Last week the NFA issued their verdict permanently banning forward forex from membership. Here is the final decision:
http://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/...18&contrib=NFA
http://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/...18&contrib=NFA
Similar Threads
NFA case against Forex.com/Gain Capital 6 replies
NFA Takes Action Against Gain Capital 27 replies
What happens to brokers not meeting the NFA capital requirement? 4 replies
Is losing a requirement to be successful? 72 replies
MIG vs Northfinance Margin Requirement 2 replies
I keep trying to bail on this thread, and keep failing.....
Sigh. If you've been paying attention to what I was actually commenting in response to, Mr Chips said the following:
to a private business owner, to which I've responded, and now to which you have responded. That's what started this subsection of the conversation. You jumped into it and have now tried to hijack it somewhere else. That was SOLELY what the "show you their books" comments I was making was an original response to.
What? You don't think one could be defined? For example, if individual traders with 500 dollar mini accounts were the bulk of retail forex - say, 70%, wouldn't that be a "typical" trader? (I know that's not actually the account numbers nor monetary weight, I'm trying to paint a simple example). If you break down the percentages, there is going to be a "typical" retail trader somewhere - I'm guessing as to what that trader is.
I don't see a flub, as you portray it.
Ah, I see. You're thinking trading strategy defines a type of trader for my example, but I'm stating from a monetary standpoint, trying to delineate traders based on monetary values.
I'm defining "typical" different from you, so our conclusions on what they consider it will be different. This will end up being a fruitless discussion, because we don't even agree on the terms of "typical".
But they're doing it in a responsible manner, not using "dead" and "bankrupt" as descriptors. Which has been my main complaint with you all along.... and I get tired of explaining that.
But it isn't nearly as wreckless towards companies as what you say.
Note they qualify with possibilities, and you (especially early on) haven't done so. "Dealer Dead Pool" doesn't say maybe. "They're going bankrupt, run Forest run!" doesn't say maybe. They're responsible, you're not.
If they were so clear, so many people wouldn't disagree with your tone. You're not interested in finding out if companies can make the switch, you're making accusations of bankrupt and dead before you even know. And you STILL don't understand why people disagree with you based on that, because you think they take offense to the regulation part. It's you, you ninny, they take offense to how you portray things like Chicken Little, or how you commit libel and don't seem to care to bother to find out anything about those companies. They go on your "dead" list, some of them (well, one at least) is declared "bankrupt". If someone points out how you didn't check on something, your response consists of:
1) they must be working for one of those companies
2) I wasn't wrong per se, it's up to the company to correct my erroneous conclusion
You're right on one thing, more regulation is needed IMO.... but I prefer to actually SEE that regulation in place before I libel companies.
With that,for the moment, I defer to ForexObserv, who is more diplomatic than I, Justin, and the others who have been commenting here. I still can't believe that after 17 pages, you think that people disagree with the regulation... oy vey.....
DislikedOne again, I challenge you to state specifically where anyone said the only bit of research that should be done is solely asking for a firm's financial. You can't. because no one ever said it, except for you of course.Ignored
QuoteDislikedWhy don't you make your financial balance sheet public?
QuoteDislikedUsing a bit of sarcasm to cover up for your complete flub on this point? There is no "typical" retail investor.
I don't see a flub, as you portray it.
QuoteDislikedMany traders use different trading strategies as you can see from this trading forum. Some are long term and some are short term.
QuoteDislikedBut very few of them would tell you the money they have on deposit is not an investment. It may be a more high risk investment, but it is an investment nonetheless.
QuoteDislikedThey aren't just reporting these enforcement actions, they are proposing to raise capital requirements as a result of them.
QuoteDislikedThat is far more aggressive than anything I could say on a couple threads.
QuoteDislikedAnd besides the media is saying the same thing. Currency Trader Magazine said the proposal could wipe out "90% of the industry." Sure that's scary, but doesn't mean it might not be true.
QuoteDislikedI don't need a statistical study. The facts are quite clear.
1) they must be working for one of those companies
2) I wasn't wrong per se, it's up to the company to correct my erroneous conclusion
You're right on one thing, more regulation is needed IMO.... but I prefer to actually SEE that regulation in place before I libel companies.
With that,for the moment, I defer to ForexObserv, who is more diplomatic than I, Justin, and the others who have been commenting here. I still can't believe that after 17 pages, you think that people disagree with the regulation... oy vey.....
Folks,
I really enjoy the conversations, eventhough both arguments tell its own stories, and I can't decide which one to believe or even not believing of both sides, and I also know that if I ask for summary, there will not be an agreed summary, so I will ramble a bit.
We as traders have to go through a lot of barrier in the beginning (and I am still at beginning now), once people said that persons who join the trading industry usually above the average, because they want some challenge than any other, and this industry will filter and force those weak-persons out of the window, yes in the beginning we will have to read a lot, books, forums like this or any other articles that we found, we stared charts for thousands of hours and doing some spreadsheet supported by the love of math, so let's say after those obstacles are removed, we are then exposed to brokers, that have different interest with us, so again Capital Preservation is the weird thing here, and to conclude my rambling, in next few years, is this game will become easier or more difficult, does it mean we need to work for big boys, cause maybe they are not impacted with these kind of issues ?
I really enjoy the conversations, eventhough both arguments tell its own stories, and I can't decide which one to believe or even not believing of both sides, and I also know that if I ask for summary, there will not be an agreed summary, so I will ramble a bit.
We as traders have to go through a lot of barrier in the beginning (and I am still at beginning now), once people said that persons who join the trading industry usually above the average, because they want some challenge than any other, and this industry will filter and force those weak-persons out of the window, yes in the beginning we will have to read a lot, books, forums like this or any other articles that we found, we stared charts for thousands of hours and doing some spreadsheet supported by the love of math, so let's say after those obstacles are removed, we are then exposed to brokers, that have different interest with us, so again Capital Preservation is the weird thing here, and to conclude my rambling, in next few years, is this game will become easier or more difficult, does it mean we need to work for big boys, cause maybe they are not impacted with these kind of issues ?
- | Joined Jun 2007 | Status: Member | 371 Posts
DislikedYou're right on one thing, more regulation is needed IMO.... but I prefer to actually SEE that regulation in place before I libel companies.
