“ICICI Direct charging 1% brokerage on forced liquidation – not disclosed in plan. Is this standard?”

Trading
1

Hi all,

I wanted to sanity check something with the community — this feels off, but I want to understand if this is standard practice or a disclosure gap.

:pushpin: Situation

I hold a PRIME 4999 + iValue plan with ICICI Direct.

As per my plan:

  • Delivery brokerage: 0.10%
  • System square-off charges: ₹50 per order

Recently, ICICI force-liquidated pledged securities (SAM collateral) due to margin shortfall / system-triggered action.

:money_with_wings: What actually happened

On these forced liquidation trades:

  • ₹24.47L trade → ~₹24,470 brokerage
  • ₹44.71L trade → ~₹44,714 brokerage
  • ₹6.60L trade → ~₹6,605 brokerage

:point_right: Effective brokerage = ~1%

:exclamation: My concern

ICICI’s response is:

“System square-off uses spot brokerage (1%)”

But:

  • This 1% is NOT mentioned in my subscribed plan
  • Not disclosed in Commodity FAQ or Shares as Margin (SAM) FAQ
  • The only reference is a buried ‘spot selling’ FAQ under stocks
  • No prior notification or consent before liquidation

:warning: Why this feels problematic

  • These were forced (RMS-driven) trades, not voluntary
  • I had no control over execution or timing
  • Yet I’m charged 10x my plan brokerage (0.10% → 1%)

Also, the term “spot brokerage” is used without stating that it could be as high as 1%, which seems materially misleading.

:thinking: Questions for the community

  1. Is this standard across brokers during forced liquidation?
  2. Has anyone else faced ~1% brokerage in ICICI system square-off cases?
  3. Shouldn’t such a material charge be explicitly disclosed in the plan itself, especially for non-discretionary trades?
  4. Can FAQs override clearly defined plan-level brokerage terms?
  5. What is the economic purpose of charging 1% brokerage amount on the liquidated collateral? What specific costs or funding obligations did the broker incur during liquidation that would justify charging materially higher brokerage?

:brain: My current view

This seems less about the rate itself and more about:

Material pricing not being clearly disclosed in context where the client has no control (forced liquidation)

:pray: Looking for inputs

  • If others have seen similar behavior
  • Whether this is considered acceptable industry practice
  • Any guidance on escalation (if this is indeed a disclosure issue)

Thanks in advance — trying to approach this objectively before taking it further.