Prop Firm Hub | Page 1062 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Featured US Prop Firms

Similar Threads

Anyone trading with a Prop firm 33 replies

So I accepted a Prop Trading job in South Beach Miami 44 replies

prop firm new model - my trading journey 871 replies

Attachments: Prop Firm Hub
Exit Attachments

Prop Firm Hub

  • #21,221
  • Sep 8, 2023 1:52pm Sep 8, 2023 1:52pm
I am hopeful for a soft landing in this but I am imaging a world where MFF wins or settles amicably with retractions of fraud allegations but seeing the fundednext investigation regarding india and various other things going on, it might be a collective effort to shut down props globally.

With the noise going on, the UK firms should be very uncomfortable.
  • #21,222
  • Sep 8, 2023 1:53pm Sep 8, 2023 1:53pm
Quoting SirMcPip
{quote} In Uk, they already shut down blufx as far as i know. When US citizens are involved, things might move at least a bit faster. Usually things swap over to Europe. I think in this case the potential target of main interest is on the mainland.
I don't think anyone got their fees or profits back at all from blufx after they closed it.
Do you know if all hope is lost for their customers or pending the end of trials and what have you, there maybe a chance to recover the funds?
  • #21,223
  • Sep 8, 2023 2:02pm Sep 8, 2023 2:02pm
Quoting Nsak3y
{quote}-It's difficult to say whether or not the SEC charges against SurgeTrader led, in any way, to MFF's investigation, but whatever outcome that we see with MFF will likely set the tone and pave the way for other firms, good or bad.
I am not familiar with the surge trader case, so i cant say anything about that. With MFF, probably so but this will drag on a bit, so in my humble view most shops will be out of business anyway by then...unless they change their business model without waiting for this MFF case to close.
  • #21,224
  • Sep 8, 2023 2:06pm Sep 8, 2023 2:06pm
Quoting SirMcPip
{quote} I am not familiar with the surge trader case, so i cant say anything about that. With MFF, probably so but this will drag on a bit, so in my humble view most shops will be out of business anyway by then...unless they change their business model without waiting for this MFF case to close.
surgetrader literally stole from people at church. lol
  • #21,225
  • Sep 8, 2023 2:10pm Sep 8, 2023 2:10pm
Quoting Takisd
I am hopeful for a soft landing in this but I am imaging a world where MFF wins or settles amicably with retractions of fraud allegations but seeing the fundednext investigation regarding india and various other things going on, it might be a collective effort to shut down props globally. With the noise going on, the UK firms should be very uncomfortable.
Although it might not be popular, i have to quote Gil Ben Hur once again. As long as firms trade their own money and their business model is based on generating profits from trading, it will be very hard to regulate companies, even if they provide demo challenges beforehand. In my view, that sums it up. Any company can do with their funds as they please. However, the majority of companies advertize this model but operate in a completely different fashion. That is what this MFF trial is all about. Their model had nothing to do with trading the firms capital and generating trading profits.
  • #21,226
  • Sep 8, 2023 2:12pm Sep 8, 2023 2:12pm
Quoting Takisd
{quote} surgetrader literally stole from people at church. lol
Wow thanks, will read about it over the weekend
  • #21,227
  • Sep 8, 2023 2:14pm Sep 8, 2023 2:14pm
Quoting OutThere
{quote} I don't think anyone got their fees or profits back at all from blufx after they closed it. Do you know if all hope is lost for their customers or pending the end of trials and what have you, there maybe a chance to recover the funds?
I really wouldnt know anything about it, i just been reading one article that was it.
  • #21,228
  • Sep 8, 2023 2:23pm Sep 8, 2023 2:23pm
Quoting Takisd
I am hopeful for a soft landing in this but I am imaging a world where MFF wins or settles amicably with retractions of fraud allegations but seeing the fundednext investigation regarding india and various other things going on, it might be a collective effort to shut down props globally. With the noise going on, the UK firms should be very uncomfortable.
The MFF profit numbers are eye openers for many off shore brokers and other entrepreneurs leading to more similar funding solutions being offered. Don't under estimate the power of greed. However, US citizens might be having a bit hard time for finding feasible funding options.
  • #21,229
  • Sep 8, 2023 2:28pm Sep 8, 2023 2:28pm
Quoting SirMcPip
{quote} Although it might not be popular, i have to quote Gil Ben Hur once again. As long as firms trade their own money and their business model is based on generating profits from trading, it will be very hard to regulate companies, even if they provide demo challenges beforehand. In my view, that sums it up. Any company can do with their funds as they please. However, the majority of companies advertize this model but operate in a completely different fashion. That is what this MFF trial is all about. Their model had nothing to do with trading...
sorry, thats not what the case is about.