With that,for the moment, I defer to ForexObserv, who is more diplomatic than I, Justin, and the others who have been commenting here. I still can't believe that after 17 pages, you think that people disagree with the regulation... oy vey.....Ignored
There is a big difference between you and me ForexFun. You argue on behalf of the firms on the dead pool list and merely cite your own opinion as proof that you are right. I argue on behalf of traders concerned about the potential insolvency of smaller firms that have a tough road to climb to meet the proposed capital requirement. Oh, and I also cite Regulatory websites and quotes from regulators to build my case. I'll let traders decide which they find more useful.
DislikedThere is a big difference between you and me ForexFun. You argue on behalf of the firms on the dead pool list and merely cite your own opinion as proof that you are right. I argue on behalf of traders concerned about the potential insolvency of smaller firms that have a tough road to climb to meet the proposed capital requirement. Oh, and I also cite Regulatory websites and quotes from regulators to build my case. I'll let traders decide which they find more useful.Ignored
)Keep up the good work, some of us (I for one) are learning a lot. Thanks.
- | Joined Aug 2007 | Status: Member | 5 Posts
Saviour:
I think you made some excellent points regarding questioning the principals of a company and their past history in the industry, as well as a company's history. Due diligence should be the key to any person's involvement in an industry replete with a history of scoundrels, scofflaws and collapse. But as you can see, people are hanging on the manner in which facts are represented as an indication of the accuracy of the principle. For example, your response indicated that "the NFA has not been able to trace where the transfer came in from [Page 6]." The Devil might be in the details, but Para. 5 indicates that there was a different FDM being audited who told the NFA that some of its customers were asking to go to Trend in May 2007; where as the Page 6 you refer to appears to have been FDMs where business was being conducted by Trend prior to May 2007. These appear to be very different allegations which you have assumed to be the same. It appears that the NFA was at the FDM in question in Para. 5 so I assume the NFA knows its identity. You are very right. The NFA Publication is very confusing on these points which is why I am not certain one can say with certainty what was alleged in many cases.
"The NFA’s concern is about the legitimacy of the funds Trend is using to capitalize itself. Are these funds legit? Where did they come from? In light of these outstanding questions the NFA is asking[,] it is correct to conclude that Trend is not meeting their capital requirement." This is where you and I respectively and respectfully differ GREATLY. Because the NFA has questions, you assert that "it is correct to conclude [although I think its assume]" that the ANSWERS are that the company is undercapitalized. Nowhere in the publication does it state that the company is undercapitalized or that the NFA ultimately concluded that there was less than the required capital. In fact the publication seems to state that the requisite capital was present but that the NFA had received information from an anonymous source that the had borrowed the money. Does this mean that a Customer should not do their homework and take into account these questions? Absolutely not. These are real and relevant questions and as a customer, they are questions that should make a customer do due diligence.
It is this concept of "assume" that causes problems, especially when the assumptions are stated to be facts. Did this company have less than the 5 Million Cap? Easy enough to check. Was the Capitalization in this case greater than the customer monies so that customer monies were protected? Well the Publication cited states that over $600,000 in customer monies were taken in; we know the capitalization requirement is higher than this threshold. The NFA never stated that inadequate money was found. Would it be dangerous or a violation for a company to allow the trading of $600,000 by customers with a $1,000,000 or $2,000,000 Capitalization being in place?Many people might argue that this is a pretty safe scenario. However if this amount became $6,000,000 or $60,000,000, a $1 Million capitalization might appear inadequate.
The NFA Publication never stated that the source of the funds violated any rules. It is important to differentiate what evidences a violation of the Rules and what should create a red flag in a customer minds. Your statement that it is a hurdle that should be cleared is precisely on point; however the assumption, conclusion or metaphysical certainty condemning not merely companies but people based upon allegations, questions or concerns seems draconian.
You seem genuinely concerned about protecting the customer, which is a noble and worthwhile endeavor. As indicated previously, I would put my money with you that the NFA Capitalization Requirements are going up soon and that massive shakeouts/consolidation in the industry are inevitable and forthcoming. But some of the posters have questioned the accuracy of the facts put forth in support of the arguments made. You cited Trend as the one example that typifies the problems. However this example which you have used has involved allegations in previous posts that Trend was
a. a "boiler room" [which the NFA has not alleged in the publication]
b. "involved in, take a guess, fraudulent forex options?" [there is no allegation in the Publication that any fraudulent options were sold through Trend. The allegation is that Guthrie, Kraus, Murelias persons named in the Complaint had been alleged to be involved in fraudulent options through the other companies in which they were involved.]
c. transferring accounts from Forward to Trend in May 2007 [which appears not accurate]
d. Was capitalized through a loan from customers [which the NFA never alleges occurred, as well as not alleging that it is not permitted although I could certainly understand how it could cause grave concerns for a customer]
e. Have alleged as a fact that Trend involved "some guy hustling rubes for money which is then used to front a firm's capital requirement." Wow. I never saw the NFA alleging that it was the NFA's contention that any person "hustled rubes." The NFA Publication stated that the NFA got an anonymous report that the Global entity had taken loans from Global customers. The NFA Publication never stated that it found any facts to back up this assertion as fact. Did the NFA find anything to substantiate this report or was this just a smear? The Publication does not say, although your posting stated that it is a fact. Perhaps you have more facts, such as were you one of the people who were contacted by the guy to loan money? This assertion seems to fall dangerously close to the category of what the poster ForexFun asserted was close to defamatory if it turns out that it was not true.
f. is a "Bucket Shop" [I have not seen any reference in the NFA Publication to sales practices or even sales being made by the Company. This was why I asked if you had some information regarding sales practices of Trend or even if it did any sales].
g. "the NFA orders all customers assets be returned to them." You have indicated that it appears that the return of customer assets was voluntary.
h. "Guess what? It's not all there. NFA says" I have read and re-read the Publication and cannot find anywhere in the Publication where the NFA stated that all of the customer money was not there or ever alleged any customer monies disappeared. The allegation that people were involved in stealing or misappropriating customer money is a pretty serious allegation. This was why I asked if you might have some inside information that customer monies had gone missing because the NFA Publication only stated that the money seemed to be returned very slowing by Washington Mutual (seems like an indictment of Washington Mutual).
i. is one of the "fraudulent firms. . . fleecing customers on the one hand and . . . . were caught lying through their teeth about how they were meeting their capital requirement." These are pretty heady allegations when there is no reference in the NFA Publication to any customers being fleeced. It was for this reason that I thought you might have a reference beyond the NFA Publication to these facts. For example (and you could confirm it privately) have you had contact with the NFA persons who conducted the investigation of Forward or Trend companies and knows more about the links between the companies that even the NFA felt it could officially publish? Because you have been so dedicated to the cause of protecting the investor and to be so tuned into the NFA's positions on these issues, it seems you have insight into the NFA which the ordinary investor does not have.
