RE: markets12 Feb 2023 11:34
In the good ol' days, I remember a stop loss had a particular definition in Ts & Cs different from the few orders around at the time. As the mist of time has floated by, brokers have introduce an array of orders and the original stop loss appears on the surface to be nothing more than just another type of order now.
For there to be a declared difference in the definition you pasted, indicates to me that the original stop loss may still have some specific separate provisions from other types of order. Stop loses were introduced to protect the new wave of pis after some serious losses when sp movement was a bit wider than today on the main exchanges and the stop was placed higher up the execution chain such that it was not the high street broker, but a 'service provider' that triggered that very particular order to ensure it is executed as quickly as possible. I'm sure stop losses were introduced with that sort of arrangement before.
It may well be that now the specific stop loss tool is managed in-house with brokers. But like I say, the fact that that very specific tool it is mentioned in the description differentiating between SETS and SETSqx raises a red flag. Why is the company so eager to go back to SETS? What's the issue just sitting on SETSqx? LSE listing is maintained so what is the problem?