This is the general policy of market maker brokers, they open negative trade positions according to their clients! This is way, they create false market movements, slippage, execution and others technical error in their trading chart! On the other hand, regulated Forex brokers make money by trading spread! No doubt, only regulated Forex brokers are able to ensure traders capital security in the proper way!
Sorry, but this really [B]isn’t[/B] right, at all!
Whether they’re genuine brokers or counterparty market-makers is [B][U]NOT[/U][/B] determined by or disclosed by whether or not they’re regulated. There are hundreds of fully regulated counterparty market-makers, too, but they’re still not genuine brokers - hence all the confusion around this subject.
I don’t wish to re-open the old trading v’s gambling can of worms but at least when you’re a UK spread betting client, they are “honest” enough to call it betting.
Indeed … quite so.
And if you use a decent spread-betting company (they do vary greatly!), then they’re automatically off-setting their own net liabilities (above a certain “acceptable risk” figure, anyway) in the underlying market, and therefore [I]effectively[/I] not trading against their own customers in the very important sense that it doesn’t matter to them, financially, which ones win and lose. (Not to mention the tax-free benefit, of course, which give profitable customers a very significant advantage over other types of trading they’d potentially be doing instead.)
You just have though mate & it’s not only the cheap seats who call it betting, the posh(er) ones do too.
Regardless whether your facilitator is City Index or Citi Group or you’re an amateur or professional punter, you’re all simply placing bets on the movement of your chosen instrument, shelling out commissions & spreads for the privilege.
Elements of the execution process [B]known[/B] & controlled at outset are your chosen entry location, risk & capital exposure. The exit however is totally [B]unknown[/B] at outset & will be wholly determined & influenced by how far & for how long you decide to allow your stake to be exposed to the market, be it in credit or in debit. And that boys & girls is one of the definitions of gambling or betting!
Punting, betting, gambling, trading - all one & the same wrapped up in pretty bows.
Doesn’t matter how much or little analysis you undertake, what degree of mental preparation or attitude you employ, which type or grade of broker/facilitator you use - it all still amounts to nothing more than placing a bet (or a trade for the more squeamish) of which the outcome is totally [B]unknown[/B] at outset.
If it wasn’t you’d have no need or requirement to protect your stake & capital in the event of loss.
Certainly … but nobody’s suggesting otherwise, are they? 
Clearly … but for some people that can be a very worthwhile “privilege”, if they’re saving 40%/45% income tax on their profits. Obviously nobody’s suggesting it as a viable option for a scalper, but depending on your type of trading, profit-record and tax-bracket, the tax position can be hugely significant.
The tax position, significant or not, will be dependent on the individual’s primary income status, but have no fear, the revenue won’t be losing sleep anytime soon over chasing down that non-starter.
The punter(s) actually have to generate a profit in order to reap those rewards & you can generally count them on the fingers of both hands.
Hehe, good luck with that 
Come on Profitfx, you’ve been a member here long enough now to know better than this.
Quality post Peter, as always
Absolutely Peter… Please be aware that only the industry has been changed to protect the guilty.
[I]“The bookies learned fast, here yet was another tool to entice the punter, come into my shop, we are regulated, we will educate you the way we want you to bet…scratch… We will educate you on how to bet profitably”[/I]
Most people who talk about the broker “Taking the opposite side of their trade” seem to believe that when the broker does so, that it causes them to lose. The reality is if you have a company such as a broker, and the stats say that 95% of the people who place a trade will end up losing their account, why wouldn’t the broker take the other side of the trade? What happens when the broker takes the opposite side of your trade is that your order (buy/sell) never hits the market. 
What it does the broker has “B-book” access to all of their clients and they can decide to go against your order or let the market take care of it. The sad part of it is that their is NO WAY to know if your order has actually hit the market or if the broker is just reflecting it within your platform. All in all, you decide to buy or sell, and if you stop out at 400 pips, it isn’t the broker’s fault, but actually your fault as a trader. As a matter of fact, I have evidence that “B-book trading” exist, and brokers using that same method can “erase” open orders to manipulate stats. The only thing is that a small little trace is left behind when orders are erased from a broker. Soon I will reveal the proof, but until than, if your broker takes the other side of your wager, just note that when you win, then lose.
Seriously…!! I wasn’t expecting it but i will wait and see till this situation happens. Also please share the proof with us if you succeed in revealing such proofs.
Proof is not really required, brokers openly admit that they use a business model whereby they offset client orders in house by aggregating their client pool.
It’s common practice actually, and certainly not hidden from retail traders. Typically the broker is left exposed net of aggregation, long or short exposure. It’s at this time that the broker must make a choice and deal with the net result.
Good point you raised, it’s a common practice. And something else is that whether you win or lose you definitely would pay for the commission charged, that’s only fair.
Knowing how to identify when your broker is doing is very important, as your skill set increases you start to use third party software in order to track systems. Some systems show very constant profit, but if you look at the trade history, you can tell if the account owner not only has “B book access” but if he or she is making bad trades disappear. So that was the point in mentioning that it would be wise to know how to identify those things. Clearly you skimmed passed it or just wanted to rush off my last statement.
but if you look at the trade history, you can tell if the account owner not only has “B book access” but if he or she is making bad trades disappear
I don’t understand any of your post if i’m totally honest. You start off by talking about the broker, and then move onto the client.
How does a client being able to change their order history answer the question to this thread?
It’s not a ‘wrong’ concept, because it does happen with some brokers, however it’s wildly misunderstood. This isn’t helped by the lack of information avaliable, however it makes sense as it’s the internal risk policy of brokers - why would this be public information.
At the end of the day retail brokers never ever have to pass your orders to market, and I can guarantee they hardly ever do! It’s all kept internal and your simply betting. You never buy or sell anything, it’s just terminology used.
The most level-headed comments I’ve read for ages on this subject. Nice one Jezzode.