Thanks Trade4Putuval,
While I do agree with you that this may be have been done on the basis of risk assessment, best practices etc, the real impact of this practice is detrimental to a trader, and the trader will be a loser. By necessitating password at the time of actual trade, risk is actually CREATED for a trader - with an unrequired layer of legal protection for the broker - (this is not mandated by law.) What happens in reality, is that many traders will enter dummy order and cancel, so as to be live. What if somebody forgets? And for a trader who logs in the evening session for MCX, this is a problem, as he is forced to make dummy orders in a live market.
So bringing this up, as everyday, twice I have to put in dummy order - just to cancel. Multiply this by the no. of traders who use this 'go around' - and you will have a small % of traders who would forget to cancel. So such practice, while ensuring no liability on part of the the broker who are insuring and 'double padding' themselves against non existing risk, this practice becomes detrimental and is against the interest of the trader. We as traders need ensure our concerns and problems are addressed by brokers - and not accept 'bad practices' from a trader's that is thrust upon us. The brokerage house will always ensure that they put their interest ahead. Sure. But not at the cost of or risk to the trader/customer. - Just my 2C.
While I do agree with you that this may be have been done on the basis of risk assessment, best practices etc, the real impact of this practice is detrimental to a trader, and the trader will be a loser. By necessitating password at the time of actual trade, risk is actually CREATED for a trader - with an unrequired layer of legal protection for the broker - (this is not mandated by law.) What happens in reality, is that many traders will enter dummy order and cancel, so as to be live. What if somebody forgets? And for a trader who logs in the evening session for MCX, this is a problem, as he is forced to make dummy orders in a live market.
So bringing this up, as everyday, twice I have to put in dummy order - just to cancel. Multiply this by the no. of traders who use this 'go around' - and you will have a small % of traders who would forget to cancel. So such practice, while ensuring no liability on part of the the broker who are insuring and 'double padding' themselves against non existing risk, this practice becomes detrimental and is against the interest of the trader. We as traders need ensure our concerns and problems are addressed by brokers - and not accept 'bad practices' from a trader's that is thrust upon us. The brokerage house will always ensure that they put their interest ahead. Sure. But not at the cost of or risk to the trader/customer. - Just my 2C.
Not a broker trying to "protect himself." These are just SEBI rules to have 2 passwords at logon, and transaction password before placing trades or during idle hours.
Can it be implemented in other ways? Sure -- instead of asking questions or popping up for passwords, we can have better ways of authentication (such as Android's method of drawing a pattern to unlock a phone). But we can't bypass SEBI rules that mandate throwing in extra authentication factors.