There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 492 comments are related to the topic:
Latest on Affordability Checks
Latest on Affordability Checks
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 492
|
By:
It's about a decade since the spread firms all closed me down, but I seem to remember that if you got in above your head, they reserved the right to close out your position at a loss. Perhaps share trading is the same? (Don't know; never owned a share.)
If that is indeed the case, then they're not really comparable to bookmakers or exchanges. |
|
By:
You dont have to supply any information to trade CFDs etc, you just have to have enough in the account in relation to the amount each broker determines is an appropriate 'margin' based on risk.
You can still have something like 10 times what you have in cash (though the rules were strengthened a few years ago) You get what they call a Margin Call if your trade goes wrong and if you cant supply more cash they sell your stake at whatever price whether you want to or not and then you owe the broker. They are manytimes worse than online slots and have apps that you use on phones that encourage any fool to trade on no knowledge whatsoever. As stated they are utter cons because at least stocks you hold the asset, but not CFDs the broker owns it and you are contracted to have to sell or buy back the contract through that broker and nobody else. |
|
By:
screaming - spread betting and trading generally have wiped out many sole traders over the years. There may be some limitations setup, but certainly not enough to stop someone losing a stupid amount and potentially ending with huge debts to pay.
|
|
By:
stu you should be comparing it with Cryptos and NFTs rather than stock trading. I don't believe there are any checks and it's generally the young and gullible
|
|
By:
and it will often involve life savings and surely dwarfs spending on gambling
|
|
By:
https://www.racingpost.com/news/latest/affordability-checks-hit-operators-uk-revenues-as-white-paper-wait-goes-on/573028
And now they have the temerity to whinge! Give me strength. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Perhaps TM and impossible 123 can come back out of hiding and explain to those negatively effected by all this how it’s all for the best?
|
|
By:
Spread betting now divided into two categories - retail and professional.
Retail accounts can never go below zero - so you cannot end up with huge debts to pay. "In the summer of 2018, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) – the European Union’s authority which overseas financial services – moved to tighten trading restrictions on many types of financial markets, including spread betting." Main reason: On Jan. 15, 2015, Switzerland announced that it was going to scrap its currency peg of 1.20 to the euro. - individuals were left with huge losses which they could not - or would not - pay. Reuters headline: Swiss franc shock shuts some FX brokers; regulators move in. |
|
By:
But that isn’t the point.
Gambling has been targeted unilaterally based on the fact people lose too much of their earnings/wealth The equivalent to those restrictions would be a limited credit account in gambling. That’s not what AC does, Affordability dictates how much you can put into a betting account based on your circumstances…while spread betting and broker trading accounts as far as I’m aware dont (they certainly didn’t up until this Gambling Review) The very fact CFD trading carries the reality that more than 3 out of every 4 traders lose is significantly worse than anyone betting on say sports. |
|
By:
Am I reading you right? Are you saying you think more than 25% of punters break-even or win? I'd be astounded if the number is anywhere near that high.
|
|
By:
Child suicide is increasing, and they have never gambled. Those that lost at gambling and arguably were in danger of suicide are not being educated by simply being refused by high street operators, they will just go and lose elsewhere, and no doubt still commit suicide.
Those who believed government intervention would straighten out the feathers of what they singularly decided was an area to target were found incorrect, it hasn’t even been released yet and already companies are doing their own thing in relation to business, which is something I said would always happen. |
|
By:
No lats.
I was just meaning anyone placing a bet wouldn’t naturally lose 3 out of every 4 goes. Ofc the odds ruin bad players in the long run, but they would have to be Jonah to get more than 75% wrong, as CFD traders do. |
|
By:
Ah, OK. That makes more sense! Cheers.
|
|
By:
I probably framed that bit wrongly tbh, there isn’t really a good comparison since if you pick anything other than the fave in events with more than 2 selections you would have an equally bad record.
What I was trying to emphasise was that even the small print says you won’t win at CFD trading, so surely it’s an open goal for affordability checks, when they made a game of the activity and pushed it on the public. |
|
By:
If companies like Flutter really believed these affordibility checks were a good thing they would impose them on all their brands such as sportsbet in Australia and fanduel in the USA.
Reminds me of when Paddy Power were camapaigning to not allow FOBTs in betting shops in Ireland whilst laoding them into their UK shops. |
|
By:
Retail accounts can never go below zero - so you cannot end up with huge debts to pay.
