed disconnecting. But that was an exceptionally rare instance honestly.

From my experience, MultiCharts / CQG and SierraChart / CQG have been fairly robust.

Can someone confirm if MultiCharts and SierraChart can handle negative pricing? Isn't this a platform and data feed issue rather than strictly a broker/FCM issue?

Reply With Quote
The following user says Thank You to Arch for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #23 (permalink)
Warsaw
 
Experience: Beginner
Platform: Sierra Chart
Trading: DAX
 
Posts: 11 since Sep 2020
Thanks: 16 given, 4 received

Where can I find the list of FCM's/Introducing brokers that uses TT? I look for a backup to amp.
I use Sierra Chart Order Routing service.

Reply With Quote
 
(login for full post details)
  #24 (permalink)
Istanbul / Turkey
 
Experience: Master
Platform: Motivewave
Broker: TDA, IBKR, Tradovate, EdgeClear
Trading: ES, Currency, FDAX
 
Posts: 31 since Dec 2018
Thanks: 0 given, 27 received

Several months ago, i have opened an account with AMP. After trading a while, i have sent them an email and asked "I'm not allowing anyone to tag me with my trades, positions, orders and share my data with 3rd party". Because if anyone knows and tags your trades, they easily can train an AI on it and trade against you.

They have closed my account without any reason

I have sent the same email to forex.com and cityindex.co.uk and thet did the same...

Reply With Quote
The following 6 users say Thank You to Ates for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #25 (permalink)
Fort McMurray, AB Canada
 
Experience: Beginner
Platform: NT, MT4, Jigsaw
Broker: Continuum
Trading: ZN, ES
 
spideysteve's Avatar
 
Posts: 149 since Mar 2015
Thanks: 358 given, 166 received


manfretto View Post
Where can I find the list of FCM's/Introducing brokers that uses TT? I look for a backup to amp.
I use Sierra Chart Order Routing service.

Right in the TT website

https://www.tradingtechnologies.com/trading/tt-platform/

Follow me on Twitter Reply With Quote
The following 3 users say Thank You to spideysteve for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #26 (permalink)
Istanbul / Turkey
 
Experience: Master
Platform: Motivewave
Broker: TDA, IBKR, Tradovate, EdgeClear
Trading: ES, Currency, FDAX
 
Posts: 31 since Dec 2018
Thanks: 0 given, 27 received

TT platform i find very expensive. What do you think?

Reply With Quote
 
(login for full post details)
  #27 (permalink)
Site Administrator,
Data Scientist & DevOps
Manta, Ecuador
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: My own custom solution
Trading: Emini Futures
 
Big Mike's Avatar
 
Posts: 49,317 since Jun 2009
Thanks: 32,002 given, 96,492 received


Ates View Post
Several months ago, i have opened an account with AMP. After trading a while, i have sent them an email and asked "I'm not allowing anyone to tag me with my trades, positions, orders and share my data with 3rd party". Because if anyone knows and tags your trades, they easily can train an AI on it and trade against you.

They have closed my account without any reason

I have sent the same email to forex.com and cityindex.co.uk and thet did the same...

This would be a good topic for another thread. Please create a new thread and lets discuss it!

Mike

We're here to help -- just ask

For the best trading education, watch our webinars
Searching for trading reviews? Review this list

Follow us on Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook

Support our community as an Elite Member:
https://futures.io/elite/
Follow me on Twitter Visit my Facebook Visit my futures io Trade Journal Reply With Quote
The following 2 users say Thank You to Big Mike for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #28 (permalink)
Istanbul / Turkey
 
Experience: Master
Platform: Motivewave
Broker: TDA, IBKR, Tradovate, EdgeClear
Trading: ES, Currency, FDAX
 
Posts: 31 since Dec 2018
Thanks: 0 given, 27 received


Big Mike View Post
This would be a good topic for another thread. Please create a new thread and lets discuss it!

Mike

Cool! Sure i will create a new one. Which forum shall i do this?

Reply With Quote
The following 2 users say Thank You to Ates for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #29 (permalink)
Site Administrator,
Data Scientist & DevOps
Manta, Ecuador
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: My own custom solution
Trading: Emini Futures
 
Big Mike's Avatar
 
Posts: 49,317 since Jun 2009
Thanks: 32,002 given, 96,492 received


SMCJB View Post
If it's okay to sue AMP for their platforms which are not their own product on the grounds its negligence, isn't the extension of this you could actually sue CME for 'certifying' the same platform?

@SMCJB as you know, more than half the members of the community are using NinjaTrader here. Imagine if NinjaTrader were sued because of this exact same situation, and the accusations were similar such as failure in software.

This would have a significant impact here in the community. And even though their EUA indemnifies them from such things, I don't know what the courts would have to say about it. But I would hate to see such a great company that moved the entire space forward as much as NinjaTrader did, go up in flames over something like this.

I am hoping the entire industry took this very seriously. It's like when you see your neighbors building on fire, I hope you are making certain your escape routes are up-to-date and well rehearsed, your off-site backups are proven functional and up-to-date, and that you have a plan in place for what to do in the event the same were to happen to you.

I have no love lost for AMP after they sued me, but I view it as one of my responsibilities as forum admin to make sure people are aware of this situation, given what is at stake and the fact that many members have accounts with AMP. That said, if it were to happen to NinjaTrader, and they were to go under as a result, I would shed a few tears privately because I really have a special place in my heart for that platform! It's how I cut my teeth as an algo trader!

You don't have to worry about TT.

Mike

We're here to help -- just ask

For the best trading education, watch our webinars
Searching for trading reviews? Review this list

Follow us on Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook

Support our community as an Elite Member:
https://futures.io/elite/
Follow me on Twitter Visit my Facebook Visit my futures io Trade Journal Reply With Quote
The following 8 users say Thank You to Big Mike for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #30 (permalink)
Site Administrator,
Data Scientist & DevOps
Manta, Ecuador
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: My own custom solution
Trading: Emini Futures
 
Big Mike's Avatar
 
Posts: 49,317 since Jun 2009
Thanks: 32,002 given, 96,492 received


Ates View Post
Cool! Sure i will create a new one. Which forum shall i do this?

Seems related to Brokers.

https://futures.io/brokers/

Mike

We're here to help -- just ask

For the best trading education, watch our webinars
Searching for trading reviews? Review this list

Follow us on Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook

Support our community as an Elite Member:
https://futures.io/elite/
Follow me on Twitter Visit my Facebook Visit my futures io Trade Journal Reply With Quote
The following user says Thank You to Big Mike for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #31 (permalink)
Legendary Market Wizard
Houston, TX
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: Trading Technologies
Broker: Primary Advantage Futures. Also ED&F and Tradestation
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little ES, GE, GC, SI & Bitcoin
 
Posts: 3,781 since Dec 2013
Thanks: 3,059 given, 7,314 received


Ates View Post
TT platform i find very expensive. What do you think?

It is. It's also in a class almost all by itself. For those of you that don't know TT invented, well at least patented, the MD window/DOM/ladder everybody mow considers essential. Industry leading autospreader, and a one of kind algo product ADL/Algo Design Lab. Saying all that it's not designed to be a historical charting and backtesting platform.


Big Mike View Post
@SMCJB as you know, more than half the members of the community are using NinjaTrader here. Imagine if NinjaTrader were sued because of this exact same situation, and the accusations were similar such as failure in software.

This would have a significant impact here in the community. And even though their EUA indemnifies them from such things, I don't know what the courts would have to say about it. But I would hate to see such a great company that moved the entire space forward as much as NinjaTrader did, go up in flames over something like this.

I am hoping the entire industry took this very seriously. It's like when you see your neighbors building on fire, I hope you are making certain your escape routes are up-to-date and well rehearsed, your off-site backups are proven functional and up-to-date, and that you have a plan in place for what to do in the event the same were to happen to you.

I have no love lost for AMP after they sued me, but I view it as one of my responsibilities as forum admin to make sure people are aware of this situation, given what is at stake and the fact that many members have accounts with AMP. That said, if it were to happen to NinjaTrader, and they were to go under as a result, I would shed a few tears privately because I really have a special place in my heart for that platform! It's how I cut my teeth as an algo trader!

You don't have to worry about TT.

Mike

@Big Mike we're on the same page. I think it's great what you do here, and I do think that its great that you highlight this and other key issues.

With regards to oil going negative, everybody knew there was a problem. It maybe wasn't obvious that prices would go negative but it was obvious that literally 'anything' could happen. Margins to trade were going up every week. Everybody knew storage was full. Every vessel available was being chartered as floating storage. USO and other ETFs were all getting out of the prompt month for obvious reasons. The first CME announcement about negative prices came 2 weeks before they went negative - I even posted it here - but people still claim they didn't know prices could go negative and it was their FCMs fault for not telling them!

