[fxchant]

Originally Posted by shrike

So if Hotspot would only have 4 mio. and still be owned by NITE, they would still be on your list? Those standards dont make sense.

That example proves perfectly well, that no conclusions can be drawn about a firms financial backing, solely based on the CFTC numbers. Looking at those numbers in isolation will not provide much insight.

Nice job Shrike. He's totally proving who he works for here.

[fxchant]

Originally Posted by forexsavior

Thank you for proving my point Shrike. The fact is Hotspot has over 5 million not 4 million. Ask yourself why Justin specifically pointed out Hotspot instead of one of the ones on the list that are below 5 million? It's because he couldn't find a firm on the dead pool list with a parent the size of NITE. But no matter, perhaps Justin will publish MB Trading's Financials and put this debate to rest?

Why should he? I don't get it? Why don't you put your personal taxes up here and let us see if you are rich enough to know what you are talking about, or just the hit man for one the firms losing business to the others? I am aware of NO law that states that a privately held company is required to show ANY public statement of their financial backing, but I do know their track record, and I'm quite sure that these guys run a tight ship. MB...please...NEVER show this clown a financial statement. We all know you rule and he's a tool. The world backs you and not him, I can see it in the private messages that I have received.

[fxchant]

Originally Posted by forexfun

The burden of proof is not on him, since MB is meeting the current obligation.

The burden of proof of financial insolvency is on you, since you are making the accusation.

That's the best quote on this WHOLE board. Well said. Well said.

[fxchant]

I've absolutely had it. I've seen hit jobs on companies on bulletin boards in the past, and I always thought it was in good fun, but I do realize that when it is a hit job and not based on anything substantial, it effects other people's lives.

There is ONLY one reality here as your "list" relates to MBTF/EFX. IF the proposed rule is passed in its current state and then IF MBTF/EFX fails to meet the new guidelines, then you were right. That's it. We're five months away from that point at a minimum, and I don't want to deal with you for that long, so I'm done for now, back at a time of my own choosing. I'd love to personally bet you on this one, but I know that you'll never come forward and give anyone your contact information because it is blatantly obvious what you are about. Another board has practically proven that you work for FXCM, and I noticed that once they did, you apologized for the conversation, acknowledged that EFX was a fine company, and then only continued to post on the other 20 boards that you have been spewing this nonsense. They even tracked your IP address (and that of a second person who was "agreeing" with you) to very near the FXCM location. I'm assuming you are acting rogue to protect the company, because I doubt that even the top brass at FXCM want to go down like this.

Having said all of this, I love your little stories about CEO's disappearing out of country when the NFA comes knocking at their deal-desk door (that never gets old), but for you to imply (or focus so strongly) on MBTF/EFX's financials gives you zero credibility on these boards. ZERO. Anyone that does a small amount of due diligence about the backing of MBTF/EFX can see how large the organization is. Justin's Hotspot/Knight analogy was spot-on.

The only true test of this is not if they are "lowering their speed" (great analogy, Justin) today in preparation for a speed limit change, but if they meet the requirement IF it should pass for 2008. If you would stop your nonsense and accept the fact that these firms have ZERO obligation and therefore no need to do anything right now, you'd come across as more credible. But then again, if I was the Hatchet Man for a firm, I don't think "coming acorss as credible" would be my concern. It would be "trying to distribute unwarranted fear to get people to shake loose and come to my firm." And that is obviously what you are going for. I suppose in the business world, anything that picks up your business is good, so good luck with that. But I would bet that about 5% of the people that read this board at this point are buying what you are selling, so maybe go back to your paid bosses and try a different tact. You can always advertise your firm in magazines if this doesn't stop the masses from leaving your company.

[TC East]

Thanks FX Chant for your much needed and welcome rebuke on this topic. I have an account at MB Trading/EFX, and I'm still pretty new, but I personally don't have any concerns about trading there.

I have wondered about this "forexsavior." Primarily, what is his interest in spending all of this time posting these messages? Is it all just out of the goodness of his heart, that he wants to "save" us? Is he really that selflessly giving, or just have a lot of time on his hands? Doesn't he have a job or something? I don't know, but with the inordinate amount of time he seems to spend posting here, it kind of makes you wonder what his true motivations are.