Once again, you and I (and it appears many of the posters on this page) are of like mind regarding the importance of capitalization requirements and the fact that the requirements are going up. This is a good thing. For the firms that have the financial wherewithal behind the scenes, it is just a matter of committing more in front of the scenes. Will the new rule be appropriate for every company? Hardly, but rulemaking is rarely one size fits all. The preference should be to overregulate and overprotect; however there is no need to throw the good guys out with the bad, merely the need to ensure that the good guys are large enough to not drown and take their customers with them. There is no need to unnecessarily demonize in order to protect the customer. The principles speak for themselves. I thank you for the hearty debate.
I think you made some excellent points regarding questioning the principals of a company and their past history in the industry, as well as a company's history. Due diligence should be the key to any person's involvement in an industry replete with a history of scoundrels, scofflaws and collapse. But as you can see, people are hanging on the manner in which facts are represented as an indication of the accuracy of the principle. For example, your response indicated that "the NFA has not been able to trace where the transfer came in from [Page 6]." The Devil might be in the details, but Para. 5 indicates that there was a different FDM being audited who told the NFA that some of its customers were asking to go to Trend in May 2007; where as the Page 6 you refer to appears to have been FDMs where business was being conducted by Trend prior to May 2007. These appear to be very different allegations which you have assumed to be the same. It appears that the NFA was at the FDM in question in Para. 5 so I assume the NFA knows its identity. You are very right. The NFA Publication is very confusing on these points which is why I am not certain one can say with certainty what was alleged in many cases.
"The NFA’s concern is about the legitimacy of the funds Trend is using to capitalize itself. Are these funds legit? Where did they come from? In light of these outstanding questions the NFA is asking[,] it is correct to conclude that Trend is not meeting their capital requirement." This is where you and I respectively and respectfully differ GREATLY. Because the NFA has questions, you assert that "it is correct to conclude [although I think its assume]" that the ANSWERS are that the company is undercapitalized. Nowhere in the publication does it state that the company is undercapitalized or that the NFA ultimately concluded that there was less than the required capital. In fact the publication seems to state that the requisite capital was present but that the NFA had received information from an anonymous source that the had borrowed the money. Does this mean that a Customer should not do their homework and take into account these questions? Absolutely not. These are real and relevant questions and as a customer, they are questions that should make a customer do due diligence.
It is this concept of "assume" that causes problems, especially when the assumptions are stated to be facts. Did this company have less than the 5 Million Cap? Easy enough to check. Was the Capitalization in this case greater than the customer monies so that customer monies were protected? Well the Publication cited states that over $600,000 in customer monies were taken in; we know the capitalization requirement is higher than this threshold. The NFA never stated that inadequate money was found. Would it be dangerous or a violation for a company to allow the trading of $600,000 by customers with a $1,000,000 or $2,000,000 Capitalization being in place?Many people might argue that this is a pretty safe scenario. However if this amount became $6,000,000 or $60,000,000, a $1 Million capitalization might appear inadequate.
The NFA Publication never stated that the source of the funds violated any rules. It is important to differentiate what evidences a violation of the Rules and what should create a red flag in a customer minds. Your statement that it is a hurdle that should be cleared is precisely on point; however the assumption, conclusion or metaphysical certainty condemning not merely companies but people based upon allegations, questions or concerns seems draconian.
You seem genuinely concerned about protecting the customer, which is a noble and worthwhile endeavor. As indicated previously, I would put my money with you that the NFA Capitalization Requirements are going up soon and that massive shakeouts/consolidation in the industry are inevitable and forthcoming. But some of the posters have questioned the accuracy of the facts put forth in support of the arguments made. You cited Trend as the one example that typifies the problems. However this example which you have used has involved allegations in previous posts that Trend was
a. a "boiler room" [which the NFA has not alleged in the publication]
b. "involved in, take a guess, fraudulent forex options?" [there is no allegation in the Publication that any fraudulent options were sold through Trend. The allegation is that Guthrie, Kraus, Murelias persons named in the Complaint had been alleged to be involved in fraudulent options through the other companies in which they were involved.]
c. transferring accounts from Forward to Trend in May 2007 [which appears not accurate]
d. Was capitalized through a loan from customers [which the NFA never alleges occurred, as well as not alleging that it is not permitted although I could certainly understand how it could cause grave concerns for a customer]
e. Have alleged as a fact that Trend involved "some guy hustling rubes for money which is then used to front a firm's capital requirement." Wow. I never saw the NFA alleging that it was the NFA's contention that any person "hustled rubes." The NFA Publication stated that the NFA got an anonymous report that the Global entity had taken loans from Global customers. The NFA Publication never stated that it found any facts to back up this assertion as fact. Did the NFA find anything to substantiate this report or was this just a smear? The Publication does not say, although your posting stated that it is a fact. Perhaps you have more facts, such as were you one of the people who were contacted by the guy to loan money? This assertion seems to fall dangerously close to the category of what the poster ForexFun asserted was close to defamatory if it turns out that it was not true.
f. is a "Bucket Shop" [I have not seen any reference in the NFA Publication to sales practices or even sales being made by the Company. This was why I asked if you had some information regarding sales practices of Trend or even if it did any sales].
g. "the NFA orders all customers assets be returned to them." You have indicated that it appears that the return of customer assets was voluntary.
h. "Guess what? It's not all there. NFA says" I have read and re-read the Publication and cannot find anywhere in the Publication where the NFA stated that all of the customer money was not there or ever alleged any customer monies disappeared. The allegation that people were involved in stealing or misappropriating customer money is a pretty serious allegation. This was why I asked if you might have some inside information that customer monies had gone missing because the NFA Publication only stated that the money seemed to be returned very slowing by Washington Mutual (seems like an indictment of Washington Mutual).
i. is one of the "fraudulent firms. . . fleecing customers on the one hand and . . . . were caught lying through their teeth about how they were meeting their capital requirement." These are pretty heady allegations when there is no reference in the NFA Publication to any customers being fleeced. It was for this reason that I thought you might have a reference beyond the NFA Publication to these facts. For example (and you could confirm it privately) have you had contact with the NFA persons who conducted the investigation of Forward or Trend companies and knows more about the links between the companies that even the NFA felt it could officially publish? Because you have been so dedicated to the cause of protecting the investor and to be so tuned into the NFA's positions on these issues, it seems you have insight into the NFA which the ordinary investor does not have.