People need to take some responsibility here. If you read the CFTC report OI was much higher than normal BUT the OI was held by non-traditional players. As the major players and ETFs were getting out, the small retail trader was getting in! You probably saw the story of the IB trader with $77k in his account who bought 212 crude futures because he didn't think they could go negative and then lost $9 million. Obviously there's a risk management failure there by IB, and there's also a software failure as well, but what about blaming the person who was crazy/stupid enough to enter that trade?


SMCJB View Post
Negative Crude Oil Prices????

ADVISORY #: 20-152
SUBJECT: CME Clearing Plan to Address the Potential of a Negative Underlying in Certain Energy Options Contracts

https://www.cmegroup.com/content/dam/cmegroup/notices/clearing/2020/04/Chadv20-152.pdf

If WTI Crude Oil futures prices settle, in any month, to a price between $8.00/bbl and
$11.00/bbl, CME Clearing MAY switch its pricing and margining options models from the
existing models to the Bachelier model, currently utilized in numerous spread options
products where negative underlying prices and strike levels are a regular occurrence. If
any WTI Crude Oil futures prices settle, in any month, to a level below $8.00/bbl, CME
Clearing WILL move to the Bachelier model for all WTI Crude oil options contracts as
well as all related crude oil options contracts effective the following trade date. CME
Clearing will send out an advisory notice with one day notice before any implementation
occurs with all appropriate details.


Reply With Quote
The following 14 users say Thank You to SMCJB for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #32 (permalink)
San Jose, CA
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: Thinkorswim
Broker: Tradovate
 
RocketScientist's Avatar
 
Posts: 11 since Jul 2020
Thanks: 5 given, 13 received

Very surprised to read all the negative experiences people have had with AMP. I've been with them for several years and never had an issue. Now considering leaving after reading all this A real shame.

Reply With Quote
 
(login for full post details)
  #33 (permalink)
Minoqua Wi USA
 
 
Posts: 56 since Sep 2019
Thanks: 30 given, 34 received

We will see... but this seems to me like misaligned responsibility being directed at AMP. If there was an issue with a trading platform, Multicharts, why are they not suing Multicharts? Does that mean that all the FCMs that offer Multicharts are at risk of being sued? Dorman, philips, Ironbeam... And if there was an issue with the trading platform, did they call the AMP Trade Desk for help? that is what a trader is suppose to do if any internet outages or technical issues with the trading platform.
Another point... these traders held open Mini Crude contracts into last minutes of expiration. They had plenty of time to close their positions before the prices even went negative. If I remember correctly, it did not go into negative prices until last 20 minutes of the Mini Crude trading session. They are acting like they had no responsibility for their own trades.
From what I read, none of this complaint is actually due to AMPs service. Even the CME notices, if you read them, they are technical notices about testing trading systems.. and since AMP does not own its own trading infrastructure or price distribution, this would be CQG, Rithmic or TT responsibility not AMP's. So why are they not suing CQG, Rithmic or TT? We can feel the claimants pain but, to place all the blame and responsibility on AMP does not seem right. This happened a while ago, so all this chatter about causing current risk for AMP customers is undue. Any financial risk from these Mini Crude trades would have been settled the same day the trades were settled. If there was any financial risk due to these trades, it would have come out along time ago.
We should be careful not to smear AMP without hearing the whole story. I also do not understand how a Class Action Lawsuit can be for only 3 people.... it all seems like thisa is being blown up out of proportion.

Reply With Quote
The following 5 users say Thank You to Mozart2112 for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #34 (permalink)
Site Administrator,
Data Scientist & DevOps
Manta, Ecuador
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: My own custom solution
Trading: Emini Futures
 
Big Mike's Avatar
 
Posts: 49,317 since Jun 2009
Thanks: 32,002 given, 96,492 received


Mozart2112 View Post
We will see... but this seems to me like misaligned responsibility being directed at AMP.


Mozart2112 View Post
since AMP does not own its own trading infrastructure or price distribution, this would be CQG, Rithmic or TT responsibility not AMP's. So why are they not suing CQG, Rithmic or TT?

You could be absolutely correct. It is for courts to decide I suppose, unless AMP settles first and it's not further pursued by the NFA/CFTC independently.

I think there is also an option where AMP pulls CQG, Rithmic and TT into the fold with them, and blames them. Does anyone know if CQG and Rithmic successfully accepted and executed negative fills? We know TT did.

Mike

We're here to help -- just ask

For the best trading education, watch our webinars
Searching for trading reviews? Review this list

Follow us on Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook

Support our community as an Elite Member:
https://futures.io/elite/
Follow me on Twitter Visit my Facebook Visit my futures io Trade Journal Reply With Quote
The following 3 users say Thank You to Big Mike for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #35 (permalink)
Fletcher NC
 
Experience: Intermediate
Platform: nijia trader
Broker: A.M.P. I.Q. ....C.Q.G.
Trading: ym es
 
forgiven's Avatar
 
Posts: 654 since Mar 2012
Thanks: 150 given, 389 received

was there some reason you could not call them when the software crashed and close the position out over the phone or were the phone lines jammed with 1000 s of calls ?

Follow me on Twitter Visit my Facebook Visit my futures io Trade Journal Reply With Quote
 
(login for full post details)
  #36 (permalink)
Site Moderator
Sarasota FL
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: Sierra Chart
Trading: ES, YM
 
bobwest's Avatar
 
Posts: 6,213 since Jan 2013
Thanks: 47,491 given, 20,861 received


Big Mike View Post
You could be absolutely correct. It is for courts to decide I suppose, unless AMP settles first and it's not further pursued by the NFA/CFTC independently.

I think there is also an option where AMP pulls CQG, Rithmic and TT into the fold with them, and blames them. Does anyone know if CQG and Rithmic successfully accepted and executed negative fills? We know TT did.

Mike

There may also be an issue with any of the 50 or so trading platforms that AMP offers. If any of them are unable to properly handle or process negative prices even if the data provider is, then they would be the weak link. And the lawsuit does specifically mention AMP's "trading platforms," but AMP simply is making them available, and did not develop them and does not own them.

I suppose this all depends on what the contractual obligations AMP has with their customers, basically whether the buck stops with AMP or whether they can hand responsibility off to other parties. There are a lot of parties involved.

Bob.

When one door closes, another opens.
-- Cervantes, Don Quixote
Visit my futures io Trade Journal Reply With Quote
The following user says Thank You to bobwest for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #37 (permalink)
Legendary Market Wizard
Houston, TX
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: Trading Technologies
Broker: Primary Advantage Futures. Also ED&F and Tradestation
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little ES, GE, GC, SI & Bitcoin
 
Posts: 3,781 since Dec 2013
Thanks: 3,059 given, 7,314 received


forgiven View Post
was there some reason you could not call them when the software crashed and close the position out over the phone or were the phone lines jammed with 1000 s of calls ?

Since both IB and AMP didn't liquidate customer accounts when they went negative value, I have to suspect that their internal systems either were not valuing the positions correctly because they were negative, or were unable to liquidate the positions because they were trading negative. One of the complaints in the lawsuit basically address that....
iii) failed to liquidate Plaintiffs’ and class members’ futures and options on futures investments in a reasonable manner on April 20, 2020 when May 20 Crude Oil fell to a price of zero and proceeded to trade into negative prices;
I wonder whether they had any legal obligation to liquidate your position for you though. If they did and then it went back up would they get sued for liquidating the position? Suspect the wording is on the lines of "reserves the right to liquidate" rather than "will liquidate and protect customer as much as possible"

Reply With Quote
The following 3 users say Thank You to SMCJB for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #38 (permalink)
San Francisco, CA
 
Experience: Intermediate
Platform: Ninja Trader, TOS
Trading: es, rty, cl, gc, nq, ym, dax
 
Posts: 97 since May 2011
Thanks: 50 given, 115 received


Ates View Post
Several months ago, i have opened an account with AMP. After trading a while, i have sent them an email and asked "I'm not allowing anyone to tag me with my trades, positions, orders and share my data with 3rd party". Because if anyone knows and tags your trades, they easily can train an AI on it and trade against you.

They have closed my account without any reason

I have sent the same email to forex.com and cityindex.co.uk and thet did the same...

Wow. I was not aware they were selling our data to third parties. That is nasty.

Reply With Quote
The following user says Thank You to justtrader for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #39 (permalink)
Legendary Pratik_4Clover
Mumbai, India
 
Experience: Beginner
Platform: Own Customized
Trading: Crude, NIFTY, BANKNIFTY
 
LastDino's Avatar
 
Posts: 746 since Jan 2019
Thanks: 2,079 given, 1,947 received

From what I remember, Tradingview also failed on that day.