Oh well, in the end I don't really care, but it is entertaining to check up on all this from time to time...

[SeekingLight]

Hi.

So, er.

Can anyone actually give a final word on

a) how substantiated any claims on any broker are and how relevant or irrelevant all of this discussion is

and

b) does anyone have any details / points about the unregulated brokers, FXDD in particular, since I have read they are an FCM,but not listed under that report. They appear to be a subsid of
http://tradition.ch/company/presentgroup.asp

All in all - is all of this constantly reappearing fear around brokers in the aftermath of Refco very real or just very scared?

I'm blue-eyed so I am indeed asking without really knowing anything and basically want to know whether I should start living a paranoid lifestyle or just go on assuming that every $ or EUR I make is and will eventually be mine for the withdrawing.

Or to put it differently: I wouldn't look very happily upon making 500000% just to find out the broker holding that profit goes bust and 5 years go byebye in a heartbeat

So avoiding that would be nice, preferably, since I feel I just might be one of the few where it might make a difference whether they or the broker lose the money ;p

[Mr chips]

Originally Posted by forexfun

Do you ask the same of every single private (non-public) company you do business with?

If you do, you have your plan on what to do. If not...?

why shouldn't that question be asked? Most private company I do business with are not asking to hold my money in custody. That CFTC Report shows they don't have much money. And since they are coming on to the bulletin board to insist they do have a lot more money I think it is fair to ask them, can you show us please?

[caventou]

Originally Posted by SeekingLight

Hi.

So, er.

Can anyone actually give a final word on

a) how substantiated any claims on any broker are and how relevant or irrelevant all of this discussion is

and

b) does anyone have any details / points about the unregulated brokers, FXDD in particular, since I have read they are an FCM,but not listed under that report. They appear to be a subsid of
http://tradition.ch/company/presentgroup.asp

All in all - is all of this constantly reappearing fear around brokers in the aftermath of Refco very real or just very scared?

I'm blue-eyed so I am indeed asking without really knowing anything and basically want to know whether I should start living a paranoid lifestyle or just go on assuming that every $ or EUR I make is and will eventually be mine for the withdrawing.

Or to put it differently: I wouldn't look very happily upon making 500000% just to find out the broker holding that profit goes bust and 5 years go byebye in a heartbeat

So avoiding that would be nice, preferably, since I feel I just might be one of the few where it might make a difference whether they or the broker lose the money ;p

TRADITION SECURITIES AND FUTURES INC
N
NFA
06/30/2007
784,791
147
TRADITION SECURITIES AND FUTURES INC
N
NFA
06/30/2007
784,791
500,000
284,791
0
0
147 TRADITION SECURITIES AND FUTURES INC N NFA 06/30/2007 784,791

http://www.nfa.futures.org/BasicNet/...tityid=0271289

$784,791 looks like they do not meet the new requirement then.

[forexfun]

Originally Posted by Mr chips

why shouldn't that question be asked?

I didn't say it shouldn't be asked, I asked if you ask that of every private business that you do business with. As a private business, they're not required to show you jack. You decide based on their reputation, your research, and what you know, and your tolerance for risk.

Most private company I do business with are not asking to hold my money in custody.

That may be. I can think of private businesses that hold my money in other ways. I think the problem is, you want to think of this as an investment, which it isn't.

That CFTC Report shows they don't have much money.

It shows that they currently have as much as the NFA thinks they need to function in this market as their current status. You don't have any idea how many clients they have, etc. Suppose they had one client (I know that's not true, but bear with me). Would you say they had enough money then? What if they had a million clients?

Bottomline, you're subjectively deciding, but according to the regulation, they have enough money to function. You have to decide for yourself if you think that's the case, if you think the regulation will go to 5 million, and if you think they have enough/any backing to make a new regulation. They aren't required to show you anything on their books, nor should they in my opinion. They're not a public business nor an investment fund in the way that many people (myself included) think of an investment fund. I wouldn't want to show them my tax statements/bank statements for the past five years just to prove I can afford to purchase a mini account on the forex, because they have no right to it.

And since they are coming on to the bulletin board to insist they do have a lot more money I think it is fair to ask them, can you show us please?