Once again, you and I (and it appears many of the posters on this page) are of like mind regarding the importance of capitalization requirements and the fact that the requirements are going up. This is a good thing. For the firms that have the financial wherewithal behind the scenes, it is just a matter of committing more in front of the scenes. Will the new rule be appropriate for every company? Hardly, but rulemaking is rarely one size fits all. The preference should be to overregulate and overprotect; however there is no need to throw the good guys out with the bad, merely the need to ensure that the good guys are large enough to not drown and take their customers with them. There is no need to unnecessarily demonize in order to protect the customer. The principles speak for themselves. I thank you for the hearty debate.
The presentation is biased. That's my problem, plain and simple. You portray a negative bias on firms that are not currently underfunded. You don't merely post the list and tell people to draw conclusions, and I take umbrage with your indignation in acting like that's all you did. You use negative labels to reinforce your biases. You're not a statistical study, you're Fox News.
You openly admit you got burned by a small forex operation. Are you going to try and claim that doesn't bias your opinion of other ones?
QuoteDislikedyou do not believe the collapse of these firms is important (which speaks for itself.)
I don't need to call you out on this, heck, some of the board mods have openly called you out on this here. That doesn't mean every bit of your information is bad - quite the contrary. But it does mean you are biased.
QuoteDislikedYou have completely ignored the NFA's reasoning
QuoteDislikedand instead try to claim the problems of the past have nothing to do with the current NFA proposal, which is patently false.
Get it through your skull, that's my problem with what you're saying. You just keep ignoring or missing that point.
QuoteDislikedThree other media sources have discussed this issue and are of the opinion the industry will be dramatically altered as a result with one going as far to say that 90% of the firms under $5 million could be wiped out.
QuoteDislikedYou argue on behalf of the firms on the dead pool list and merely cite your own opinion as proof that you are right.
You argue that they're "dead" and "bankrupt" because they don't meet a number that hasn't passed yet - that likely will pass, but isn't in place yet. You already admitted that the passing is an opinion... one I agree with, but an opinion nonetheless.
Who's arguing the opinion again?
DislikedYou missed a really significant point that both ForexFun and the-man-from-EFX consider highly important. You live in New York.Ignored
If Halifax can find where *I* said that I knew Savior was in NY and that piece of information meant he meant he was working for another company, I await the quote. The post where I mentioned that other people said they think he was working for a competitor of his list, I even said I thought it was possible he was just concerned for the common person in this.
I did think that he works for a competitor of those companies on his list because of his bias in posting about them, but since he says that he doesn't, I have no reason to doubt his word at this time. Zealous as he is, I'm not going to call him a liar as to his work environment so long as he directly answers the question.
And if you think that's the only fact that I have brought up, then you're just flat-out wrong. If I were bored, I'd make a numbered list, but...... I just don't have it in me anymore. This thread is on 17 pages, and we're no closer to resolving anything. I'll let ForexObserv talk about other points, because I see he's started to post about them. I don't have it in my heart to keep arguing these points - it's not even remotely engaging, and there's no honest debate going on between the key participants. Observ seems to be making an effort, so I'll give way to him.
DislikedSaviour:
You are correct that the summary on the webpage it states "NFA has reason to believe that Trend and its principals have made misleading and conflicting statements and representations to NFA relating to Trend's capital and ownership, financial books and records, and customer accounts." This section of the Member Responsibility Action stated that the NFA had concerns and questions regarding where the capital for the capitalization requirement came from and as to who the true owners of the company were. These were the NFA's concerns. I did not read in there that the NFA had concerns that the company was ever undercapitalized, just that it had concerns where the capital came from. I think this is in part some of the objections made by other posters which is to look simply at the amount in the capitalization account is overly simplistic. Companies may have plenty of money in the account but might have other issues; companies may have a small customer base for which their capitalization is adequate to service.
You have also stated "Meanwhile, Trend was sharing the exact same suite as Forward Forex who were just formally shut down by the NFA for massive fraud. When Forward Forex tried to move their customers to Trend the NFA stepped in and took action because it could not verify where exactly the money to meet Trend's Capital Requirement was coming from."
Where in the Member Responsibility Action did it state that "Forward Forex tried to move their customers to Trend"? I have read and re-read the NFA Publication and cannot find any reference to customers of Forward Forex being moved by Forward Forex to Trend. There is one paragraph where it states that customers of a "different FDM" were asking to have their accounts transferred to Trend. This seems to indicate that it was customers who were asking to have money moved, not an FDM to FCM requested transfer. I am just wondering where did you get that these were customers of Forward Forex who were being moved? It sounds like you have more information than is in the MRA, which would probably help us understand the due diligence which should be done.
You then stated "The NFA said it has been concerned about the lack of protection for FX customers. 'From what we've been seeing and the enforcement actions we've been taking recently, for the protection of the customer in the markets, we really need to raise the minimum capital requirement for these firms," said a Chicago-based NFA spokesman."
Once again, I do not disagree with your conclusion that the NFA is moving systemwide to crack down on firms which it believes are (1) undercapitalized (not meeting the present requirement); (2) not adequately capitalized (while meeting the current threshold do not carry an adequate capitalization set aside for the volume of customers trading at any one time); or (3) whom the NFA believes is being operated for banned or otherwise criminal characters. I am not necessarily disagreeing that capital requirements are a crucial part of the analysis which the NFA conducts and which every customer should examine before doing business with a company.
However the question remains from my earlier post as to what were the facts upon which you were arguing that customers were fleeced in the Trend case? You said that the NFA ordered customer monies returned; however I did not see that in the NFA Publication. Was that true? You asserted that customers lost money in the Trend case as a prototype for the type of fraud which is rampant in the industry and that the NFA said that the monies were not all there. I never saw any allegation in the NFA Publication that monies were found missing by the NFA or that customers did not get their money back. You must have more information than the publication indicates, which I think would help support the argument on this matter.
If this is the typical "bucket shop" which you cited before, what were the sales practices of Trend which evidenced the type of fraud which customers need to avoid? I looked at teh NFA Publication and could not find any allegation or even discussion regarding sales practices. As I stated, I support your belief that a higher capitalization requirement will make firms place more money into capitalization and therefore offer a higher degree of protection to customers. Does more capital equate to more security? As a general rule, I think we agree in the affirmative. However you have held this up as the prototype for due diligence which customers should do and what can happen to customers if they do not do their due diligence. How bad were customers hurt on this case?Ignored
How did you write this entire thing in three minutes since savior's post to which you replied? You are a fast typer, Mister New-Poster-With-Three-Posts-So-Far-All-Continuing-The-Conversation-With-Savior.