I also think its fair to assign some blame to people who took those trades and kept them open in last half hour into expiry. But I feel, if AMP was negligent in informing them about the issues or failed to pass on exchange warning about possible -ve prices, or if AMP were not able to close open positions even after these people calling/reaching out to them, its also fair to assign some blame to AMP.


//Just my pov from whatever little I understood. I might be very wrong and its quite late here, so please excuse my rambling.

___________________________________________________________
No plan survives first contact with the enemy - Mike Tyson
___________________________________________________________
Reply With Quote
 
(login for full post details)
  #40 (permalink)
Site Moderator
Sarasota FL
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: Sierra Chart
Trading: ES, YM
 
bobwest's Avatar
 
Posts: 6,213 since Jan 2013
Thanks: 47,491 given, 20,861 received


justtrader View Post
Wow. I was not aware they were selling our data to third parties. That is nasty.

I do not know that it has been established that they are.

This is more a supposition of a trader who does not want them to.

The topic was taken up in a separate thread, here:

It is separate from the questions arising from this lawsuit.

Bob.

When one door closes, another opens.
-- Cervantes, Don Quixote
Visit my futures io Trade Journal Reply With Quote
The following 3 users say Thank You to bobwest for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #41 (permalink)
Toronto Canada
 
 
Posts: 41 since May 2020


Big Mike View Post
You could be absolutely correct. It is for courts to decide I suppose, unless AMP settles first and it's not further pursued by the NFA/CFTC independently.

I think there is also an option where AMP pulls CQG, Rithmic and TT into the fold with them, and blames them. Does anyone know if CQG and Rithmic successfully accepted and executed negative fills? We know TT did.

Mike

Regarding CQG, the answer is clearly no. This screenshot was taken a month after the event and clearly shows a resting order sitting at +0.01 and a rejected order at -0.01.


Reply With Quote
 
(login for full post details)
  #42 (permalink)
Toronto Canada
 
 
Posts: 41 since May 2020

For those interested in digging a little deeper to understand some of the FCM's responsibilities regarding risk management under the CEA and it's regulations, you may find this an interesting read. There are many aspects to the RMP (Risk Management Program) some such elements are the following ...

"(J) Policies and procedures for assessing the liquidity, marketability and mark-to-market valuation of all securities or other non-cash assets held as segregated funds, including permitted investments under § 1.25, to ensure that all non-cash assets held in the customer segregated accounts, both customer-owned securities and investments in accordance with § 1.25, are readily marketable and highly liquid. Such policies and procedures must require daily measurement of liquidity needs with respect to customers; assessment of procedures to liquidate all non-cash collateral in a timely manner and without significant effect on price; and application of appropriate collateral haircuts that accurately reflect market and credit risk."

***note this includes both funds as defined under §1.25 and also includes customer-owned securities***

"(ii) Operational risk. The Risk Management Program shall include automated financial risk management controls reasonably designed to prevent the placing of erroneous orders, including those that exceed pre-set capital, credit, or volume thresholds. The Risk Management Program shall ensure that the use of automated trading programs is subject to policies and procedures governing the use, supervision, maintenance, testing, and inspection of such programs."

***note the term "shall" means mandatory ***

"(ii) The Risk Management Program shall take into account risks posed by affiliates, all lines of business of the futures commission merchant, and all other trading activity engaged in by the futures commission merchant. The Risk Management Program shall be integrated into risk management at the consolidated entity level."

***note the inclusion of the term 'affiliates' ***

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/1.11

Reply With Quote
 
(login for full post details)
  #43 (permalink)
Minoqua Wi USA
 
 
Posts: 56 since Sep 2019
Thanks: 30 given, 34 received


RT777 View Post
Regarding CQG, the answer is clearly no. This screenshot was taken a month after the event and clearly shows a resting order sitting at +0.01 and a rejected order at -0.01.


You're showing us a picture of DEMO?
Since you are the original poster of this case, are you one of the claimants?
If yes, please post the explanation you received from AMP so we can see, because right now we are discussing this blindly, making wild guesses.

Reply With Quote
 
(login for full post details)
  #44 (permalink)
Toronto Canada
 
 
Posts: 41 since May 2020


Mozart2112 View Post
You're showing us a picture of DEMO?
Since you are the original poster of this case, are you one of the claimants?
If yes, please post the explanation you received from AMP so we can see, because right now we are discussing this blindly, making wild guesses.

There are many cases pending class approval right now including TD, Etrade, Vega Capital plus a plethora of ETF/ETN's such as USO, SCO etc. I'm interested in all of them. I find it a fascinating set of events that unfolded and I have many opinions on almost every case including this one. I also have many facts and opinions on CME's and CFTC's role in this. I also have many opinions on the statements made in this thread so far. My opinion doesn't matter though.

My intention for starting the thread was nothing more than to provide facts, although I may toss in the occasional opinion. All I've done here, so far is state facts. I'm not trolling for attention or to keep anyone guessing. I have no idea where that suggestion even came from. If you don't believe that the facts I'm presenting have value, it is your right to state your opinion or provide facts to the contrary. This is basically how the court of law works. This suit along with all the others I've read so far are seeking jury trial, so ask yourself what will the jury think? Also ask yourself what the burden of proof is, after all this isn't a murder case so the burden isn't beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt. And who knows what other proof there is, full evidence disclosure is not part of the class approval process.

It's all good as far as I'm concerned. However this line of questioning does lead me to the following question...where is the proof TT was able to process negative orders and the back office systems were compatible and all that good stuff? Is it entirely possible they had a data stream but did anyone actually try and place an order through TT at a negative price? Do people realize the difference? These are all good questions! How come you didn't bring that into question since it's only been in statement form, where are those pics?

Next I'm waiting for someone to suggest the pic I posted was photo shopped.

Reply With Quote
 
(login for full post details)
  #45 (permalink)
Toronto Canada
 
 
Posts: 41 since May 2020


LastDino View Post
From what I remember, Tradingview also failed on that day.

In what way did Tradingview fail that day, can you be more specific?

Reply With Quote
 
(login for full post details)
  #46 (permalink)
Legendary Pratik_4Clover
Mumbai, India
 
Experience: Beginner
Platform: Own Customized
Trading: Crude, NIFTY, BANKNIFTY
 
LastDino's Avatar
 
Posts: 746 since Jan 2019
Thanks: 2,079 given, 1,947 received


RT777 View Post
In what way did Tradingview fail that day, can you be more specific?

Didn't plot below zero prices.

___________________________________________________________
No plan survives first contact with the enemy - Mike Tyson
___________________________________________________________
Reply With Quote
 
(login for full post details)
  #47 (permalink)
Boca Raton, FL
 
 
Posts: 134 since Nov 2018
Thanks: 34 given, 88 received


LastDino View Post
Didn't plot below zero prices.

While we are getting things exactttttttt

It is "... punched in the mouth." Not smacked in the mouth.

Mike doesn't do smacks.

Reply With Quote
The following 3 users say Thank You to SunTrader for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #48 (permalink)
Bay Area California
 
Experience: None
Platform: TT T4
Broker: Phillip Capital
Trading: Futures
 
Posts: 797 since Nov 2011
Thanks: 853 given, 877 received


RT777 View Post
There are many cases pending class approval right now including TD, Etrade, Vega Capital plus a plethora of ETF/ETN's such as USO, SCO etc. I'm interested in all of them. I find it a fascinating set of events that unfolded and I have many opinions on almost every case including this one. I also have many facts and opinions on CME's and CFTC's role in this. I also have many opinions on the statements made in this thread so far. My opinion doesn't matter though.

My intention for starting the thread was nothing more than to provide facts, although I may toss in the occasional opinion. All I've done here, so far is state facts. I'm not trolling for attention or to keep anyone guessing. I have no idea where that suggestion even came from. If you don't believe that the facts I'm presenting have value, it is your right to state your opinion or provide facts to the contrary. This is basically how the court of law works. This suit along with all the others I've read so far are seeking jury trial, so ask yourself what will the jury think? Also ask yourself what the burden of proof is, after all this isn't a murder case so the burden isn't beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt. And who knows what other proof there is, full evidence disclosure is not part of the class approval process.

It's all good as far as I'm concerned. However this line of questioning does lead me to the following question...where is the proof TT was able to process negative orders and the back office systems were compatible and all that good stuff? Is it entirely possible they had a data stream but did anyone actually try and place an order through TT at a negative price? Do people realize the difference? These are all good questions! How come you didn't bring that into question since it's only been in statement form, where are those pics?

Next I'm waiting for someone to suggest the pic I posted was photo shopped.

That image shows besides being on demo, shows you getting an exchange reject, which means (had it been live) the order would have had to go to the exchange and likely got bounced because it was 30ish points out of market.

