Because of the mixed code transaction, the customer's instructions are not reflected in the code. After the margin loss, many customers filed a lawsuit on the grounds that the futures company did not enter the market to hedge privately, demanding that the futures company return the margin. In this regard, there are two different opinions in practice:
The first view is that because the futures company did not code the customer's instructions into the market separately, it is impossible to prove that the customer's instructions have entered the market. Therefore, the customer's request to return the trading margin should be allowed. The reasons are as follows: First of all, mixed-code trading itself is a violation. At present, the trading rules of China's commodity exchanges mostly stipulate the customer transaction coding system. For example, Article 22 of the trading rules of Beijing Commodity Exchange at that time stipulated: "When members engage in agency business, they must set an independent agency code for each customer, and each customer can only have one agency code". Article 7. 19 of the Trading Rules of Zhengzhou Commodity Exchange stipulates: "The customer code will remain unchanged for a certain period of time; If there is any change, you must inform the customer before the transaction. " It should be illegal to violate the rules and conduct mixed-code transactions. Secondly, in the case that futures brokerage companies represent a large number of customers, it is difficult to distinguish the transactions of many customers, and futures companies often cannot prove which transaction belongs to which customer; Thirdly, due to mixed code trading, it is not excluded that some futures companies will put some customers' orders into the market only when two or more customers issue exactly the same orders at the same time, and take the trading results of this customer as the trading conditions of other customers.
Another view is that in mixed-code trading, it is necessary to find out whether the customer's instructions have entered the market. If they have entered the market, the customer's margin loss should not be compensated by the futures company. The reasons are as follows: first, mixed-code trading is a common phenomenon in current futures trading, and mixed-code trading itself does not necessarily cause trading losses; Secondly, coding is only a measure for the exchange to manage its members and prevent risks, rather than a sign to judge whether the customer's instructions enter the market; Third, coding or not is only a sign to distinguish this customer from another customer. Exchange matchmaking transactions are completed in accordance with the principle of time priority and price priority. Therefore, customers place orders at the same time, and there are differences in price, quantity, variety and direction; Even if the order is placed at the same time, the price, quantity, variety and transaction direction are the same, and the declaration order will still be different. Therefore, it is not objective to deny the trading of orders on the exchange floor on the grounds that customers' liquidation orders cannot be distinguished because of mixed-code trading. This view is practical and realistic, and it is also mastered in practice.