FXChant
Singing the World of Forex
- | Joined Aug 2007 | Status: Member | 5 Posts
I think it was not 3 minutes but an hour, since my computer states that ForexSavior wrote "I will respond to you shortly" at 3:21pm and then wrote his response at "4:06pm." There were 2 posts between ForexFun and ForexSavior after that time. My response which you cited was posted at "5:08pm." So I am not certain how it was throught that I posted in 3 minutes. For the record, I am pretty fast paster (as in person who pastes, not person of the cloth) and an average typist.
- | Joined Jun 2007 | Status: Member | 371 Posts
Observ,
Excellent post. I only wish all my critics were as thoughtful as you. So let me address the points you bring up.
Regarding Trend not meeting their capital requirement, I don't believe they are (my opinion). Their finances are a complete shambles. Their bookkeeping is a complete shambles. None of the principals from Trend have been able to identify where customer funds are coming from. Trend has not been forthcoming about how they have capitalized themselves. You are correct that the NFA is not directly citing them for being undercapitalized. The use of the world "undercapitalized" was discussed before and I have since changed my wording to "poorly capitalized," meaning firms that are below $5 million are not as richly capitalized as firms above that amount. Undercapitalized has a legal meaning and thus I have since discarded the term unless a firm falls below the legal amount required to operate. As I have said since, firms on the Dead Pool List are not undercapitalized. They are meeting the current requirement. But they are poorly capitalized. In any case your point is taken.
Regarding the allegations that they are a boiler room and were involved in fraudulent forex options I continue to maintain my position regarding this. Trend shared the exact same office as did Forward Forex. The CEO of Forward Forex was drawing cheques on Trend's bank account. The founding principal of Trend is caught up in the FX Option1 forex options scandal. It defies belief that Trend is an innocent FDM caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. You are correct in stating the NFA is not formally charging Trend with fraud. But if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
In any case, after double checking the source material I have to concede that too many assumptions were made on my part that are not true and don't fit the numerous bullet points in the NFA report. This case is far too complicated to be lumped in as a case study for the proposed capital requirement rule.
As such, I am retracting the entire Trend Commodities Limited Post. In fairness to Trend I ask the moderators to delete post 139. Your points are well taken Observ. The Savior is able to admit when he's wrong.
Excellent post. I only wish all my critics were as thoughtful as you. So let me address the points you bring up.
Regarding Trend not meeting their capital requirement, I don't believe they are (my opinion). Their finances are a complete shambles. Their bookkeeping is a complete shambles. None of the principals from Trend have been able to identify where customer funds are coming from. Trend has not been forthcoming about how they have capitalized themselves. You are correct that the NFA is not directly citing them for being undercapitalized. The use of the world "undercapitalized" was discussed before and I have since changed my wording to "poorly capitalized," meaning firms that are below $5 million are not as richly capitalized as firms above that amount. Undercapitalized has a legal meaning and thus I have since discarded the term unless a firm falls below the legal amount required to operate. As I have said since, firms on the Dead Pool List are not undercapitalized. They are meeting the current requirement. But they are poorly capitalized. In any case your point is taken.
Regarding the allegations that they are a boiler room and were involved in fraudulent forex options I continue to maintain my position regarding this. Trend shared the exact same office as did Forward Forex. The CEO of Forward Forex was drawing cheques on Trend's bank account. The founding principal of Trend is caught up in the FX Option1 forex options scandal. It defies belief that Trend is an innocent FDM caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. You are correct in stating the NFA is not formally charging Trend with fraud. But if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
In any case, after double checking the source material I have to concede that too many assumptions were made on my part that are not true and don't fit the numerous bullet points in the NFA report. This case is far too complicated to be lumped in as a case study for the proposed capital requirement rule.
As such, I am retracting the entire Trend Commodities Limited Post. In fairness to Trend I ask the moderators to delete post 139. Your points are well taken Observ. The Savior is able to admit when he's wrong.
- | Joined Jun 2007 | Status: Member | 371 Posts
I have received some complaints from other forum users that my "Dead Forex Firms Walking Dead Pool" amounts to nothing more than scare tactics since the rule hasn't passed and since no one is yet required to meet the proposed $5 million capital requirement. In short, these little firms are being given a bum rap.
But those critics are missing the big picture. The Dead Pool is not meant to be fair. It is meant to single out those firms that have a low probability of meeting the proposed capital requirement (keep in mind Currency Trader Magazine said the proposal could possibly “wipe out 90% of the industry.”) The counter argument to that is some of those firms have additional capital they aren’t showing in the CFTC Capital Reports. That may be so but how is the average trader to know that absent firms showing us their company financials? My critics insist the onus of responsibility to find this out is on me because I am putting these firms on the Dead Pool list but I say the onus of responsibility is on the firms because it is they who are soliciting customers to trade at their firms.
Why the Dead Pool? Because traders should be aware of the very precarious state these firms may find themselves in should the rule pass. The time to know this information is BEFORE a firm goes under, not after it has gone under. That is why I have included so many stories in this thread detailing the demise of so many poorly capitalized firms. The CFG case in particular is an instructive one I encourage everyone to read.
True, CFG was undercapitalized while the firms in the Dead Pool are currently meeting their capital requirement. But the NFA was taken by surprise when they checked CFG’s books, who as late as January of this year showed they were meeting their capital requirement too. My point is “low capitalization” can quickly lead to “undercapitalization.” And while the firms on the dead pool are not undercapitalized (I take back any comments to the contrary regarding undercapitalized firms on the dead pool), they are poorly capitalized and thus a lot more likely to go out of business should this rule pass.
Finally, I want to make clear I'm not saying all these firms will be going out of business should the new capital requirement be adopted. Surely some will survive. And it should also be noted that a firm’s month to month Adjusted Net Capital on the CFTC’s website can change radically from one month to the next. While I joked about I Trade FX with the line “Run Forrest Run” after they posted negative capital for one month I never stated I Trade FX was bankrupt and their current Adjusted Net Capital figure shows them to have close to $4 million which means they are one of the most likely firms to survive the proposed capital increase. So the CFTC capital requirement figures are not the end all be all in this debate. That I will grant my critics.