Maybe @SMCJB can comment on the specific exchange price banding behavior in CL.

wrt to TT, I have no proof that people traded through TT at negative prices in cl that day, but I trade using TT at negative prices every day, and I'd be willing to bet that Vega Capital was almost certainly using TT. Most ISV's that connect directly to the exchange (TT, CQG, CTS, Rithmic) set what products can trade negative based on security definitions that are programmatically retrieved from the exchange and you almost need to go out of your way to handle it incorrectly, so I'd assume most handled it correctly unless there's evidence to say otherwise.

IB was different in this respect as they were both the FCM and the software vendor, the buck stops with them. AMP is just the FCM, and while I think its unprofessional that they hadn't vetted the software they had traders using, I don't think it's going to be their liability.

.
Reply With Quote
The following user says Thank You to addchild for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #49 (permalink)
Minoqua Wi USA
 
 
Posts: 56 since Sep 2019
Thanks: 30 given, 34 received


RT777 View Post

It's all good as far as I'm concerned. However this line of questioning does lead me to the following question...where is the proof TT was able to process negative orders and the back office systems were compatible and all that good stuff? Is it entirely possible they had a data stream but did anyone actually try and place an order through TT at a negative price? Do people realize the difference? These are all good questions! How come you didn't bring that into question since it's only been in statement form, where are those pics?

Next I'm waiting for someone to suggest the pic I posted was photo shopped.

Do I understand you correctly? Are you alleging that TT and CQG some how fake their streaming data during negative prices and did not route orders to the exchange ?

Reply With Quote
 
(login for full post details)
  #50 (permalink)
Legendary Market Wizard
Houston, TX
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: Trading Technologies
Broker: Primary Advantage Futures. Also ED&F and Tradestation
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little ES, GE, GC, SI & Bitcoin
 
Posts: 3,781 since Dec 2013
Thanks: 3,059 given, 7,314 received

@RT777 I like you find subjects like this very interesting, and how all the law suits evolve will be very interesting. Your referencing of the CEA was very interesting. Also what actually did happen on the April 20th? (more on that in a minute). In this thread I have definitely taken a little bit of the "devil advocates' approach. While I do not think people like AMP are blameless, allegations like "they never warned me it could go negative" are in my opinion frivolous. I also agree with @Big Mike that people should be aware about this issues and learn from them. There are too many people though that are delusional and immediately blame everything on somebody else. Another 'truth' thread mentioned in this thread being an obvious example, but that's getting off topic.

With regards to TT, as @addchild said negative prices are nothing new in the energy industry. Power prices go negative regularly, gas prices less regularly. TT has been able to handle this for 20 years. Many of the products that do trade negatively are only available on ICE, and TT has been one of the only ISV's for the ICE Natural Gas and Power markets so maybe thats why they handle it so much better. (Power prices go negative because it costs more to shut a generating unit down and to restart it than it does to run at minimum load and sell output at negative prices. Gas prices go negative because you can only flare so much natural gas. Once you reach that cap, and have no transport, you have to pay somebody to take it from you. Who will then probably flare gas they were intending to Transport).

With regards to CL price banding, maybe embarrassing to admit but the simple answer is I don't know. I know what they are, and how they work, but don't track them. Banding only really effects the prompt few months and I'm a curve trader so it rarely if ever effects me.

With regards to April 20th I would point you towards these two posts in another thread.


SMCJB View Post
CFTC Interim Report on the May Crude contract trading negative is out. Full report can be downloaded from the link at the bottom of the press release. I haven't read it yet).

CFTC :- CFTC Staff Publishes Interim Report on NYMEX WTI Crude Contract Trading on and around April 20, 2020
https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8315-20

only so reading...
CFTC :- Statement of Commissioner Dan M. Berkovitz Regarding the CFTC Staff Report on the Trading of Nymex WTI Crude Oil Futures Contracts On and Around April 20, 2020
https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/berkovitzstatement112320a



While the Bloomberg story may seem like 'Breaking News' it's actually not. They ran a similar story 4 months ago, it's just now more details have been filled in.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-04/oil-s-plunge-below-zero-was-500-million-jackpot-for-a-few-london-traders

This is where it gets interesting and where the CFTC report is very lacking. If they did buy massive amounts of TAS and then intentionally and continually sold lowering the price as it went into settlement isn't that the textbook definition of “Banging the Close”. (Yeah I know it's been done for as long as exchanges have existed but it's clearly illegal now).

From the CFTC website
Banging the Close: A manipulative or disruptive trading practice whereby a trader buys or sells a large number of futures contracts during the closing period of a futures contract (that is, the period during which the futures settlement price is determined) in order to benefit an even larger position in an option, swap, or other derivative that is cash settled based on the futures settlement price on that day.

https://cftc.gov/LearnAndProtect/EducationCenter/CFTCGlossary/glossary_b.html

Question is, even if the CFTC does or doesn't go after them, will all the people who lost money that day now sue them/'The Essex Boys"?

* For the non-English, Essex is the county east of London. The "City of London" (which is where the Tower of London is but not the Palace or Houses of Parliament) is the European version of 'Wall Street". It is located on the eastern side of London, while the gentry are all in the west. While the banks and trade houses were staffed with Oxford and Cambridge educated "Elites", the trading exchanges were staffed by the more common East End/Essex Boys! The stories are that 'barrow boys' from east London, who were very quick with numbers from working their barrows, were ideally suited to working in the trading pits.
barrow boy (plural barrow boys) (Britain) A boy or man who sells goods – especially fruit or vegetables – from a barrow; a costermonger. (Britain, slang, derogatory) By extension, a financial industry worker from a working class or lower middle class family background.
Here ends today's cultural lesson!

Reply With Quote
The following 3 users say Thank You to SMCJB for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #51 (permalink)
Toronto Canada
 
 
Posts: 41 since May 2020


addchild View Post
That image shows besides being on demo, shows you getting an exchange reject, which means (had it been live) the order would have had to go to the exchange and likely got bounced because it was 30ish points out of market.

Maybe @SMCJB can comment on the specific exchange price banding behavior in CL.

wrt to TT, I have no proof that people traded through TT at negative prices in cl that day, but I trade using TT at negative prices every day, and I'd be willing to bet that Vega Capital was almost certainly using TT. Most ISV's that connect directly to the exchange (TT, CQG, CTS, Rithmic) set what products can trade negative based on security definitions that are programmatically retrieved from the exchange and you almost need to go out of your way to handle it incorrectly, so I'd assume most handled it correctly unless there's evidence to say otherwise.

IB was different in this respect as they were both the FCM and the software vendor, the buck stops with them. AMP is just the FCM, and while I think its unprofessional that they hadn't vetted the software they had traders using, I don't think it's going to be their liability.

I can tell you all about price bands ... there was NO price band on 4/20, it was literally limitless although technically speaking from a programming perspective I'm certain there is 'some limit'. I also have more screen shots on this 'new' potential issue, so if you think this shit show can never happen again I already have some evidence that their is still no consistency to the definition 'no low limit'. Feel free to check it for yourself on all the various platforms and report back what you find. I did my research and am preparing for the next future case lol.

Prior to the CME changing the band on or just before 4/20, there was a low band of 0.01(CL) and 0.025(QM), there was and still is no high band. There are dynamic limits that kick in for short periods of time in both directions. I believe they triggered a few dozen times on 4/20, according to the recent CFTC report. In the past there used to %/$ hi/lo limits for the next trading sessions based on prior settlement. This was as recent as a couple years ago. I also have all this proof, my research has been thorough. These limits have been changing all the time. IB has been in business for how long? Since the early 80's I believe, they've had to adjust limits in the past on a daily basis.

So if you truly want to believe TT could handle negative oil based on the fact they've been in the energy business for decades which has seen negative pricing, then how do you explain IB's failure? IB has been an industry leader for 4 decades and has provided access to more exchanges than most all others in those 40 years. So if you're suggesting that TT was fine, without any solid proof, then how do you explain that in the 40 year history of IB they have never had anyone trade negative energy, to expose any flaws? I highly doubt that's the case and given that WTI has NEVER had the negative and zero permissible flags set in it's entire history (what 30/40 years I forget exactly?) and if IB didn't get it right, it certainly is a stretch for anyone to claim TT was fine.

Also to the other point, I'm not claiming they weren't fine, I was asking for anything more than mere opinions.

Also, regarding the pic I did post, it's one of many. When the events unfolded on 4/20 I got chatting with many trading friends I've known for years, online. We have accounts all over the place, live, demo, you name it, we started testing!

I don't think you guys have any clue what's about to unfold ...

