United Kingdom: review the execution result, not just the displayed price
When a trade's result differs from the screen you saved, compare the same instrument, side, quantity and time before drawing a conclusion. Then add the directly related execution charges. A lower unit price can still produce a higher purchase cost, and an unexplained difference needs evidence rather than a verdict based on one screenshot.
Make the comparison about one identifiable order
Keep the agreement's legal party, account classification, instrument identifier, buy or sell side, quantity and order reference together. A familiar ticker on two screens is insufficient if the product, currency or contract differs. Read the service and applicable execution policy before assigning a rule to the transaction.
COBS 11.2A.2 requires sufficient steps to obtain the best possible execution result, considering price, costs, speed, execution and settlement likelihood, size and nature. For a retail client's order, 11.2A.9 uses price plus directly related execution costs. This is a framework for assessing execution, not a promise of the most favourable price visible anywhere.
Label each timestamp: when the display was captured, when you sent the instruction and when the execution record says the trade occurred. Retain the timezone. A chart's last-trade price, a displayed buying price and the price on your trade confirmation are different observations; ask which one is relevant rather than replacing them with a single “market price”.
If your comparison is with another provider, label it as a comparison between services. It does not establish which executable alternatives were available for your order under the original firm's policy at that time.
A lower unit price can cost more for the same purchase
Assume a fictional cash purchase of 50 units of the same instrument. Route A offers GBP 10.00 per unit with GBP 4 of stated execution charges; route B offers GBP 10.04 with GBP 1 of those charges. Assume both can execute all 50 units on otherwise comparable terms. These are arithmetic examples, not live prices, actual venues or a broker ranking.
| Field | Route A | Route B | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unit price | GBP 10.00 | GBP 10.04 | A is GBP 0.04 lower per unit. |
| 50-unit purchase | GBP 500 | GBP 502 | B's price component is GBP 2 higher. |
| Stated direct charges | GBP 4 | GBP 1 | A's charges are GBP 3 higher. |
| Listed total | GBP 504 | GBP 503 | B is GBP 1 lower on these assumptions. |
Changing only the unit price hides the charge difference. Changing only the fee hides the purchase-price difference. Keep both components visible and do not count a fee twice if it is already included in the stated total.
This example contains only the specified components. It does not establish a customer's complete account cost, taxes, currency conversion or later holding costs. Nor can its simple cash formula be used as a leveraged contract's margin, maximum loss or withdrawable balance.
The comparison depends on the assumptions. If one route cannot execute the same quantity, uses another currency or is available at a different time, it is no longer the same calculation. Describe that difference before comparing totals.
Separate a specific instruction from the rest of the execution
Under 11.2A.12–13, specific client instructions are followed for the aspects they cover; the firm retains obligations for other aspects. The policy should explain execution and warn about the effects of specific instructions. For reasonable and proportionate requests about policies or arrangements, 11.2A.25 requires a clear answer within a reasonable time.
Write down what you actually instructed. “Buy 50 units”, a chosen venue and a price restriction describe different fields. Do not treat every checkbox or default on an order screen as evidence that you chose every aspect of the execution.
Preserve the submitted instruction and any subsequent change with their references. If the firm's explanation says a particular instruction affected the result, match that statement to the actual field and version you submitted. Ask about the remaining fields separately rather than assuming that one instruction answers every cost or timing question.
The policy you have today may differ from the version that applied when the order was placed. Retain the relevant dated copy or ask the firm to identify it. A general marketing claim about “fast execution” does not answer which policy, product or instruction governed this order.
Send a focused request that can be answered from records
- Identify the transaction: state the order reference, instrument, side, quantity and execution time. Include the timezone and label a screenshot's separate capture time.
- Describe the difference: compare the recorded price and directly related charges with the observation that prompted your question. Keep a later market move separate from the execution difference.
- Request the relevant explanation: ask which policy version and any specific instruction applied, and how the firm explains the result. Identify the field that remains unclear rather than demanding an unrelated complete market history.
- Reconcile the response: connect each answer to the confirmation, charge entry or instruction. Save the written reply and flag any remaining mismatch.
A price difference can be measured without establishing its cause. Do not label it a proven breach, an automatic refund or an inevitable market effect while the relevant records are missing. Likewise, a later profitable position does not answer an unresolved execution charge.
Questions about an execution comparison
Does a better price on another screen prove my execution was wrong?
No. First establish that the observation concerns the same instrument, side, quantity and time, and distinguish an indicative display from an executable alternative. Ask the firm to explain the relevant records.
Is the route with no separate commission necessarily cheaper?
No. Compare the price component and all stated direct execution charges on the same basis. A zero line item does not establish a zero total cost.
Does choosing one order field remove every execution obligation?
No. The relevant rules distinguish the aspects covered by your specific instruction from the other aspects. Retain the instruction and ask how it affected the particular result.
Official rule and its scope
FCA Handbook: current COBS 11.2A — execution factors, retail total consideration, specific instructions and policy information. Check the section's application to the service; other fund-management activities have different provisions. The example above supplies no live trade, market benchmark or conclusion about any listed broker.
