I will resolve the issue after I have time to examine the statistics from real trading acounts and determine if C2 presents those statistics consistently per C2’s general policy. As you pointed out, various brokers handled the events of that day differently. Perhaps FXCM handled it worse than other brokers, perhaps not. (It seems probable that they handled it badly, based on anecdotal evidence.) In any case, C2 offers AutoTrading through a host of different brokers and technology options. Our policy regarding fill reporting is simple and consistent: by default we show best-case hypothetical fills (and describe them as such). We also make available to anyone who wants them a series of real-life trade statistics that we collect from our AutoTrade partners, including where real-life accounts got filled, and real-life slippage. In other words, we handle events like this transparently. We will handle last week’s incident just as transparently, in the same way that we handle what happens every day to the over four thousand systems on this site. If the real-life statistics show severe slippage which mirrors what happened in FXCM accounts, then that may be sufficient. With that said, I haven’t had a chance to examine this, so I can’t write much more at this point. When I have had a chance to study this I will be able to comment more intelligently about it.
Its real simple, if you know how to trade report days, then trade them. Don’t say all system vendors should not trade these days. I have traded them fine in the past after I learned that they needed to be traded differently than normal days.
The problem is always, you have new future and forex systems that don’t really know how to trade, but they get into a good trend like JPY and it prevents people from seeing their flaws.
"by default we show best-case hypothetical fills"
Matthew - it is my understanding that there was a quote but no one was filled. Does this constitute a hypothetical fill?
I don’t know if anyone was filled in the universe of forex traders. I know only who was filled using Generation 1 & 2 C2 Autotrading, since those fills are reported to C2. The algorithm C2 uses to determine a hypothetical fill in the C2 Model Account is: (1) to fill if a real-life autotrader reports a fill, or (2) to look at the real-time quote feed and to use bid/asks from the quote feed to determine hypothetical fills. A bid (for a sell order) or an ask (for a buy order) generates a fill in Hypothetical C2 Fill Land.
You’re welcome to look at the Real-Life Fill Record for yourself, Steve. There aren’t any secrets. Go to the system, turn on “Show Real Life Fills” (toggle is to the right of the equity chart) and look for yourself what the average fills were. If someone was filled, it’ll show up, and it’ll show real-life slippage and volume-weighted average price as well.
Steve,
Relax, relax. Take it easy. FXCM agreement is normal. If we simplify it - “your broker is responsible for nothing, you’re responsible for everything"
It’s normal the business practice. Well… probably at 100:1, 200:1 margin it’s a little bit harsh, but the margin doesn’t change rules of the games.
So why do you so upset? The requirements are normal. No one broker will give you free ride in hard times.
Regarding C2/bulldogfx. What they can do? Their forex broker is failed. It’s expected loss. Even, bulldogfx is just unconfirmed technical layer that failed with chosen broker. It’s normal. It’s a life 
Eu
"A million lemmings can’t be wrong …” ©
OK Matthew -
I had a look at the autotrade results for Team Aphid and I don’t see any significant slippage from the C2 trades. Now I am perplexed because this doesn’t jive with your comments early on in this thread unless you hadn’t looked at the autotrade results before you posted.
"According to FXCM, the disruption was industry-wide: Nonfarm Payroll numbers came out this morning much lower than expected. Banks stopped quoting currency prices, market orders weren’t processed, cancels hung in the air… etc."
And also Francis: "I did not see any live account being filled at that price and time."
The statements you and Francis made led me to believe that there was no Forex liquidity at that period in time. Yet the autotrade results indicate otherwise. I presume that these are real trades through a broker other than FXCM??
If this is the case then it appears that it was FXCM with the problem and those individuals that lost significant amounts of money should have contacted FXCM within 24 hours (as per the account agreement). It seems to me they had a case for recuperating their money. But then again FXCM is judge and jury so not much chance there.
> But then again FXCM is judge and jury so not much chance there.
Better to try it though. A few weeks ago IB corrected two forex trades of me on the same day, when I asked. But you must react very fast.
My suggestion would be to add a section where subscribers can review C2’s auto trade partners/brokers. In that way information such as in this thread won’t get lost.
Because problems like these are rare and supposedly affected only part of the subscribers, I don’t think it’s easy to include such events in the C2 statistics. It’s more helpful to have them documented in a descriptive way, including how the case was handled by BulldogFX/FXCM.