But at the moment, that report is the only independent source for checking a firm’s financial health. As such it carries tremendous weight and needs to be closely followed by the trading public in addition to the many other things a trader should do when checking on a firm before they open an account.
But those critics are missing the big picture. The Dead Pool is not meant to be fair. It is meant to single out those firms that have a low probability of meeting the proposed capital requirement (keep in mind Currency Trader Magazine said the proposal could possibly “wipe out 90% of the industry.”) The counter argument to that is some of those firms have additional capital they aren’t showing in the CFTC Capital Reports. That may be so but how is the average trader to know that absent firms showing us their company financials? My critics insist the onus of responsibility to find this out is on me because I am putting these firms on the Dead Pool list but I say the onus of responsibility is on the firms because it is they who are soliciting customers to trade at their firms.
Why the Dead Pool? Because traders should be aware of the very precarious state these firms may find themselves in should the rule pass. The time to know this information is BEFORE a firm goes under, not after it has gone under. That is why I have included so many stories in this thread detailing the demise of so many poorly capitalized firms. The CFG case in particular is an instructive one I encourage everyone to read.
True, CFG was undercapitalized while the firms in the Dead Pool are currently meeting their capital requirement. But the NFA was taken by surprise when they checked CFG’s books, who as late as January of this year showed they were meeting their capital requirement too. My point is “low capitalization” can quickly lead to “undercapitalization.” And while the firms on the dead pool are not undercapitalized (I take back any comments to the contrary regarding undercapitalized firms on the dead pool), they are poorly capitalized and thus a lot more likely to go out of business should this rule pass.
Finally, I want to make clear I'm not saying all these firms will be going out of business should the new capital requirement be adopted. Surely some will survive. And it should also be noted that a firm’s month to month Adjusted Net Capital on the CFTC’s website can change radically from one month to the next. While I joked about I Trade FX with the line “Run Forrest Run” after they posted negative capital for one month I never stated I Trade FX was bankrupt and their current Adjusted Net Capital figure shows them to have close to $4 million which means they are one of the most likely firms to survive the proposed capital increase. So the CFTC capital requirement figures are not the end all be all in this debate. That I will grant my critics.
But at the moment, that report is the only independent source for checking a firm’s financial health. As such it carries tremendous weight and needs to be closely followed by the trading public in addition to the many other things a trader should do when checking on a firm before they open an account.
DislikedI have received some complaints from other forum users that my "Dead Forex Firms Walking Dead Pool" amounts to nothing more than scare tactics since the rule hasn't passed and since no one is yet required to meet the proposed $5 million capital requirement. In short, these little firms are being given a bum rap.
But those critics are missing the big picture. The Dead Pool is not meant to be fair. It is meant to single out those firms that have a low probability of meeting the proposed capital requirement (keep in mind Currency Trader Magazine said the proposal could possibly “wipe out 90% of the industry.”) The counter argument to that is some of those firms have additional capital they aren’t showing in the CFTC Capital Reports. That may be so but how is the average trader to know that absent firms showing us their company financials? My critics insist the onus of responsibility to find this out is on me because I am putting these firms on the Dead Pool list but I say the onus of responsibility is on the firms because it is they who are soliciting customers to trade at their firms.
Why the Dead Pool? Because traders should be aware of the very precarious state these firms may find themselves in should the rule pass. The time to know this information is BEFORE a firm goes under, not after it has gone under. That is why I have included so many stories in this thread detailing the demise of so many poorly capitalized firms. The CFG case in particular is an instructive one I encourage everyone to read.
True, CFG was undercapitalized while the firms in the Dead Pool are currently meeting their capital requirement. But the NFA was taken by surprise when they checked CFG’s books, who as late as January of this year showed they were meeting their capital requirement too. My point is “low capitalization” can quickly lead to “undercapitalization.” And while the firms on the dead pool are not undercapitalized (I take back any comments to the contrary regarding undercapitalized firms on the dead pool), they are poorly capitalized and thus a lot more likely to go out of business should this rule pass.
Finally, I want to make clear I'm not saying all these firms will be going out of business should the new capital requirement be adopted. Surely some will survive. And it should also be noted that a firm’s month to month Adjusted Net Capital on the CFTC’s website can change radically from one month to the next. While I joked about I Trade FX with the line “Run Forrest Run” after they posted negative capital for one month I never stated I Trade FX was bankrupt and their current Adjusted Net Capital figure shows them to have close to $4 million which means they are one of the most likely firms to survive the proposed capital increase. So the CFTC capital requirement figures are not the end all be all in this debate. That I will grant my critics.
But at the moment, that report is the only independent source for checking a firm’s financial health. As such it carries tremendous weight and needs to be closely followed by the trading public in addition to the many other things a trader should do when checking on a firm before they open an account.Ignored
I have been a critic of using the Net Capital as the sole basis for selecting a broker due to the fact that many firms don't tie up excessive net capital when it can be put to better use. That being said:
I do feel that one can feel more comfortable dealing with the top 5-10 FDMs than the smaller ones. However, I do feel it is critical to incorporate other factors into selecting a broker, specifically:
A) How long as the FDM been around? If a firm has been around a long time, one can feel better about dealing with them (please no Refco argument here as that was a different matter altogether).
B) What type of software do they provide? It is important for any trader to understand the limitations of ANY SOFTWARE. The platforms of the largest banks go down because all technology has imperfections. That being said, some are more reliable than others.
C) What type of trading methodology will you be using? Are you scalper or a news-time trader? There are positives and negatives when dealing with a matching platform versus a marketmaker platform.
D) Are you comfortable with who you're dealing with? Do you know who your rep is at your firm? Do you know the dealers? Are they licensed APs or just some college kids working a sales job for the summer?
Finally...EVERY firm is in it to make money. As far as I know, there aren't any non-profits operating in the FX market (on any level). And before you point a finger squarely at your big bad dealing desk and their executions, remember the retail trader is the VERY FIRST to try and exploit platform imperfections or price anomalies...its the name of the game. Don't be a hypocrite. Know the rules before you enter. What I mean by that is: If it sounds too good to be true, it is.
If you hear of an offshore firm or brand new FCM offering choice pricing, guaranteed fills, etc.- beware. CAVEAT EMPTOR!