Reply With Quote
 
(login for full post details)
  #52 (permalink)
Legendary Market Wizard
Houston, TX
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: Trading Technologies
Broker: Primary Advantage Futures. Also ED&F and Tradestation
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little ES, GE, GC, SI & Bitcoin
 
Posts: 3,781 since Dec 2013
Thanks: 3,059 given, 7,314 received

Okay lets slow down a second. Lots of partially correct/partially incorrect statements being thrown around

There are Price Limits, Price Bands and Velocity Logic. All have similar purposes but all act very differently. I believe what you talking about is Price Limits not Price Bands. We could get into a huge discussion about them but I'm not sure the relevance to the discussion. I will agree, that before April 20 CL was unable to go below zero.

In early April the CME first started by listing Negative Strikes for Crude oil.

SMCJB View Post
Here's something to start thinking about ...

CME :- Changes to Price and Strike Price Eligibility Flags for Certain Energy Products

This Sunday, April 5 (trade date Monday, April 6), as an operational step toward potentially supporting negative pricing and strikes, the MDP 3 Security Definition (tag 35-MsgType=d) for these NYMEX Energy outright futures and options on CME Globex will be flagged as eligible to trade at negative prices. The options on futures will also be flagged as negative strike price eligible. Trading at negative prices for these outright markets will not be supported at this time. Negative strike prices will not be listed.

But it wasn't until April 20th that CME actually allowed CL to trade negative

SMCJB View Post
From CME Globex Command Center
The following May 2020 Energy products (CLK0, HOK0, QHK0, QMK0, QUK0, RBK0, HCLK0, RTK0, WSK0, RLXK0, TCSK0, MPXK0, 23K0, CSXK0, 26K0) have no low limit and may trade negative.

If you have any questions, please contact the CME Global Command Center in the U.S. at +1 800 438 8616, in Europe at +44 20 7623 4747 or in Asia at +65 6532 5010.

The sender provided the following contact information.
Sender's Name: CME Global Command Center
Sender's Email: gcc@cmegroup.com
Sender's Contact Phone: 1 800 438 8616

The Q products are the mini's. WS is the financial bullet. HCL is WTI @ Houston, not sure about the others off the top of my head.

Regarding TT, your accusations are baseless. If no software worked below $0 then how did trades happen? On my statement for April 20th I have 11 lots traded in CLK0 of which 10 have a negative price but I think all of them were TAS or spread trades. So that wouldn't prove anything. I did trade over 1000 lots of CL that day though, so I do have some idea of what I am talking about.

Before ICE bought the IPE and then LIFFE and even the NYSE they started as a small OTC (ie non-cleared) energy exchange. (In fact before that, before Jeff Sprecher bought them, the software was used a regional power transmission exchange.) When ICE launched, first with metals and oil, then adding gas and power, you couldn't even connect to the exchange unless you had credit agreements with all the major players in the industry. (Think Shell, BP, Goldman, Morgan, Enron etc). Eventually ICE added cleared contracts (after buying the IPE and LCH) and after Dodd-Frank I believe they went cleared only. The products traded on that original exchange are very industry specific and often have very large contract sizes. They are also silo'd in their own separate exchange, commonly refereed to as S2F which stands for Swaps 2 Futures, reflecting the transition from OTC Bilateral Swaps to Cleared Futures. I suspect that IB doesn't even connect to the ICE S2F exchange. In fact I don't know any other ISV that does. (FYI ICE have their own front end called WebICE). I google searched for IB and these contracts but couldn't find any. Can you confirm whether you can trade the ICE Waha Swing Future (link) on IB. If so what are your data costs? If IB don't have access to ICE S2F then they almost surely never had anybody trade negative energy prices before April 20th.

Now we are well and truly off topic.

Reply With Quote
The following 4 users say Thank You to SMCJB for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #53 (permalink)
Toronto Canada
 
 
Posts: 41 since May 2020


SMCJB View Post
Okay lets slow down a second. Lots of partially correct/partially incorrect statements being thrown around

There are Price Limits, Price Bands and Velocity Logic. All have similar purposes but all act very differently. I believe what you talking about is Price Limits not Price Bands. We could get into a huge discussion about them but I'm not sure the relevance to the discussion. I will agree, that before April 20 CL was unable to go below zero.

In early April the CME first started by listing Negative Strikes for Crude oil.


But it wasn't until April 20th that CME actually allowed CL to trade negative


Regarding TT, your accusations are baseless. If no software worked below $0 then how did trades happen? On my statement for April 20th I have 11 lots traded in CLK0 of which 10 have a negative price but I think all of them were TAS or spread trades. So that wouldn't prove anything. I did trade over 1000 lots of CL that day though, so I do have some idea of what I am talking about.

Before ICE bought the IPE and then LIFFE and even the NYSE they started as a small OTC (ie non-cleared) energy exchange. (In fact before that, before Jeff Sprecher bought them, the software was used a regional power transmission exchange.) When ICE launched, first with metals and oil, then adding gas and power, you couldn't even connect to the exchange unless you had credit agreements with all the major players in the industry. (Think Shell, BP, Goldman, Morgan, Enron etc). Eventually ICE added cleared contracts (after buying the IPE and LCH) and after Dodd-Frank I believe they went cleared only. The products traded on that original exchange are very industry specific and often have very large contract sizes. They are also silo'd in their own separate exchange, commonly refereed to as S2F which stands for Swaps 2 Futures, reflecting the transition from OTC Bilateral Swaps to Cleared Futures. I suspect that IB doesn't even connect to the ICE S2F exchange. In fact I don't know any other ISV that does. (FYI ICE have their own front end called WebICE). I google searched for IB and these contracts but couldn't find any. Can you confirm whether you can trade the ICE Waha Swing Future (link) on IB. If so what are your data costs? If IB don't have access to ICE S2F then they almost surely never had anybody trade negative energy prices before April 20th.

Now we are well and truly off topic.

True, the correct term is limits, the post I referred to used the expression bands and I didn't feel like correcting, figured to the lay person it's semantics, but yes, bands are also dynamic limits that move throughout the day. I don't consider it irrelevant or off topic though. Technically zero behaved differently. My tests also included and noted some differences in rejection based on that difference between zero and negative.

Regarding accusations, are you serious? I made it very clear that I interpreted the statements/claims made that 'TT was ok' as opinion without any evidence or even a statement that someone did place a trade using TT, to that date/time no one had responded. I had my evidence questioned so why wasn't it fair for me to question any statement/claim made here without proof? I'm not going to ask you to post your account or anything. I'm not like the guy that seemed to think I had some private emails from AMP I should share here. I was still waiting for that evidence. WOW just WOW, please go back and read my comments. I repeat I have done nothing but provide facts and asked for the same. It's ok if you have your opinion, it's also ok for me to suggest that it is only an opinion and not factual.

Reply With Quote
 
(login for full post details)
  #54 (permalink)
Site Administrator,
Data Scientist & DevOps
Manta, Ecuador
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: My own custom solution
Trading: Emini Futures
 
Big Mike's Avatar
 
Posts: 49,317 since Jun 2009
Thanks: 32,002 given, 96,492 received

Lots of great info being shared here, thank you to all the contributors! There is also a lot at stake for many that are wrapped up in this complex situation, so please take a breath before replying and keep things calm, helpful, and polite!

Mike

We're here to help -- just ask

For the best trading education, watch our webinars
Searching for trading reviews? Review this list

Follow us on Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook

Support our community as an Elite Member:
https://futures.io/elite/
Follow me on Twitter Visit my Facebook Visit my futures io Trade Journal Reply With Quote
The following 3 users say Thank You to Big Mike for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #55 (permalink)
Site Administrator,
Data Scientist & DevOps
Manta, Ecuador
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: My own custom solution
Trading: Emini Futures
 
Big Mike's Avatar
 
Posts: 49,317 since Jun 2009
Thanks: 32,002 given, 96,492 received


SMCJB View Post
On my statement for April 20th I have 11 lots traded in CLK0 of which 10 have a negative price but I think all of them were TAS or spread trades.

Thanks for your detailed replies as always @SMCJB.

I had to remind myself what TAS was, since I don't ever use it. I figured I would add an entry in our wiki for others that didn't know. It's Trade At Settlement. I've used MOC orders, I assume this is similar but naturally at settlement price not closing price.

Mike

We're here to help -- just ask

For the best trading education, watch our webinars
Searching for trading reviews? Review this list

Follow us on Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook

Support our community as an Elite Member:
https://futures.io/elite/
Follow me on Twitter Visit my Facebook Visit my futures io Trade Journal Reply With Quote
 
(login for full post details)
  #56 (permalink)
Legendary Market Wizard
Houston, TX
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: Trading Technologies
Broker: Primary Advantage Futures. Also ED&F and Tradestation
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little ES, GE, GC, SI & Bitcoin
 
Posts: 3,781 since Dec 2013
Thanks: 3,059 given, 7,314 received

@RT777 lets just drop the TT argument. TT did not have a problem. If you don't want to believe me then don't.

