An intermediary can charge you a fee for services or invest your money. It is either one or the other. They cannot use your 'money' for various purposes.
2
prop firm new model - my trading journey 871 replies
Anyone trading with a Prop firm 2 replies
So I accepted a Prop Trading job in South Beach Miami 43 replies
Disliked{quote} Curious to what the SEC has to say. Need to find their notice as well. Pretty much every prop firm could be guilty of what they are stating in that notice. MFF got hit because they are within their jurisdiction. US authorities don't give a shit if they have jurisdiction or not. They just seize shit and let the people try to recover. At least the Canadian tool got his pronouns squared away. {image}Ignored
Disliked{quote} Where is that mentioned ? In their announcement they only speak about Ontario hearing.Ignored
Disliked{quote} Those aren't normal legal notice wordings. That is the language of pyramid schemes intended to defraud investors. An intermediary can charge you a fee for services or invest your money. It is either one or the other. They cannot use your 'money' for various purposes.Ignored
Disliked{quote} You do not get my point correctly. Legal notice intended invite hearing. How to invite ? Accuse. In a personal case..the tone will be same but the content will be different. I have gone thro...and sent atleast ten's of notices. Sorry, not ten...may be 30, lol And in one sentense..it says, the firm owner used challenge money for personal expenses. lol. lol. He is the company owner. He can not spend for dinner and charge on to company or what ?? And I hope you understand what i mean the " Tone " of legal notices.Ignored
Disliked{quote} You are describing fee for services. A company, brokerage, etc can use the fees for services to do whatever they want. They cannot use investors money or invested money to do whatever they want. There are clear standards for the purposes that investors money (more flexible usage) and client money can be used (very strict).Ignored
Disliked{quote} You are describing fee for services. A company, brokerage, etc can use the fees for services to do whatever they want. They cannot use investors money or invested money to do whatever they want. There are clear standards for the purposes that investors money (more flexible usage) and client money can be used (very strict).Ignored
DislikedIf people think this is the last, they are sadly mistaken. Broker Armageddon 2.0 is here but for prop firms. Starting with anyone who sold coupons to US customers.Ignored
Disliked{quote} Sorry guys, my brain froze and skipped the US one. Those regulators even coordinate stuff... So nice to have such attentive people protecting us.Ignored
Disliked{quote} This is what I said...Ontario securities accusing firm and owner for which no regulation given by themIgnored
DislikedThey cannot use investors money or invested money to do whatever they want. There are clear standards for the purposes that investors money (more flexible usage) and client money can be used (very strict).Ignored
Disliked{quote} There are however standards for working with client funds. I suspect that Ontario would classify MFF as a 'financial advisor' by default since they aren't a brokerage, or a bank and so on and deem them to be governed by those rules which are similar to what I described. MFF would be deemed guilty until proven otherwise.Ignored
Disliked{quote} No. MFF ( or any other prop firm ) are private company for which no regulation needed until now. So, they can not blame model or blam firm owner for having dinner at company expense. The ontarian way of writing notices. The court notices ( even by me ) are far better than this. Accusing some one/some firm showing real matter ( broker matter ) is missing in the noticeIgnored
Disliked{quote} MFF is regulated by Ontario securities to ask such questions.? The notice talks about firm and firm owner. If the notice talks about MFF as a broker and legal fees for brokerage..then it is correct. MFF is a broker ? MFF is prop firm ? In what context, ontario securities sent this notice ?Ignored
Disliked{quote}-The things that MFF are being looked at for, are little different than what a broker already does. The question will be whether or not MFF is actually acting as a broker, in the business of trading securities and whether or not the business is structured in a way that legally constitutes a ponzi scheme. Terms like 'investor' and 'investor funds' were used deliberately, but are yet to be determined. There is a lot to consider here. We do not actually know how MFF is structured nor what they are doing behind the scenes. Everything is done...Ignored
Disliked{quote} navk, I don't have access to all of the information however I do know that private companies that handle funds for clients are subject to rules about what can and can't be done with these funds, similar to the rules that govern financial advisors. There is no umbrella of private company that lets you do what you want.Ignored