The case is about whether or not fraud took place in the case where a) MFF made conditions on b book worse than "real market conditions" and B) whether MFF made traders on A book lose

The fraud element is built around the fact that the system was designed to produce a user to lose. Which is why its confusing because why on earth would you want a trader on A book to lose, which is what is being alleged.

If they left the A book element out, it would basically be about whether or not the conditions offered by MFF were "fair" in a market sense. The CFTC is saying they weren't but has not really provided any evidence beyond the fact there were profiles for slippage on the server (I assume server). Which in itself is false because those things aren't done at server level.

Its not whether or not you are using real funds or not, thats not the debate because technically, MFF did offer the chance for people to get on real funds just not all people were as there is a clearly mentioned A book.

The second element is whether or not MFF acted as a broker dealer, which has a bunch of flaws in the argument due to the nature of how funds were accrued. Fees from programs are not the same as deposits from investors and that is the argument that would have to be made. There was transparency in what the fees were for, just the road to get there was different to what was advertised - perhaps.

The 5ers I assure you, are not making money on an A-book, because A book is a losing model if you do not have deposits, the margins are far too small and far too hard to gather. Pay attention to Gil by all means as he is a figurehead in the market, but lately he has been bullshitting, probably taking his shot at regaining market share after shrinking into oblivion. Also, strangely, he is very heavily tied to that tradernok account.
  • #21,230
  • Sep 8, 2023 2:32pm Sep 8, 2023 2:32pm
Quoting TraderTero
{quote} The MFF profit numbers are eye openers for many off shore brokers and other entrepreneurs leading to more similar funding solutions being offered. Don't under estimate the power of greed. However, US citizens might be having a bit hard time for finding feasible funding options.
To be honest, I think MFF was a unicorn. If you dig deeply into the data, you will see that they were probably 2x FTMO. People may want to replicate then but it won't be easy and most likely will come now with all sorts of vendor issues. I wouldn't be surprised if card clearing stops working for all prop firms soon as notices get sent to people who are offering those services to high risk firms, or the fees go up significantly.
  • #21,231
  • Sep 8, 2023 2:45pm Sep 8, 2023 2:45pm
Quoting Takisd
{quote} To be honest, I think MFF was a unicorn. If you dig deeply into the data, you will see that they were probably 2x FTMO. People may want to replicate then but it won't be easy and most likely will come now with all sorts of vendor issues. I wouldn't be surprised if card clearing stops working for all prop firms soon as notices get sent to people who are offering those services to high risk firms, or the fees go up significantly.
Cost of CC processing might go up to maybe 5% per transaction but there are plenty of service providers for off shore businesses. In any case cryptos will work and people are used to using them.
  • #21,232
  • Sep 8, 2023 2:54pm Sep 8, 2023 2:54pm
Quoting TraderTero
{quote} Cost of CC processing might go up to maybe 5% per transaction but there are plenty of service providers for off shore businesses. In any case cryptos will work and people are used to using them.
You are right.

Do you think if MFF comes out of it with just settlement around the broker dealer element that it will become a free for all?
  • #21,233
  • Edited 3:31pm Sep 8, 2023 3:04pm | Edited 3:31pm
Quoting Takisd
{quote} sorry, thats not what the case is about. The case is about whether or not fraud took place in the case where a) MFF made conditions on b book worse than "real market conditions" and B) whether MFF made traders on A book lose The fraud element is built around the fact that the system was designed to produce a user to lose. Which is why its confusing because why on earth would you want a trader on A book to lose, which is what is being alleged. If they left the A book element out, it would basically be about whether or not the conditions offered...
Ok, the charges filed are a very long public document that everyone can read. You are entitled to your own personal interpretation just like everyone else. We can interpret our interpretations till the cows come home. You and I we are both no attorneys, we can just try to use our common sense, if we get hung up with details we will have a full time job arguing. I think fraud is part of the CFTC charges and pretty well layed out on top of that, you obviously dont think so and that is perfectly ok. I am not claiming I am right. Also, if you think that there is an issue with Gil Ben Hur, thats ok, I dont know him personally but I dont have any evidence that he done some shady stuff though. I asked you before to give us at least some evidence but so far I hadnt seen nothing. All what I am stating is my personal opinion and I might be totally off.....about the connection between this tradernok guy on twitter and the 5ers that you always refer to, I have no clue, I dont even know what this tradernok guy does or claims.
  • #21,234
  • Sep 8, 2023 3:19pm Sep 8, 2023 3:19pm
Quoting Takisd
{quote} sorry, thats not what the case is about. The case is about whether or not fraud took place in the case where a) MFF made conditions on b book worse than "real market conditions" and B) whether MFF made traders on A book lose The fraud element is built around the fact that the system was designed to produce a user to lose. Which is why its confusing because why on earth would you want a trader on A book to lose, which is what is being alleged. If they left the A book element out, it would basically be about whether or not the conditions offered...
It's a bunch of technicalities. I wonder if the person judging has the knowledge for that or if he/she is judging this at the same time he/she may be judging a parking ticket or stolen oranges in a supermarket.
  • #21,235
  • Sep 8, 2023 3:21pm Sep 8, 2023 3:21pm
Quoting SirMcPip
I think fraud is part of the CFTC charges and pretty well layed out on top of that
Quoting Takisd
Do you think if MFF comes out of it with just settlement around the broker dealer element that it will become a free for all?
-I think, the CFTC is probably looking to try to bury MFF and set an example, and will likely try to make every claim in the book to try to get them to kneel. They won't even have to go to court in order to set some kind of precedent, since any settlement would likely come with an element of guilt or some kind of admission of that, making it even more difficult for other props to make their own case or even consider doing so.