Big Mike View Post
I had to remind myself what TAS was, since I don't ever use it. I figured I would add an entry in our wiki for others that didn't know. It's Trade At Settlement. I've used MOC orders, I assume this is similar but naturally at settlement price not closing price.

Yes MOC and TAS orders are virtually the same. MOC is stock terminology while TAS is futures. They are a little different in that TAS is actually a traded contract while MOC is really an order type, but the result is the same, you hope to achieve the settlement price. TAS is also slightly different in that it can trade at prices other than 0. So if you buy TAS at 1 you are actually buying Settlement +1 tic.

There's also TAM which is 'Trade at Marker". These are used in energy market a lot. For example Brent and Gasoil are both european oil products traded on ICE-EU originally the IPE. Gasoil has a settlement window at the end of the UK day 4:28-4:30 London time. Brent on the other hand has a settlement window in line with NYMEX CL at 7:28-7:30 London time. If you were to do a TAS Gasoil-Brent crack the price would be off because the settlements are 3 hours apart. Hence there is a "Marker Price" in Brent representing what the close would have been if it settled at 4:28 not 7:28. Hence if you want to trade Gasoil-Brent crack at Settlement, you would actually trade Gasoil TAS vs Brent (London) TAM. I say London as for Brent there is also a Singapore Close Marker. I believe COMEX also have London and Singapore marker prices for some of the metals, but thats not my expertise.
https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/futures/ICE_Futures_daily_markers_futures.pdf

If we go back to April 20th and CLK0 this is all very important because about 31% of the volume that day was TAS. Think about that. 31% of the volume was Trade At Settlement! Also TAS traded limit down that day, which is -10. Meaning the price of those TAS contracts was Settlement -10 ticks! The Bloomberg "Essex Boys" article is claiming that they bought TAS contracts and then sold futures to hedge those positions. If we assume they were the big buyers at -10 this would mean that as long as their sales averaged higher than Settlement -10 they made money. If they were selling for the 30 mins prior to the settlement, then their profits would be significantly higher than that. Given that Bloomberg is alleging they made $660M that was obviously the case.

Reply With Quote
The following 2 users say Thank You to SMCJB for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #57 (permalink)
Toronto Canada
 
 
Posts: 41 since May 2020

Anyways...just to clear up LIMITS, these were the LIMITS a few years ago, this is what people seem to recall the most, also the range is a $10 BAND, hence multiple reasons for the confusion.



On 4/20 here are the published LIMITS for CL according to the CME site, which btw crashed that afternoon due to high volume, or maybe they just unplugged it I don't know *** on the verge of opinion here but maybe not lol.***



Regarding any claim that retail 'should' have known about 'No Low Limit' is completely superfluous.

Reply With Quote
 
(login for full post details)
  #58 (permalink)
Legendary Market Wizard
Houston, TX
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: Trading Technologies
Broker: Primary Advantage Futures. Also ED&F and Tradestation
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little ES, GE, GC, SI & Bitcoin
 
Posts: 3,781 since Dec 2013
Thanks: 3,059 given, 7,314 received

@RT777 nice screenshots. Also interesting to note that CME seem to have removed the high/low limits from their website!

Regarding the April 20th screenshot I believe the quoted numbers are wrong. My understanding is that only May was allowed to go negative not June, but since June never got close i supposed we don't know. Also it lists the high limit for both May and June as $0.01 which is below the high of the day, so we know that wasn't correct. Not an allegation against you, saying CME was obviously wrong.

Regarding not knowing about the no limit. I think people fall into two categories. Serious/professional traders, and part-time/amateur traders. Serious/professional traders should have known. They should be subscribed to CME (and ICE) mailing lists that announce these things. Part-time/amateur traders, probably didn't know, but they shouldn't have been trading CLK0 on penultimate. I guess we differ on that opinion.

Reply With Quote
The following 3 users say Thank You to SMCJB for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #59 (permalink)
Toronto Canada
 
 
Posts: 41 since May 2020


SMCJB View Post
@RT777 nice screenshots. Also interesting to note that CME seem to have removed the high/low limits from their website!

Regarding the April 20th screenshot I believe the quoted numbers are wrong. My understanding is that only May was allowed to go negative not June, but since June never got close i supposed we don't know. Also it lists the high limit for both May and June as $0.01 which is below the high of the day, so we know that wasn't correct. Not an allegation against you, saying CME was obviously wrong.

Regarding not knowing about the no limit. I think people fall into two categories. Serious/professional traders, and part-time/amateur traders. Serious/professional traders should have known. They should be subscribed to CME (and ICE) mailing lists that announce these things. Part-time/amateur traders, probably didn't know, but they shouldn't have been trading CLK0 on penultimate. I guess we differ on that opinion.

You're reading it backwards, the Hi is no limit, the low is 0.01. And yes the limit column was taken away. I think it took them about a week to get that right.






Ok, so let's say hypothetically all retail were told the contract could go negative. Should that preclude them from trading it? Why theoretically couldn't someone scalp in long at -2 and out at -1 or whatever? In the end isn't it all just numbers? Are there any other numbers that don't work that we should be made aware of. Given that retail would only know that the contract can't settle bellow 0.01 or 0.025 what's wrong with risking a few hundred on what could have potentially been a great scalp, just above zero. Those were the rules retail was given and then they got locked out! It's guaranteed this was a retail game problem, since QM expires the day before CL and it's unlikely any retail account would be holding physical delivery that day.

Think what the outcome would have been had more market participants been able to trade it. It's almost guaranteed no retail could trade it, but how many pros could trade it? That's something that we don't know. It's also a glaring 'no show' on the sanitized CFTC report. Since they went into great depth to explain the economic events and trade sizes on aggregate etc. But they omitted details on the test server and anything to do with firms that tested their systems either recently or in the past. Absolutely no information on how many market participants had access to negative trading. They did include some footnote about the CME notices but that was the extent of that!!!!! Bring on the Dems in the new year and let's see if that mockery gets straightened out! Tarbert, for those who don't know is a repub and waited until after the election was resolved to release the report. Speculation is that he is on the way out, probably with golden handshakes not showers! After all 2020 was a record year for CFTC enforcement. Great job boy's, let's not talk about our role in this fiasco!

Tarbert also had the nerve to state most trades occurred at positive prices DUH NO SHIT SHERLOCK!!!! Tarbert also didn't give the reporters the report prior to the press conference so they couldn't ask questions about the details. Tarbert also didn't show up to the press conference!!! Should I go on...verging on getting political here lol but it is appropriate...

When you buy a car you expect to be able to accelerate and brake don't you?

Reply With Quote
 
(login for full post details)
  #60 (permalink)
Toronto Canada
 
 
Posts: 41 since May 2020


SMCJB View Post
@RT777 lets just drop the TT argument. TT did not have a problem. If you don't want to believe me then don't.

Sorry but I'm not dropping this issue. You still haven't provided proof. By your own admission you stated...

"On my statement for April 20th I have 11 lots traded in CLK0 of which 10 have a negative price but I think all of them were TAS or spread trades. So that wouldn't prove anything. I did trade over 1000 lots of CL that day though, so I do have some idea of what I am talking about."

So those 1000 CL lots were all traded at positive? Should I assume since you didn't clarify that, unless you'd like to do that now? As far as I know TAS trades +- 10 ticks and has done so for a long time, correct? In other words that was normal well before 420. WTI outrights trading negative had never happened! Also too wouldn't it be totally plausible IB trades negative calendar spreads that go into contango/backwardation. Surely for spreads they've traded at negative, but again, outrights, still no proof who could trade what, except of course for the evidence I've gathered with the help of friends.

Hence one can only conclude it is your opinion TT was fine but still no proof. I'm not choosing to believe or not believe you. I believe the facts you've just made regarding your account and by those admissions you still have no proof. Again I'll repeat till I'm blue in the face, I'm providing evidence and hard facts and so far I'm the only one in this thread to do that.

People need to understand that when this goes to court one simply can't tell the judge they don't want to talk about it anymore because no one believes them. It's not a belief system, facts will prevail. The topic is a lawsuit after all!

Think of this as a mock trial, or a kangaroo court, whatever floats your boat.