That's not true, depends on type of credit account they offer - I have a credit account with a limit, but they will accept trades that go far above that limit in terms of potential liability (i.e. worst possible result). Not at all true that all retail accounts can never cause debt - (Sporting index do credit and large liability for example). |
|
By:
In any case, you don't even need to have credit or debt either - normal betting accounts have neither, but are being restricted!
|
|
By:
Good point about cryptos CB, hadn't even thought of that one!
|
|
By:
Entain (Ladbrokes Corals Bwin + +) fined £17m by the GC
"Ladbrokes owner Entain has been slapped with a £17m fine, the biggest penalty ever handed out by the UK’s gambling regulator, for “completely unacceptable” failures in preventing money laundering and problem gambling. The Gambling Commission warned the betting giant it could lose its licence to operate if “further serious breaches” were repeated. The record fine is the second handed out to Entain’s Ladbrokes and Coral businesses, which were hit with a £5.9m fine in 2019 for the same reasons. This was before the group was bought by GVC holdings and renamed Entain in 2020. The “serious” failures included conducting just one chat interaction with an online customer who spent extended periods gambling overnight during an 18-month period in which they deposited £230,845. Another online customer, who was blocked with Coral because they had spent £60,000 in 12 months and failed to prove where the money came from, was immediately able to open an account with Ladbrokes and deposit £30,000 in a single day. Incidents were also identified at physical betting shops. One shop customer was not escalated for a safer gambling review by either the shop or support office teams despite staking £29,372 and losing £11,345 in a single month. Among the anti-money laundering failures, Entain allowed an online customer to deposit £742,000 in 14 months without appropriate SOF checks. Another, who was known to live in social housing, was allowed to deposit £186,000 in six months without sufficient checks. All of these incidents took place between December 2019 and October 2020 – just before the Government announced a review of gambling laws in December 2020. The publication of the long-awaited review has already been delayed four times and is unlikely to come until a new prime minister is in place. Proposed regulations could include a £2 stake limit on online slots – like it was introduced in 2018 for fixed-odd betting machines in shops – curbs on customer deposits and checks on what players can afford. In anticipation of tougher rules in the UK to tackle problem gambling, some bookies, such as Flutter, have started trialling £10 limits on online slot machines and compulsory deposit limits for all customers under the age of 25." |
|
By:
One shop customer was not escalated for a safer gambling review by either the shop or support office teams despite staking £29,372 and losing £11,345 in a single month.
That's what? A couple of £250 each-way bets a day, with an average daily return of £600. How on earth is anyone supposed to identify that as a problem? It's what most punters call "just about breaking even". |
|
By:
losing £11,345 in a single month
To sensitive snowflakes that must seem terrible. But to us regular gamblers it just sounds like misfortune...just one of those things. I remember losing £4000 in one month (about 15 years ago) and it was a bit depressing but I analyzed my bets, realized why things had suddenly changed and got going again with smaller stakes and gradually turned the corner. Then, at Royal Ascot 2013, I lost £3000 in a day! That day taught me another lesson, that I should not take trainers at their word when powerful owners were involved. Again, I gradually clawed back this loss. At no time did I want counselling from Betfair or any one else. It is my money and I have the right to spend it on any legal activity that I like. The average gambler understands their own situation (and the mind set of other gamblers) as well as how politicians and non-gamblers think. However, the average politician hasn't got a clue about us and neither have the majority of non-gamblers. It is similar to how leftwingers have no idea how the conservative or libertarian thinks. They don't understand that there is not a canon of principles that non_lefties subscribe too. They create a caricature of the nasty Tory (in cahoots with BigOil, BigPharma and supporter of Brexit & Racism) On the otherhand, the Leftie buys into a complete package of policies as a matter of principle. So we have an uphill battle dealing with these blinkered people. (If I had my way they should be tongue tied as well as blinkered.) |
|
By:
Would it not be easier to get people to sign a declaration stating that they gamble at their own risk in the same way you sign a consent form before an operation?
If you end up doing your bollocks, you then can't claim you weren't responsible? |
|
By:
Marksman, I agree with many of your points about mindset in relation to gambling and non-gamblers.
But I disagree with your focus on this being a left wing problem - we have a right wing government and general population mindset, who are trying to restrict gambling right now. They are the people that need dealing with and convincing IMO. |
|
By:
I have a feeling these "affordability checks" are more to do with tracking money laundering
|
|
By:
I don't see this as a right v left thing more a pro or anti gambling debate.Making it right v left just splits us up.
|
|
By:
Marksman, I agree with many of your points about mindset in relation to gambling and non-gamblers.