No, they're coming on the boards to respond to a claim by an individual who is making an accusation, then demanding proof he is not entitled to. They're not coming on of their own volition to solicit business in this thread.

Savior has only really presented one bit of information relevant to the conversation - the CFTC report. Everything else, the stories, the allegations, etc. is window dressing to panic people or get them thinking in his direction. You can tell by his including of "Cletus Trading" beside his list and the way he phrases things. He is trying to imply those companies are incompetant/shady, when in fact, the ones that still exist haven't done anything wrong as far as he, you, or I know. Many of the stories he tells about fraud, if you READ the full NFA reports, show that the companies were committing fraud long before they were undercapitalized. He never actually mentions that though, because he's trying to imply a direct link between fraud and capitalization requirements. I can pull several examples of bigger companies with high capitalization committing fraud, I can find some examples of companies that became undercapitalized that left the market and didn't commit fraud. So in the end, did he prove anything?

The fact of the matter is that MB and other companies on his list are meeting the current requirements. If a new requirement comes along, they'll have to decide what to do at that point. Some won't make a new requirement, some will. But they don't have to prove ANYTHING until that point, because the regulation doesn't exist.

It's up to you to decide if you have enough information to go with them.

[Clubber Lang]

Originally Posted by forexfun

I. As a private business, they're not required to show you jack.

That sums up Forexfun's attitude Chips. In one sentence he tells you to "do your research" in the next he tells you essentially "its none of your business." forexfun in all likelihood works in the cubicle next to Justin at EFX. Beware any advice from this guy...

[fxchant]

Originally Posted by Clubber Lang

That sums up Forexfun's attitude Chips. In one sentence he tells you to "do your research" in the next he tells you essentially "its none of your business." forexfun in all likelihood works in the cubicle next to Justin at EFX. Beware any advice from this guy...

Says the guy that showed up on these boards last month when Forexsavior started taking a beating.

[forexfun]

Originally Posted by Clubber Lang

That sums up Forexfun's attitude Chips. In one sentence he tells you to "do your research" in the next he tells you essentially "its none of your business." forexfun in all likelihood works in the cubicle next to Justin at EFX. Beware any advice from this guy...

I wasn't aware that the only way to do research was to scan someone's books. Heck, how is that even remotely doing research? That's asking someone else to do research for you. That's also the first time I've said that the books are none of his business, but why let facts stop you from a smear comment?

Secondly, I have openly stated I don't work for a forex company. I dare you to find savior doing the same. He hasn't yet answered that question that I've seen. (it's possible I've missed it). Heck, half the people who post here don't answer that question, so I can't even hold savior that much as an example on it.

I do spend an ever increasing amount of time reading about this stuff, although much of my reading of late has been Futures magazine.

I'll place a bet with you Clubber. If you can show me any real evidence that I work with Justin or work at EFX, I'll a) apologize openly b) pay you a thousand bucks. Heck, 10000.... heck, a million. It doesn't matter to me how much you want because even if the site hosts were to give you access to the IPs showing where we come from, I know for a fact they won't show I work at EFX or MB. If I could think of a way to prove that, I would, but I personally can't think of any way to prove it in any realistic manner.

So in all seriousness, Clubber, you can take your pompous comment about "working in the next cube" and shove it. I love how the fact that I agree with Justin, it means I must be working with the guy. You know, cause I can't have my own personal opinion.

If you MUST KNOW, I am completely on the side of any private business in the case of open books because I own my own private business (non-forex or even financial related) and I've heard people on occasion ask me why I don't show them my books and open everything up. I don't have to - for one, my business isn't big enough to really want to, and secondly, *I'm specifically not a public business*. I'm not required to show you anything, but its amazing that customers will ask for that like they have some God-given right to see it. For one, it gives a potential competitor the ability to see how much money I have in whole - if I'm facing a bigger competitor, they can know about how much money I have to do battle with them and basically how much it would take to squash me. And that's only ONE of a myriad of possible reasons a private business could have for not showing their books. I have no idea why forex companies specifically don't have to show their books, but they don't, and from the perspective of the private business, until they're forced to, I'm on their side. If the NFA/CFTC wanted open books like that, I see no reason why they couldn't move to require that.