DislikedI have been a critic of using the Net Capital as the sole basis for selecting a broker due to the fact that many firms don't tie up excessive net capital when it can be put to better use. That being said:
I do feel that one can feel more comfortable dealing with the top 5-10 FDMs than the smaller ones. However, I do feel it is critical to incorporate other factors into selecting a broker, specifically:
A) How long as the FDM been around? If a firm has been around a long time, one can feel better about dealing with them (please no Refco argument here as that was a different matter altogether).
B) What type of software do they provide? It is important for any trader to understand the limitations of ANY SOFTWARE. The platforms of the largest banks go down because all technology has imperfections. That being said, some are more reliable than others.
C) What type of trading methodology will you be using? Are you scalper or a news-time trader? There are positives and negatives when dealing with a matching platform versus a marketmaker platform.
D) Are you comfortable with who you're dealing with? Do you know who your rep is at your firm? Do you know the dealers? Are they licensed APs or just some college kids working a sales job for the summer?
Finally...EVERY firm is in it to make money. As far as I know, there aren't any non-profits operating in the FX market (on any level). And before you point a finger squarely at your big bad dealing desk and their executions, remember the retail trader is the VERY FIRST to try and exploit platform imperfections or price anomalies...its the name of the game. Don't be a hypocrite. Know the rules before you enter. What I mean by that is: If it sounds too good to be true, it is.
If you hear of an offshore firm or brand new FCM offering choice pricing, guaranteed fills, etc.- beware. CAVEAT EMPTOR!Ignored
DislikedI have received some complaints from other forum users that my "Dead Forex Firms Walking Dead Pool" amounts to nothing more than scare tactics since the rule hasn't passed and since no one is yet required to meet the proposed $5 million capital requirement. In short, these little firms are being given a bum rap.
But those critics are missing the big picture. The Dead Pool is not meant to be fair. It is meant to single out those firms that have a low probability of meeting the proposed capital requirement (keep in mind Currency Trader Magazine said the proposal could possibly “wipe out 90% of the industry.”) The counter argument to that is some of those firms have additional capital they aren’t showing in the CFTC Capital Reports. That may be so but how is the average trader to know that absent firms showing us their company financials? My critics insist the onus of responsibility to find this out is on me because I am putting these firms on the Dead Pool list but I say the onus of responsibility is on the firms because it is they who are soliciting customers to trade at their firms.
Why the Dead Pool? Because traders should be aware of the very precarious state these firms may find themselves in should the rule pass. The time to know this information is BEFORE a firm goes under, not after it has gone under. That is why I have included so many stories in this thread detailing the demise of so many poorly capitalized firms. The CFG case in particular is an instructive one I encourage everyone to read.
True, CFG was undercapitalized while the firms in the Dead Pool are currently meeting their capital requirement. But the NFA was taken by surprise when they checked CFG’s books, who as late as January of this year showed they were meeting their capital requirement too. My point is “low capitalization” can quickly lead to “undercapitalization.” And while the firms on the dead pool are not undercapitalized (I take back any comments to the contrary regarding undercapitalized firms on the dead pool), they are poorly capitalized and thus a lot more likely to go out of business should this rule pass.
Finally, I want to make clear I'm not saying all these firms will be going out of business should the new capital requirement be adopted. Surely some will survive. And it should also be noted that a firm’s month to month Adjusted Net Capital on the CFTC’s website can change radically from one month to the next. While I joked about I Trade FX with the line “Run Forrest Run” after they posted negative capital for one month I never stated I Trade FX was bankrupt and their current Adjusted Net Capital figure shows them to have close to $4 million which means they are one of the most likely firms to survive the proposed capital increase. So the CFTC capital requirement figures are not the end all be all in this debate. That I will grant my critics.
But at the moment, that report is the only independent source for checking a firm’s financial health. As such it carries tremendous weight and needs to be closely followed by the trading public in addition to the many other things a trader should do when checking on a firm before they open an account.Ignored
Forexsavior...I do believe that you would find that you would be taken more seriously if your general demeanor was like this more often. You have to admit that you didn't show up and say "Hey, guys, did you know that the NFA is considering moving the capital requirement to $5 million at some point in the future, probably early 2008, and here is a list of firms that currently don't meet that requirement, so let's have a discussion about these firms and see what we can find out?"
Do you see the difference? I think you would have been taken very seriously because the nature of the forex marketplace leads to a lot of bucket shops setting up and robbing people blind. We were talking about that all of the time on these boards long before you showed up to "enlighten" us.
Instead, you insinuated from the start that all of these firms were of equal risk. I've seen your posts on many boards, and in fact, in many places, it singled out MBTF/EFX in the title of your Dead Pool posting. To imply that firms like Hotspot or MBTF/EFX or several of these other firms, no matter what they show NOW for their net capital, are even remotely similar to some of these other firms is absurd, and most of us know that. To continue to hammer them in particular makes you look, well, less than credible.
So again, if you want to have a discussion of the merits of raising the net cap requirement (next year) to $5 million, if you want to talk about the backgrounds of specific firms and whether they have the deep pockets to proceed, if you want to talk about the differences between NDD and Deal Desk firms and their respective market risks, if you want to talk about how some of the bigger firms actually got their large capitalizations over the last few years, and heck, if you want to tell us the funny stories of the firms where the CEO runs out the back door as the NFA comes in the front, well, I'm all for it. I haven't really seen any postings here that suggest that everyone wouldn't be fine with that.
But it isn't about your magical $5 million number right now. If you are going to insinuate that some of these firms are in danger when a little bit of extra due diligence on the part of any of us would suggest otherwise, and especially if you are going to do all this while singling out the firms that are obviously having a positive impact on the industry for the retail consumer, then I think your credibility quickly goes from "high" to "zero." You can't escape the fact that your wish for a $5 million capitalization is still a conversation. It isn't a reality. No firm is required to do anything except follow the law. I would suggest that in some of your posts, you come closer to violating libel laws than these firms do in violating the current reporting requirements. This is the point where you become discredited. I personally do believe that the requirement will be raise. Will it be $5 million for sure? I don't think anyone knows that. What if it ends up being $7 million? $3.5 million? Are you going to go back and apologize to the firms that were above $3.5 million but under $5 million for EVER listing them on your list?
The conversation can be interesting and educational. Your goals are questionable. No one wastes this much time talking on boards about this stuff just because he/she "got burnt once in the past by a firm." We can all see through that. You are here to speak for a reason, and each time you cross the line between factual discussion and insinuation, you make us all not care and you open yourself, in my opinion, to legal action from the firms that you're committing libel against. So maybe, let's keep it to the tone of the board that you just posted, and this might be a better conversation for all.
