FYERS

[Raj232]

Whether they increase lot-sizes or not, they seem to be intent on cutting retail participation in the F&O segment, & IF they succeed (irrespective of HOW they do it), then the liquidity & volumes will likely fall & spreads will widen, which will make F&O contracts less tradeable, leading to further decreases in volumes & liquidity, & so on, like a downward spiral.

They might be testing whether by doing these tweaks whether they can actually cause a downward spiral etc. The next time they would use it as a tool .. .. just my 2 cents

 

[Tejas Khoday]

Whether they increase lot-sizes or not, they seem to be intent on cutting retail participation in the F&O segment, & IF they succeed (irrespective of HOW they do it), then the liquidity & volumes will likely fall & spreads will widen, which will make F&O contracts less tradeable, leading to further decreases in volumes & liquidity, & so on, like a downward spiral.

Let's put ourselves in the shoes of the regulator SEBI for a change. One of the main reasons why they must've considered to limit retail traders' participation in derivative could be because of traditional brokers' malpractices! As most of you know, many traditional brokers' dealers & sub-brokers place derivative trades in clients' accounts with and without their permission which often causes HUGE losses in the clients' accounts in a very short span of time. The clients who are usually very gung-ho based on the broker's promise at first become shocked at the quantum of losses and some of them file complaints against the brokers to the exchanges' Investor Grievance cell or SEBI. Over a period of time, the complaints have accumulated causing worry to the regulator because each time the broker promises to never repeat such practices but it is beyond their control because the structure of their organization is designed to trade/advise on the clients' behalves. In the last few years, SEBI has tightened the screws on unauthorized trading and has introduced compulsory call recording etc. Recently, there has been talk of introducing penalties if anyone is caught indulging in such practices. As a regulator, they're trying to ensure that retail traders' are less susceptible to risk because of old-school greedy brokers. Since, they cannot come and check every phone call or trade, they want o resort to such measures.

This is obviously not the only reason, but they may have definitely considered investor complaints while forming a conclusion. This is my educated guess. There needs to be more research on how many trades are executed by clients on their own behalf and how many are executed by brokers in comparison. In my opinion, the penalties for unauthorized trading should be levied with an iron fist by SEBI to weed out the bad apples once and for all. The larger majority of the sub-broking community is not as straightforward and malpractices maybe more rampant than we might assume on this forum. However, I disagree with their solution of wanting to restrict retail traders in F&O. Such a solution will create problems rather than solving them.

 

[ilovehotgirls]

i heard fyers is the first broker to going add meta trader 5 for desktop traders it is true?

 

[Newbie Day-Trader]

Let's put ourselves in the shoes of the regulator SEBI for a change. One of the main reasons why they must've considered to limit retail traders' participation in derivative could be because of traditional brokers' malpractices! As most of you know, many traditional brokers' dealers & sub-brokers place derivative trades in clients' accounts with and without their permission which often causes HUGE losses in the clients' accounts in a very short span of time. The clients who are usually very gung-ho based on the broker's promise at first become shocked at the quantum of losses and some of them file complaints against the brokers to the exchanges' Investor Grievance cell or SEBI. Over a period of time, the complaints have accumulated causing worry to the regulator because each time the broker promises to never repeat such practices but it is beyond their control because the structure of their organization is designed to trade/advise on the clients' behalves. In the last few years, SEBI has tightened the screws on unauthorized trading and has introduced compulsory call recording etc. Recently, there has been talk of introducing penalties if anyone is caught indulging in such practices. As a regulator, they're trying to ensure that retail traders' are less susceptible to risk because of old-school greedy brokers. Since, they cannot come and check every phone call or trade, they want o resort to such measures.

This is obviously not the only reason, but they may have definitely considered investor complaints while forming a conclusion. This is my educated guess. There needs to be more research on how many trades are executed by clients on their own behalf and how many are executed by brokers in comparison. In my opinion, the penalties for unauthorized trading should be levied with an iron fist by SEBI to weed out the bad apples once and for all. The larger majority of the sub-broking community is not as straightforward and malpractices maybe more rampant than we might assume on this forum. However, I disagree with their solution of wanting to restrict retail traders in F&O. Such a solution will create problems rather than solving them.