Reply With Quote
 
(login for full post details)
  #61 (permalink)
Fletcher NC
 
Experience: Intermediate
Platform: nijia trader
Broker: A.M.P. I.Q. ....C.Q.G.
Trading: ym es
 
forgiven's Avatar
 
Posts: 654 since Mar 2012
Thanks: 150 given, 389 received


SMCJB View Post
Since both IB and AMP didn't liquidate customer accounts when they went negative value, I have to suspect that their internal systems either were not valuing the positions correctly because they were negative, or were unable to liquidate the positions because they were trading negative. One of the complaints in the lawsuit basically address that....
iii) failed to liquidate Plaintiffs’ and class members’ futures and options on futures investments in a reasonable manner on April 20, 2020 when May 20 Crude Oil fell to a price of zero and proceeded to trade into negative prices;
I wonder whether they had any legal obligation to liquidate your position for you though. If they did and then it went back up would they get sued for liquidating the position? Suspect the wording is on the lines of "reserves the right to liquidate" rather than "will liquidate and protect customer as much as possible"

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.

Follow me on Twitter Visit my Facebook Visit my futures io Trade Journal Reply With Quote
 
(login for full post details)
  #62 (permalink)
Legendary Market Wizard
Houston, TX
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: Trading Technologies
Broker: Primary Advantage Futures. Also ED&F and Tradestation
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little ES, GE, GC, SI & Bitcoin
 
Posts: 3,781 since Dec 2013
Thanks: 3,059 given, 7,314 received


RT777 View Post
You're reading it backwards, the Hi is no limit, the low is 0.01. And yes the limit column was taken away. I think it took them about a week to get that right.

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.



RT777 View Post
Ok, so let's say hypothetically all retail were told the contract could go negative.

They weren't. CME public notices made it clear it could go negative. They just didn't research the product enough to know this.

RT777 View Post
Should that preclude them from trading it? Why theoretically couldn't someone scalp in long at -2 and out at -1 or whatever? In the end isn't it all just numbers?

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.

RT777 View Post
Given that retail would only know that the contract can't settle bellow 0.01 or 0.025 what's wrong with risking a few hundred on what could have potentially been a great scalp, just above zero.

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.

RT777 View Post
Those were the rules retail was given and then they got locked out!

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)

RT777 View Post
It's guaranteed this was a retail game problem, since QM expires the day before CL and it's unlikely any retail account would be holding physical delivery that day.

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.

RT777 View Post

Think what the outcome would have been had more market participants been able to trade it. it's almost guaranteed no retail could trade it, but how many pros could trade it? That's something that we don't know. It's also a glaring 'no show' on the sanitized CFTC report. Since they went into great depth to explain the economic events and trade sizes on aggregate etc. But they omitted details on the test server and anything to do with firms that tested their systems either recently or in the past. They also had the nerve to state most trades occurred at positive prices, DUH!!!!

Sorry again don't understand the point you are making. Agree CFTC report was disappointing.


RT777 View Post
When you buy a car you expect to be able to accelerate and brake don't you?

Of course. But I don't expect the car manufacturer to notify me every time a speed limit changes???


RT777 View Post
Sorry but I'm not dropping this issue. You still haven't provided proof.

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)?

RT777 View Post
By your own admission you stated...

"On my statement for April 20th I have 11 lots traded in CLK0 of which 10 have a negative price but I think all of them were TAS or spread trades. So that wouldn't prove anything. I did trade over 1000 lots of CL that day though, so I do have some idea of what I am talking about."

So those 1000 CL lots were all traded at positive? Should I assume since you didn't clarify that, unless you'd like to do that now?

Clearly stated, I traded 10 lots at negative prices, hence the other trades are ALL obviously at positive prices.

RT777 View Post
As far as I know TAS trades +- 10 ticks and has done so for a long time, correct? In other words that was normal well before 420.

Do you consider 11000 in day vs 164 in a year normal?

SMCJB View Post
on Apr 20 were TAS, and that over 11000 TAS traded at limit down (-10c) compared to just 164 contracts in the entire year of 2019!!!


RT777 View Post
WTI outrights trading negative had never happened! Also too wouldn't it be totally plausible IB trades negative calendar spreads that go into contango/backwardation. Surely for spreads they've traded at negative, but again, outrights, still no proof who could trade what, except of course for the evidence I've gathered with the help of friends.

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.

RT777 View Post
Hence one can only conclude it is your opinion TT was fine but still no proof. I'm not choosing to believe or not believe you. I believe the facts you've just made regarding your account and by those admissions you still have no proof. Again I'll repeat till I'm blue in the face, I'm providing evidence and hard facts and so far I'm the only one in this thread to do that.

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.

RT777 View Post
People need to understand that when this goes to court one simply can't tell the judge they don't want to talk about it anymore because no one believes them. It's not a belief system, facts will prevail. The topic is a lawsuit after all!

Think of this as a mock trial, or a kangaroo court, whatever floats your boat.


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.

Reply With Quote
The following 5 users say Thank You to SMCJB for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #63 (permalink)
Toronto Canada
 
 
Posts: 41 since May 2020

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!



Reply With Quote
 
(login for full post details)
  #64 (permalink)
Toronto Canada
 
 
Posts: 41 since May 2020


Big Mike View Post
Yes, they did. Not immediately, but eventually. Cost them around $100MM as I recall. The article is here somewhere...

Edit: found this. $104 million, initially they said $80m.

https://www.financemagnates.com/forex/brokers/interactive-brokers-loss-from-oil-collapse-swelled-to-104-million/

Mike

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."

https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1nf4dxm53536k/The-Mysterious-London-Traders-Accused-of-Manipulating-Oil-Markets-and-the-Anonymous-Hedge-Fund-Rare-Coin-Expert-and-Day-Traders-Who-Are-Fighting-Back

Reply With Quote
 
(login for full post details)
  #65 (permalink)
Legendary Market Wizard
Houston, TX
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: Trading Technologies
Broker: Primary Advantage Futures. Also ED&F and Tradestation
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little ES, GE, GC, SI & Bitcoin
 
Posts: 3,781 since Dec 2013
Thanks: 3,059 given, 7,314 received

Adios @RT777, good luck in your trading.

Reply With Quote
The following 2 users say Thank You to SMCJB for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #66 (permalink)
Spokane Washington
 
Experience: Intermediate
Platform: NinjaTrader, TradeStation
Broker: NinjaTrader
Trading: ES, CL, YM, GC, NQ, Forex Majors
 
jeliner's Avatar
 
Posts: 35 since Nov 2016
Thanks: 5 given, 57 received


Big Mike View Post
Yes, they did. Not immediately, but eventually. Cost them around $100MM as I recall. The article is here somewhere...

Edit: found this. $104 million, initially they said $80m.

https://www.financemagnates.com/forex/brokers/interactive-brokers-loss-from-oil-collapse-swelled-to-104-million/

Mike

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?

nevermind - I see after reading further down

Reply With Quote
The following user says Thank You to jeliner for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #67 (permalink)
Site Administrator,
Data Scientist & DevOps
Manta, Ecuador
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: My own custom solution
Trading: Emini Futures
 
Big Mike's Avatar
 
Posts: 49,317 since Jun 2009
Thanks: 32,002 given, 96,492 received

Moderator Notice
Moderator Notice


We're here to help -- just ask

For the best trading education, watch our webinars
Searching for trading reviews? Review this list

Follow us on Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook

Support our community as an Elite Member:
https://futures.io/elite/
Follow me on Twitter Visit my Facebook Visit my futures io Trade Journal Reply With Quote
The following 3 users say Thank You to Big Mike for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #68 (permalink)
Site Administrator,
Data Scientist & DevOps
Manta, Ecuador
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: My own custom solution
Trading: Emini Futures
 
Big Mike's Avatar
 
Posts: 49,317 since Jun 2009
Thanks: 32,002 given, 96,492 received


jeliner View Post
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?

nevermind - I see after reading further down

Checkout the below thread and feel free to ask questions there:



Mike

We're here to help -- just ask

For the best trading education, watch our webinars
Searching for trading reviews? Review this list

Follow us on Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook

Support our community as an Elite Member:
https://futures.io/elite/
Follow me on Twitter Visit my Facebook Visit my futures io Trade Journal Reply With Quote
 
(login for full post details)
  #69 (permalink)
Site Administrator,
Data Scientist & DevOps
Manta, Ecuador
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: My own custom solution
Trading: Emini Futures
 
Big Mike's Avatar
 
Posts: 49,317 since Jun 2009
Thanks: 32,002 given, 96,492 received


RT777 View Post
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.

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.

Mike

We're here to help -- just ask

For the best trading education, watch our webinars
Searching for trading reviews? Review this list

Follow us on Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook

Support our community as an Elite Member:
https://futures.io/elite/
Follow me on Twitter Visit my Facebook Visit my futures io Trade Journal Reply With Quote
The following user says Thank You to Big Mike for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #70 (permalink)
Toronto Canada
 
 
Posts: 41 since May 2020


SMCJB View Post
Adios @RT777, good luck in your trading.

