Hi Sam,feeling happy as got response from senior member,

I have checked with ACM and here is what they claim:

An overall market position is built from all customer positions (i think they might group customers into categories such as winners and losers, thus results in 2 market positions). They will hedge any risk that position exposes them to with institutional counter-parties.

First, I don't understand why customer positions can expose ACM to risks since there's margin call. Aren't customers solely responsible for the consequence of good and bad trades?

Second, I don't really know how the hedging can be done on an overall market position. I think maybe each currency pairs have their own overall market positions, and they hedge it accordingly. Am I right? There's another question. Aren't hedging means holding the other side of a position or at least something else on the other side should the market turns against the speculation? If ACM is hedging based on customers' positions, then ACM will win if the overall position is wrongly speculated on an overall basis. On the other hand, ACM will lose if the overall position is correctly speculated on an overall basis. This is because ACM does not own the customers' positions, strictly speaking. Hedging is only useful if ACM owns both sides of the position. Theoretically, if all the customers are good speculators, then ACM will lose. This brings me to this hypothesis: ACM does not like winners, and so they will try to make things hard for big winners by implementing those unfair practices I mentioned in my previous post.

Furthermore, if ACM's speculation is wrong, then their hedging will turn into a big loss since billions are traded each month. And if ACM is at a loss, there's no good news for the customers too. On the other hand, the institutional counter parties aren't nuts too, so why do they accept to be ACM's hedging partner while knowing there's a high tendency of losing?

So what do you think?