Those are some good points but like you've said, their solution is very problematic & unhelpful, & I'm not sure if it necessarily addresses the issue that you've raised, that is, of unauthorized trading, & instead of instituting stricter punishment against such activities by unscrupulous brokers, they're essentially punishing the retail traders because SEBI is sick of dealing with justified complaints of retail traders about unauthorized trading. It's so reflective of our society's mindset; it's like restricting women's right to travel & move around freely instead of improving law & order, & bringing in stricter punishment for rape. It's the law-abiding citizens that end up losing their rights because of a few criminals.

 

[Raj232]

Those are some good points but like you've said, their solution is very problematic & unhelpful, & I'm not sure if it necessarily addresses the issue that you've raised, that is, of unauthorized trading, & instead of instituting stricter punishment against such activities by unscrupulous brokers, they're essentially punishing the retail traders because SEBI is sick of dealing with justified complaints of retail traders about unauthorized trading. It's so reflective of our society's mindset; it's like restricting women's right to travel & move around freely instead of improving law & order, & bringing in stricter punishment for rape. It's the law-abiding citizens that end up losing their rights because of a few criminals.

Well said... strange that retail participation should be restricted because some so called traditional brokers are indulging in cheating activity

 

[Tejas Khoday]

Those are some good points but like you've said, their solution is very problematic & unhelpful, & I'm not sure if it necessarily addresses the issue that you've raised, that is, of unauthorized trading, & instead of instituting stricter punishment against such activities by unscrupulous brokers, they're essentially punishing the retail traders because SEBI is sick of dealing with justified complaints of retail traders about unauthorized trading. It's so reflective of our society's mindset; it's like restricting women's right to travel & move around freely instead of improving law & order, & bringing in stricter punishment for rape. It's the law-abiding citizens that end up losing their rights because of a few criminals.

Well said, I agree with you 100%.

 

[timepass]

Let's put ourselves in the shoes of the regulator SEBI for a change. One of the main reasons why they must've considered to limit retail traders' participation in derivative could be because of traditional brokers' malpractices! As most of you know, many traditional brokers' dealers & sub-brokers place derivative trades in clients' accounts with and without their permission which often causes HUGE losses in the clients' accounts in a very short span of time. The clients who are usually very gung-ho based on the broker's promise at first become shocked at the quantum of losses and some of them file complaints against the brokers to the exchanges' Investor Grievance cell or SEBI. Over a period of time, the complaints have accumulated causing worry to the regulator because each time the broker promises to never repeat such practices but it is beyond their control because the structure of their organization is designed to trade/advise on the clients' behalves. In the last few years, SEBI has tightened the screws on unauthorized trading and has introduced compulsory call recording etc. Recently, there has been talk of introducing penalties if anyone is caught indulging in such practices. As a regulator, they're trying to ensure that retail traders' are less susceptible to risk because of old-school greedy brokers. Since, they cannot come and check every phone call or trade, they want o resort to such measures.

This is obviously not the only reason, but they may have definitely considered investor complaints while forming a conclusion. This is my educated guess. There needs to be more research on how many trades are executed by clients on their own behalf and how many are executed by brokers in comparison. In my opinion, the penalties for unauthorized trading should be levied with an iron fist by SEBI to weed out the bad apples once and for all. The larger majority of the sub-broking community is not as straightforward and malpractices maybe more rampant than we might assume on this forum. However, I disagree with their solution of wanting to restrict retail traders in F&O. Such a solution will create problems rather than solving them.

I don't know how right are you in your premise, but if so, it would seem to be a case of punishing Peter for Paul's crimes.

Anyway, I think that SEBI is making a mistake by defining the criteria in terms of absolute value (rupees). Instead they should define it in terms of the market cap. For a bigger cap scrip, say Tata Steel, 10 crores delivery volume may be a regular thing, but for a smaller cap company, say Torrent Power, 10 crores may be a huge in terms of amount, but probably greater in terms of %age of market cap.

Just my thought.

 

[sanju005ind]

@Fyers Tech There used to be an option strategy page with various strategies and a way to analyse them.Could you please provide the new link.the old one seems to have been changed.

 

[Tejas Khoday]

@Fyers Tech There used to be an option strategy page with various strategies and a way to analyse them.Could you please provide the new link.the old one seems to have been changed.

Hi @sanju005ind, we have temporarily disabled that page. We shall re-introduce it in the future after adding some functionality to it.

 

[ankur07090]

Is BO launched by FYERS ?