But I disagree with your focus on this being a left wing problem - we have a right wing government and general population mindset, who are trying to restrict gambling right now. They are the people that need dealing with and convincing IMO. Totally agree Stu |
|
By:
I take your points about how we shouldn't make this a left v right thing. We do need to be united. I was just using left and right wing attitudes as an example of how one side understands how the other thinks whilst the other side hasn't got a clue. In this case it is the government/establishment/msm who are clueless.
|
|
By:
5 weeks on finally an UPDATE:
I have been gubbed, no increase at all. Here is what is said below, I am leaving the middle para off, its personal to my circumstnaces and will not share as is perosnal also to others, what I will say is that I hold over 6 fig savings but cruically do not hold a 9-5 style job/income, this being the main thing on BF's agenda seemingly Not looking for any sympathy whatsoever thanks, it's more to educate people with what they wil be asked for if they are caught in the net  -- I hope my email finds you well, Unfortunately, we will be unable to approve your request for an increase to your current deposit limit. With any increase it is solely based on a customers documented recurring income in the form of Pay Slip / Tax return / P60 etc. This approach is to ensure any increase which will allow you to deposit larger sums of money will both affordable and sustainable long term. However, in the future should your work work become an official position and income documentation become available to you, we will gladly review any documents you may provide. -- 5 weeks for the above....REALLY?  One thing I will say is that it is completely pointless being open and honest with them, I have explained my situation twice to two seemigly competent BF staff (hard to believe I know but they both knew their stuff), send over 20 personal documents. Yet still got absolutely nowhere. Its bias because of course its me that has been gubbed, but surely its the start of the end of a healthy exchange, your sat in a nice spot if you have accumulated plenty over the years undoubtably, but from a young persons perspective trying to make it pay gambling, you have absolutely no chance due to these checks. So yes itll last for awhile with who is on here, but they are basically accepting that the exchange gets absolutely no fresh blood whatsoever going forward? Go well all. Will continue to look in and occasioanlly post, Twitter better for decent discusion. (I'd post more but the place is completely unbearable with that TOSSA Gaze talking complete kack every 5 mins, Hulk is also full o kack but at least he has a bit of craic.) |
|
By:
I'd be surprised if things don't change for the better once these new regulations become law.
|
|
By:
Wouldn't hold your breath, Truss will be new PM, Iain Duncan Smith a big supporter of hers and will be a major player in her GOVT...and he basically puts gambling somewhere close to the anti christ.
|
|
By:
A shame swad but totally expected. They just don't listen.
|
|
By:
Just out of interest swad (sorry if missed this earlier) did you ever send them any payslip to show source of income, among your documents?
|
|
By:
TM and imposs123, come out come out wherever you are and tell swad its all for his own good.
 Thats 5hitty btw swad, I hope something comes of it that allows you to not be forced out just because others cant control themselves |
|
By:
I'm here dusty!
Refreshed by a 4 week break in the sun, I wasn't really planning on posting here upon my return. But what is your question? Are you still thinking it's all down to the commies and the pinko do-gooders or has it finally now dawned on you that the online bookmakers are massively over reacting and over correcting because they have mostly been breaking the (existing) law for the past 20 years? Let me guess, you are still wanting to blame the pinko, commie, wishy-washy liberal, draconian, interfering, big-brother state? and the online slots/casino sites masquerading as bookies, that have been breaking the law for the past 20 years are blameless?  |
|
By:
The problem is that no one at Betfair explains exactly what's going on.
I'm all in favour of affordability checks but not allowing someone with a 6 figure bbank account to deposit is just stupid even by Betfair's standards. |
|
By:
Someone with a job that pays 300 quid a week will be able to bet more than someone with a million in the bank but doesn't have a job
|
|
By:
Nobody at Betfair (or anywhere else) knows what they are doing JML. They are all just sh1tting themselves and panicking because they have been breaking the law for 20 odd years.
There are a lot of people on this thread that are (seemingly confidently) commenting on Affordability as though it is a new topic/demand that is being SUDDENLY introduced. Despite speaking with such confidence and authority - some of you probably want to go and read the existing (2005) act! |
|
By:
The regulator is the one that needs to answer to those allegations as to why they showed wilful ignorance, not just for that type of betting but the whole of IR where courses sold privilges to select few on data that was a clear advantage.
I said to you that the view you took of attempting to stifle enterprise was myopic and never results in the singular desired outcome you wished for (to hit nasty bookies unilaterally) when they have alternative options, and so it proved. To all those now negatively effected, do you consider them collateral damage and the ends of the likes of swaddle et al justifies the means? |