IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2107.14055.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Profit and loss manipulations by online trading brokers

Author

Listed:
  • Golnaz Shahtahmassebi
  • Lascelles Wright

Abstract

Online trading has attracted millions of people around the world. In March 2021, it was reported there were 18 million accounts from just one broker. Historically, manipulation in financial markets is considered to be fraudulently influencing share, currency pairs or any other indices prices. This article introduces the idea that online trading platform technical issues can be considered as brokers manipulation to control traders profit and loss. More importantly it shows these technical issues are the contributing factors of the 82% risk of retail traders losing money. We identify trading platform technical issues of one of the world's leading online trading providers and calculate retail traders losses caused by these issues. To do this, we independently record each trade details using the REST API response provided by the broker. We show traders log activity files is the only way to assess any suspected profit or loss manipulation by the broker. Therefore, it is essential for any retail trader to have access to their log files. We compare our findings with broker's Trustpilot customer reviews. We illustrate how traders' profit and loss can be negatively affected by broker's platform technical issues such as not being able to close profitable trades, closing trades with delays, disappearance of trades, disappearance of profit from clients statements, profit and loss discrepancies, stop loss not being triggered, stop loss or limit order triggered too early. Although regulatory bodies try to ensure that consumers get a fair deal, these attempts are hugely insufficient in protecting retail traders. Therefore, regulatory bodies such as the FCA should take these technical issues seriously and not rely on brokers' internal investigations, because under any other circumstances, these platform manipulations would be considered as crimes and connivingly misappropriating funds.

Suggested Citation

  • Golnaz Shahtahmassebi & Lascelles Wright, 2021. "Profit and loss manipulations by online trading brokers," Papers 2107.14055, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2107.14055
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2107.14055
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Luca, 2011. "Reviews, Reputation, and Revenue: The Case of Yelp.com," Harvard Business School Working Papers 12-016, Harvard Business School, revised Mar 2016.
    2. Mariani, Marcello M. & Nambisan, Satish, 2021. "Innovation Analytics and Digital Innovation Experimentation: The Rise of Research-driven Online Review Platforms," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    3. Moeeni , Shahram & Tayebi , Komeil, 2018. "Is It Necessary to Restrict Forex Financial Trading? A Modified Model," Journal of Money and Economy, Monetary and Banking Research Institute, Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran, vol. 13(1), pages 63-80, January.
    4. Franklin Allen & Lubomir Litov & Jianping Mei, 2006. "Large Investors, Price Manipulation, and Limits to Arbitrage: An Anatomy of Market Corners," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 10(4), pages 645-693, December.
    5. Barnes, Paul, 2018. "Recent developments in investment fraud and scams: Contracts for Difference (‘CFD’) spread betting and binary options and foreign exchange (‘Forex’) sometimes collectively known as ‘forbin’ – the UK e," MPRA Paper 85061, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Shang, Xuesong & Duan, Hebing & Lu, Jingyi, 2021. "Gambling versus investment: Lay theory and loss aversion," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Laurent Bouton, 2011. "Good rankings are bad - Why reliable rankings can hurt consumers," Boston University - Department of Economics - Working Papers Series WP2011-002, Boston University - Department of Economics.
    2. Sheridan Titman & Chishen Wei. Wei & Bin Zhao, 2021. "Corporate Actions and the Manipulation of Retail Investors in China: An Analysis of Stock Splits," NBER Working Papers 29212, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Michele Gorgoglione & Achille Claudio Garavelli & Umberto Panniello & Angelo Natalicchio, 2023. "Information Retrieval Technologies and Big Data Analytics to Analyze Product Innovation in the Music Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-16, January.
    4. Nicollier, Luciana A, 2013. "Reviews, Prices and Endogenous Information Transmission," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1029, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    5. Davide Crapis & Bar Ifrach & Costis Maglaras & Marco Scarsini, 2017. "Monopoly Pricing in the Presence of Social Learning," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(11), pages 3586-3608, November.
    6. Florian Englmaier & Arno Schmöller & Till Stowasser, 2018. "Price Discontinuities in an Online Market for Used Cars," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(6), pages 2754-2766, June.
    7. Jiayi Li & Sumei Luo & Guangyou Zhou, 2021. "Call auction, continuous trading and closing price formation," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(6), pages 1037-1065, June.
    8. Hinnosaar, Marit & Hinnosaar, Toomas & Kummer, Michael & Slivko, Olga, 2017. "Does Wikipedia matter? The effect of Wikipedia on tourist choices," ZEW Discussion Papers 15-089, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research, revised 2017.
    9. Peck, James, 2014. "A battle of informed traders and the market game foundations for rational expectations equilibrium," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 153-173.
    10. Ruomeng Cui & Jun Li & Dennis J. Zhang, 2020. "Reducing Discrimination with Reviews in the Sharing Economy: Evidence from Field Experiments on Airbnb," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(3), pages 1071-1094, March.
    11. Andreas A. Haupt & Nicole Immorlica & Brendan Lucier, 2023. "Certification Design for a Competitive Market," Papers 2301.13449, arXiv.org.
    12. Erfan Rezvani & Christian Rojas, 2022. "Firm responsiveness to consumers' reviews: The effect on online reputation," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 898-922, November.
    13. Ke Liu & Kin Lai & Jerome Yen & Qing Zhu, 2015. "A Model of Stock Manipulation Ramping Tricks," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 45(1), pages 135-150, January.
    14. Raoofpanah, Iman & Zamudio, César & Groening, Christopher, 2023. "Review reader segmentation based on the heterogeneous impacts of review and reviewer attributes on review helpfulness: A study involving ZIP code data," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    15. Brandts, Jordi & Busom, Isabel & Lopez-Mayan, Cristina & Panadés, Judith, 2022. "Dispelling misconceptions about economics," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    16. Itzhak Ben‐David & Francesco Franzoni & Augustin Landier & Rabih Moussawi, 2013. "Do Hedge Funds Manipulate Stock Prices?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 68(6), pages 2383-2434, December.
    17. Ciotti, Fabrizio & Hornuf, Lars & Stenzhorn, Eliza, 2021. "Lock-In Effects in Online Labor Markets," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2021014, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    18. Mohit Tyagi & Nomesh B. Bolia, 2022. "Approaches for restaurant revenue management," Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 21(1), pages 17-35, February.
    19. Villanova, Daniel & Bodapati, Anand V. & Puccinelli, Nancy M. & Tsiros, Michael & Goodstein, Ronald C. & Kushwaha, Tarun & Suri, Rajneesh & Ho, Henry & Brandon, Renee & Hatfield, Cheryl, 2021. "Retailer Marketing Communications in the Digital Age: Getting the Right Message to the Right Shopper at the Right Time," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 116-132.
    20. Boccali, Filippo & Mariani, Marcello M. & Visani, Franco & Mora-Cruz, Alexandra, 2022. "Innovative value-based price assessment in data-rich environments: Leveraging online review analytics through Data Envelopment Analysis to empower managers and entrepreneurs," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2107.14055. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.