But you're right, I must be an industry plant. There are no other possible explanations.

[This is also the second unfounded insult you've tossed my way (the first being when I called to check on a company with the NFA earlier in this thread). I'm going to try to stay polite, but you haven't bothered to engage in polite discourse. At least Savior, as much as I disagree with him on some of his stuff, goes back and forth in conversation. ]

[ Yes, I also realize the irony of asking someone with the nickname of a Mister-T played boxer from a Rocky movie for polite discourse ]

[jjk2]

man what a crazy thread.

as for forexsavior....i dont know whether to listen to this guy or not. he does show some points.

as for mbt, im surprised they have capitalization of only 3 million? that kinda shocks me, i thought they've been around for over a decade...i thought mbt was much bigger than that.

its true that some marketmakers like oanda are trustworthy, but the conflict of interest as justin often pointed out bothers me a LOT. the fact taht a firm makes money each time you lose....

why is it that ECN players in the forex market is only MBT/EFX and IB? if this non dealing desk model is so trustworthy, why aren't others jumping into this ecn business? why have there only been such few ecn compared to market makers? mb because mm are more profitable?

but i think we see ndd is the ideal solution for retail investors, however, im curious, why haven't other new firms jumped in? the barrier of entry is not that high? or is it?

[Changzhou]

Originally Posted by jjk2

why is it that ECN players in the forex market is only MBT/EFX and IB? if this non dealing desk model is so trustworthy, why aren't others jumping into this ecn business? why have there only been such few ecn compared to market makers? mb because mm are more profitable?

but i think we see ndd is the ideal solution for retail investors, however, im curious, why haven't other new firms jumped in? the barrier of entry is not that high? or is it?

Just clear some points here:

1, Not only MBT, IB are ECN, but also include Spotfx, COESfx, Dukascopy, etc.

2,The set-up for a ECN do not be as easy as you imagine. It needs two core
competitiveness: The ECN technology; The relationship with banks.

3, Ndd does not equal to ECN. For ECN, besides Straight Through Processing(STP), clients can also view his open orders in Level II, aka market depth.

regards,
mike

[fxchant]

Originally Posted by jjk2

man what a crazy thread.

as for forexsavior....i dont know whether to listen to this guy or not. he does show some points.

as for mbt, im surprised they have capitalization of only 3 million? that kinda shocks me, i thought they've been around for over a decade...i thought mbt was much bigger than that.

its true that some marketmakers like oanda are trustworthy, but the conflict of interest as justin often pointed out bothers me a LOT. the fact taht a firm makes money each time you lose....

why is it that ECN players in the forex market is only MBT/EFX and IB? if this non dealing desk model is so trustworthy, why aren't others jumping into this ecn business? why have there only been such few ecn compared to market makers? mb because mm are more profitable?

but i think we see ndd is the ideal solution for retail investors, however, im curious, why haven't other new firms jumped in? the barrier of entry is not that high? or is it?

In case this hasn't been clear on these boards forever...deal desks make a fortune. Where do you think all of the money comes from that allows firms like Oanda to be capitalized so high? As a deal desk, you're basically just handing your account to them. At some point in time, they'll screw you on a trade and take a chunk of your money, and it ends up in their pocket. Having said that, what is the financial incentive for these companies that have been making so much money all of these years as desks to suddenly spend millions on routing technology, place millions in deposits with the various banks to get access to their liquidity, and drop themselves to earning a small commission per trade? The only real incentive will be when it is obvious that the average customer is smart enough to leave them for the others, such as MB and IB. Note that BOTH of those came into forex and never were deal desks. Both have strong reputations in the stock world of giving their customers excellent execution at a great price. That is the mentality that is needed to bring ECN trading to the forex world. The rest of these desks make too much money to care, but you can see that this is changing. That's why someone like Forexsavior suddenly shows up, trying to equate a bunch of small deal desk firms that you've never heard of going under with companies like MBTF/EFX. The damage is being done to the desks, and time is running out. And by the way, since the ECNs all can hook up together, my guess is that in the end, there will basically be room for two or three forex ECNs. The rest of these companies will cease to exist as all clients will end up there. It's a big money game.