So you're giving up on the defense?

Let the record show that no one here has any proof TT was 'fine' or whatever claims were made to that degree. It was all speculative and opinion only.

Also note, this is exactly how it will go down in court with AMP, my opinion only!

Reply With Quote
 
(login for full post details)
  #71 (permalink)
Toronto Canada
 
 
Posts: 41 since May 2020


Big Mike View Post
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.

Mike

This is pathetic, I was attacked 3 times with false allegations and you've done nothing to address that. I'm not sorry you don't appreciate my sense of humor and I have absolutely no intention of changing the way I engage with anyone here or in my life in general and that includes you. If that gets me a ban bring it on! Claims were made and I refuted them. Let it also be stated you aren't being impartial here. You made a claim about TT, you made it very clear you have skin in the game, but at least you kept silent as the discussion progressed instead of trying to beat your chest with evidence you don't have....until now, now you've shown your real hand Mike, shame on you! I'm an extremely perceptive individual and not much gets past me. But as far as the discussion went, I was more than polite and respective for too long!

For those that don't get the Kangaroo reference, now is the perfect time for this ...

Who are you to wave your finger?
You must have been outta your head
Eye hole deep in muddy waters
You practically raised the dead
Rob the grave to snow the cradle
Then burn the evidence down
Soapbox house of cards and glass so
Don't go tossin' your stones around
You must have been high
You must have been high
You must have been
Foot in mouth and head up ass-hole
Whatcha talkin' 'bout?
Difficult to dance 'round this one
'Til you pull it out, boy
You must have been so high
You must have been so high
Steal, borrow, refer, save your shady inference
Kangaroo done hung the juror with the innocent
Now you're weeping shades of cozened indigo
Got lemon juice up in your eye
When you pissed all over my black kettle
You must have been high high
You must have been high high
Who are you to wave your finger?
So full of it
Eye balls deep in muddy waters
Fuckin' hypocrite
Liar, lawyer; mirror show me, what's the difference?
Kangaroo done hung the guilty with the innocent
Now you're weeping shades of cozened indigo
Got lemon juice up in your eye, eye
When you pissed all over my black kettle
You must've been...
So who are you to wave your finger?
Who are you to wave your fatty fingers at me?
You must have been out your mind
Weepin' shades of indigo
Trapped without a reason
Weepin' shades of indigo
Liar, lawyer; mirror for ya', what's the difference?
Kangaroo be stoned. He's guilty as the government
Now you're weeping shades of cozened indigo
Got lemon juice up in your eye, eye
Now when you pissed all over my black kettle
You must've been
High
High
High
High
Eyeballs deep in muddy waters
Your balls deep in muddy waters
Ganja Please
You must have been out your mind

Reply With Quote
 
(login for full post details)
  #72 (permalink)
Site Administrator,
Data Scientist & DevOps
Manta, Ecuador
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: My own custom solution
Trading: Emini Futures
 
Big Mike's Avatar
 
Posts: 49,317 since Jun 2009
Thanks: 32,002 given, 96,492 received

Well... yikes.
@RT777 has obviously confused me with others in this thread, or he thinks there is only one person here.

Either way, his reply simply forces me to ban him permanently. Anyone that behaves like this is not welcome in this community.


RT777 View Post
This is pathetic, I was attacked 3 times with false allegations and you've done nothing to address that. I'm not sorry you don't appreciate my sense of humor and I have absolutely no intention of changing the way I engage with anyone here or in my life in general and that includes you. If that gets me a ban bring it on! Claims were made and I refuted them. Let it also be stated you aren't being impartial here. You made a claim about TT, you made it very clear you have skin in the game, but at least you kept silent as the discussion progressed instead of trying to beat your chest with evidence you don't have....until now, now you've shown your real hand Mike, shame on you! I'm an extremely perceptive individual and not much gets past me. But as far as the discussion went, I was more than polite and respective for too long!

For those that don't get the Kangaroo reference, now is the perfect time for this ...

Who are you to wave your finger?
You must have been outta your head
Eye hole deep in muddy waters
You practically raised the dead
Rob the grave to snow the cradle
Then burn the evidence down
Soapbox house of cards and glass so
Don't go tossin' your stones around
You must have been high
You must have been high
You must have been
Foot in mouth and head up ass-hole
Whatcha talkin' 'bout?
Difficult to dance 'round this one
'Til you pull it out, boy
You must have been so high
You must have been so high
Steal, borrow, refer, save your shady inference
Kangaroo done hung the juror with the innocent
Now you're weeping shades of cozened indigo
Got lemon juice up in your eye
When you pissed all over my black kettle
You must have been high high
You must have been high high
Who are you to wave your finger?
So full of it
Eye balls deep in muddy waters
Fuckin' hypocrite
Liar, lawyer; mirror show me, what's the difference?
Kangaroo done hung the guilty with the innocent
Now you're weeping shades of cozened indigo
Got lemon juice up in your eye, eye
When you pissed all over my black kettle
You must've been...
So who are you to wave your finger?
Who are you to wave your fatty fingers at me?
You must have been out your mind
Weepin' shades of indigo
Trapped without a reason
Weepin' shades of indigo
Liar, lawyer; mirror for ya', what's the difference?
Kangaroo be stoned. He's guilty as the government
Now you're weeping shades of cozened indigo
Got lemon juice up in your eye, eye
Now when you pissed all over my black kettle
You must've been
High
High
High
High
Eyeballs deep in muddy waters
Your balls deep in muddy waters
Ganja Please
You must have been out your mind

Sent using the futures.io mobile app

We're here to help -- just ask

For the best trading education, watch our webinars
Searching for trading reviews? Review this list

Follow us on Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook

Support our community as an Elite Member:
https://futures.io/elite/
Follow me on Twitter Visit my Facebook Visit my futures io Trade Journal Reply With Quote
The following 8 users say Thank You to Big Mike for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #73 (permalink)
Legendary Capt. Johnny Jameson
Fort Lauderdale
 
Experience: None
Platform: Optimus Flow, NT8. TS
Broker: CQG, Rithmic
Trading: ES
 
Devil Man's Avatar
 
Posts: 811 since Oct 2009
Thanks: 3,055 given, 1,427 received


Big Mike View Post
Well... yikes.
@RT777 has obviously confused me with others in this thread, or he thinks there is only one person here.

Either way, his reply simply forces me to ban him permanently. Anyone that behaves like this is not welcome in this community.



Sent using the futures.io mobile app

...and if I might add....if you're gonna pick a fight, don't pick a fight with El Jefe! @Big Mike

Reply With Quote
The following 2 users say Thank You to Devil Man for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #74 (permalink)
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
 
Experience: Beginner
Platform: Ninja. ts
Trading: ES, CL
 
vizag's Avatar
 
Posts: 10 since Jun 2010
Thanks: 40 given, 6 received

Very interesting discussion, lots of info. Sad it ended like this. Personally I didn't trade during that period because of the warnings and higher margin requirements. Anyways thanks to the traders for sharing their experience.

Reply With Quote
The following user says Thank You to vizag for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #75 (permalink)
san diego, ca USA
 
 
Posts: 29 since May 2014
Thanks: 25 given, 20 received


vizag View Post
Very interesting discussion, lots of info. Sad it ended like this. Personally I didn't trade during that period because of the warnings and higher margin requirements. Anyways thanks to the traders for sharing their experience.

Higher margin requirements? On 4/20 most FCM's did nothing. No day trade margin requirements increases, no warning to customers, no liquidations. After 4/20 they did.

Reply With Quote
 
(login for full post details)
  #76 (permalink)
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
 
Experience: Beginner
Platform: Ninja. ts
Trading: ES, CL
 
vizag's Avatar
 
Posts: 10 since Jun 2010
Thanks: 40 given, 6 received


futures trader View Post
Higher margin requirements? On 4/20 most FCM's did nothing. No day trade margin requirements increases, no warning to customers, no liquidations. After 4/20 they did.

I know this thread is about not receiving warnings for 4/20. Warnings were sent out in March and for somedays in April. I'm a part time trader so normally would sit out till the ES daytrade margin drops below $600.

Reply With Quote


futures io Trading Community Trading Reviews and Vendors Brokers > Class Action Lawsuit: AMP Global Clearing LLC


Last Updated on December 13, 2020


Upcoming Webinars and Events
 

Journal Challenge!

February
 

Battlestations!

March
     



Copyright © 2021 by futures io, s.a., Av Ricardo J. Alfaro, Century Tower, Panama, +507 833-9432, info@futures.io
All information is for educational use only and is not investment advice.
There is a substantial risk of loss in trading commodity futures, stocks, options and foreign exchange products. Past performance is not indicative of future results.
no new posts