Hey Cynic ...... two questions;
Name of the CFD provider, and
Do you have Charts of the prices they filled you at?
Make it three questions
.... "City"??
Yes and no.
Yes it was indeed "City" (which as we already know was acquired by "Gain" last year),
and no I don't have charts, but I can tell you the erroneous prices I was given along with the subsequent amendments.
Firstly for the purpose of completeness, I make mention of the fact that, inside of market hours, spreads of 10 and 20 points respectively apply to the Cash and Aug 15 CFD contracts for this particular CFD provider. This information should be taken into account when comparing with prices offered elsewhere.
On the 26th I had limit buy orders for their Hong Kong 40 Cash CFD filled minutes after the open at prices ranging from 21480 to 21973. The size of the gap down at open combined with the range of levels on my limit orders alerted to the fact that something was clearly amiss. So I challenged the validity of same and thankfully it was promptly acknowledged to be an error and the four incorrect fills were all amended to 21376. At this point I was delighted that my provider had responded promptly and had accepted responsibility for their product performance.
If it hadn't been for the fact that the market had clearly gapped below at least three of those limit orders my suspicions might not have been so thoroughly aroused , and upon reflection, I started to get the distinct feeling that I could vaguely remember having noticed something similar at least once before. So I decided to investigate further by examining some recent trades.
Sure enough, seconds after the open on the 25th (previous day), a short limit order for the Aug 15 CFD had filled at 20691. Again I asked to have this investigated. Again an error was acknowledged and the price amended to 20800.
This last one will be queried further, as the price still seems somewhat inferior to the price that I would have expected based upon the market open of the actual futures contract.
The fact that I have now encountered this error on two consecutive days (I haven't looked back much farther ) leads me to wonder whether this has occurred by genuine mishap or intentional design! Much as I sincerely hope it is the former, I am becoming increasingly fearful that it may be the latter.