FXChant
Singing the World of Forex
DislikedI have been a critic of using the Net Capital as the sole basis for selecting a broker due to the fact that many firms don't tie up excessive net capital when it can be put to better use. That being said:
I do feel that one can feel more comfortable dealing with the top 5-10 FDMs than the smaller ones. However, I do feel it is critical to incorporate other factors into selecting a broker, specifically:
A) How long as the FDM been around? If a firm has been around a long time, one can feel better about dealing with them (please no Refco argument here as that was a different matter altogether).
B) What type of software do they provide? It is important for any trader to understand the limitations of ANY SOFTWARE. The platforms of the largest banks go down because all technology has imperfections. That being said, some are more reliable than others.
C) What type of trading methodology will you be using? Are you scalper or a news-time trader? There are positives and negatives when dealing with a matching platform versus a marketmaker platform.
D) Are you comfortable with who you're dealing with? Do you know who your rep is at your firm? Do you know the dealers? Are they licensed APs or just some college kids working a sales job for the summer?
Finally...EVERY firm is in it to make money. As far as I know, there aren't any non-profits operating in the FX market (on any level). And before you point a finger squarely at your big bad dealing desk and their executions, remember the retail trader is the VERY FIRST to try and exploit platform imperfections or price anomalies...its the name of the game. Don't be a hypocrite. Know the rules before you enter. What I mean by that is: If it sounds too good to be true, it is.
If you hear of an offshore firm or brand new FCM offering choice pricing, guaranteed fills, etc.- beware. CAVEAT EMPTOR!Ignored
FXChant
Singing the World of Forex
- | Joined Jun 2007 | Status: Member | 371 Posts
FX Chant,
You are in no position to lecture ANYONE about civility. If I recall it was you who threatened the use of violence in one post. It is you who questioned the motives of not only me, but of a whole host of other posters on this thread (i.e. insinuating that FX Oberv was somehow flaking for me when you said "Mister New-Poster-With-Three-Posts-So-Far-All-Continuing-The-Conversation-With-Savior.") Your rudeness is well documented so for someone throwing around charges of libel you really need to take a look in the mirror.
But, since you are holding out an Olive Branch I think it only appropriate I do the same. I have made it clear not every firm on that list will go out of business should the proposal pass. But as I have said it is perfectly legitimate to point out to the trading public which firms are currently not meeting the proposed requirement. This is something that should be taken into consideration by the trading public when conducting their due diligence. And I will stand by that position.
You are in no position to lecture ANYONE about civility. If I recall it was you who threatened the use of violence in one post. It is you who questioned the motives of not only me, but of a whole host of other posters on this thread (i.e. insinuating that FX Oberv was somehow flaking for me when you said "Mister New-Poster-With-Three-Posts-So-Far-All-Continuing-The-Conversation-With-Savior.") Your rudeness is well documented so for someone throwing around charges of libel you really need to take a look in the mirror.
But, since you are holding out an Olive Branch I think it only appropriate I do the same. I have made it clear not every firm on that list will go out of business should the proposal pass. But as I have said it is perfectly legitimate to point out to the trading public which firms are currently not meeting the proposed requirement. This is something that should be taken into consideration by the trading public when conducting their due diligence. And I will stand by that position.
DislikedFX Chant,
You are in no position to lecture ANYONE about civility.Ignored
QuoteDislikedIf I recall it was you who threatened the use of violence in one post.
Hardly. Saying "Anyone that talks down about Justin after all of the time that he has spent educating us on these boards should be smacked" is not a threat of violence.
QuoteDislikedIt is you who questioned the motives of not only me, but of a whole host of other posters on this thread (i.e. insinuating that FX Oberv was somehow flaking for me when you said "Mister New-Poster-With-Three-Posts-So-Far-All-Continuing-The-Conversation-With-Savior.")
Yes, I question your motives, and I will always question the motives of a new poster that appears suddenly and only posts on this particular board in a manner that supports your agenda. Whether he is with you or not doesn't matter, but I would prefer that ANYONE on ANY BOARD discussing ANYTHING note when something like this happens. These boards can be used as propaganda tools by too many people. It isn't hard for you to start a second name to agree with you. Whether that is or is not the case is up to the rest of the readers to decide, as long as things like that are pointed out to them.
QuoteDislikedYour rudeness is well documented so for someone throwing around charges of libel you really need to take a look in the mirror.
I doubt most people on these forums would agree with that either based on the private messages that I receive. As for "libel," I don't quite get the point. You are doing something that (intentionally or not) is intended to financially effect brokers that may well be legitimate. I'm not affecting you financially. Having a debate with someone doesn't quite count as libelling them.
QuoteDislikedBut, since you are holding out an Olive Branch I think it only appropriate I do the same. I have made it clear not every firm on that list will go out of business should the proposal pass. But as I have said it is perfectly legitimate to point out to the trading public which firms are currently not meeting the proposed requirement. This is something that should be taken into consideration by the trading public when conducting their due diligence.
Agreed. That, and all of the other considerations when looking into the background of companies engaging in retail forex trading before you deposit a check with someone.
FXChant
Singing the World of Forex
- | Joined Jun 2007 | Status: Member | 371 Posts
Even Justin disapproved of your comment so don’t try to pretend that what you said was anything other than a threat of violence. That alone discredits you and opens you up to your own legal liability. Lucky for you I’m not the litigious type.
In any case I’m tired of this back and forth with you. I’m sticking to the issue at hand. If you want to attack my motives and the motives of anyone who posts on this board from now on fine, go ahead. But I think most readers can see through your attacks on people like FX Observ and in the end that only kills your credibility. So if you want to keep doing this in the future- be my guest.
In any case I’m tired of this back and forth with you. I’m sticking to the issue at hand. If you want to attack my motives and the motives of anyone who posts on this board from now on fine, go ahead. But I think most readers can see through your attacks on people like FX Observ and in the end that only kills your credibility. So if you want to keep doing this in the future- be my guest.
DislikedEven Justin disapproved of your comment so don’t try to pretend that what you said was anything other than a threat of violence. That alone discredits you and opens you up to your own legal liability. Lucky for you I’m not the litigious type.
In any case I’m tired of this back and forth with you. I’m sticking to the issue at hand. If you want to attack my motives and the motives of anyone who posts on this board from now on fine, go ahead. But I think most readers can see through your attacks on people like FX Observ and in the end that only kills your credibility. So if you want to keep doing this in the future- be my guest.Ignored
FXChant
Singing the World of Forex