Tacking on the trumped-up fraud charges will just make it easier for the CFTC to get Kazmi to settle and agree to the broker-dealer stuff, likely forfeiting his right to do business in this space again. That admission should be enough to pave the way. Or maybe it's the other way around, and what they really want is the fraud charges to stick, since that would be a sure-fire way to clean house with other firms.

I am no expert, but it's interesting to speculate.
  • #21,236
  • Sep 8, 2023 3:22pm Sep 8, 2023 3:22pm
Quoting SirMcPip
{quote} Wow thanks, will read about it over the weekend
This was not involving surgetrader directly. It was the husband of the founder (with her involvement) that was caught in a ponzi scheme:
https://eu.naplesnews.com/story/news...e/70484559007/

Anyway, if someone is caught in a (real) ponzi scheme I would say it's not the smartest thing to trust their prop.
  • #21,237
  • Sep 8, 2023 3:24pm Sep 8, 2023 3:24pm
Quoting Nsak3y
{quote} {quote}-I think, the CFTC is probably looking to try to bury MFF and set an example, and will likely try to make every claim in the book to try to get them to kneel. They won't even have to go to court in order to set some kind of precedent, since any settlement would likely come with an element of guilt or some kind of admission of that, making it even more difficult for other props to make their own case or even consider doing so. Tacking on the trumped-up fraud charges will just make it easier for the CFTC to get Kazmi to settle and agree...
My speculation is, fraud stuff goes away as its easily disprovable (contradicting statements and all) settlement on marketing elements not broker dealer, as i see broker dealer being hard to stick given there is no custodian and no investors.

So a misleading marketing slap, big fine like 2 mill and continuing business with a lot of disclosures.
  • #21,238
  • Sep 8, 2023 3:27pm Sep 8, 2023 3:27pm
Quoting Takisd
{quote} You are right. Do you think if MFF comes out of it with just settlement around the broker dealer element that it will become a free for all?
I believe that there will be a settlement based on their demands. I see this going pretty much the same way as what happened with brokers some 10 years ago. CFTC will clean up the US market and try to block out of their jurisdiction operators from taking US client. They have a play book and they will follow it as it has worked well for them before.

This will not be the same as what happened with binary options as they were clearly fraudulent scamming most of their clients. Props are paying people and the challenge fees are relatively small so no one is really being scammed for huge amounts of money the same way as with binary options.

We will be seeing a lot of changes on the market place in the near future. I see this being a start of something new and hopefully also better for traders.
  • #21,239
  • Sep 8, 2023 3:27pm Sep 8, 2023 3:27pm
Quoting Capablanca
It's a bunch of technicalities. I wonder if the person judging has the knowledge for that or if he/she is judging this at the same time he/she may be judging a parking ticket or stolen oranges in a supermarket.
-I suspect that this may only matter if things make it to court. At that point, one would hope that a specialist would be consulted so that judge and jury could have a better understanding of what this is all about, else it might be like the early days of crypto where lawmakers would have to draft legislation for something that they barely understood.
  • #21,240
  • Sep 8, 2023 3:28pm Sep 8, 2023 3:28pm
Quoting Takisd
{quote} sorry, thats not what the case is about. The case is about whether or not fraud took place in the case where a) MFF made conditions on b book worse than "real market conditions" and B) whether MFF made traders on A book lose The fraud element is built around the fact that the system was designed to produce a user to lose. Which is why its confusing because why on earth would you want a trader on A book to lose, which is what is being alleged. If they left the A book element out, it would basically be about whether or not the conditions offered...
Takisd strike again. MFF is innocent, is number 1, it's a conspiracy. Yes of course....
37 traders viewing now