Proposed NFA Capital Requirement | Page 14 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

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

Attachments: Proposed NFA Capital Requirement
Exit Attachments

Proposed NFA Capital Requirement

  • #261
  • Aug 15, 2007 11:27am Aug 15, 2007 11:27am
Quote
You are doing something that (intentionally or not) is intended to financially effect brokers that may well be legitimate.
Exactly. To illustrate my point, I'm going to use my favorite company of discussion, simply because they're the easiest to illustrate this with, Itrade FX. I know there are others that Savior talked about, but the tone of this one was about the worst.

ForexSavior, you admitted that based on their current numbers, they are one of the most likely in your pool to meet a new requirement (although its not guaranteed). You admitted this AFTER a pile of pages of posts, but your VERY FIRST post was that they were essentially "bankrupt" and that people with funds there should "run forest run".

Whether or not you meant it maliciously, if you check google, you will find other forex news sites which directly pasted your first post as a "news" source.

Here's one for an example: http://nobsforex.net/2007/07/03/brok...lert-from-nfa/

Some of these sites will be legitimate concerned people, others will be competitor sites trying to kick a company to drum up their own business.

Besides that, you reposted it (or so it appears) on several forums, which compounds the amount of links that come up in google.

People who search for the company to do legitimate research will now have piles of hits come up saying "Itrade... bankrupt" or "run forest run", and they'll think its something more official. Shoot, if I was looking to invest, the sheer number of hits in google would make me wary, not because of piles of disgruntled people or the message, but simply the amount of times it was posted.

And yet, you think by saying "Well, they're obviously not bankrupt" or "They're one of the more likely in the pool to make it" makes everything all better. In all likelihood, your posting tone has probably cost them business, and they could be legitimate. Heck, according to the NFA, they haven't done anything wrong. On top of that, when questioned about the negative capitalization, your response is that you don't know why it happened. It could be an error (since government agencies aren't exactly the swiftest of bodies to correct errors), it could be legitimate for some reason (something to do with the company they absorbed from bankruptcy court), or it could be a sign that they're in trouble.

They're the most obvious example - and who knows, they might be another bucket shop. In that case, potential clients and clients need to know. But I'm bothered if a legit company is damaged. They're in a no-win situation from my perspective: if they're legit, you've already damaged their reputation; if they respond, you blame them for not having the figure corrected, or at best, retract part of what you say weeks later.

Despite the apparent illwill, I'm on your side about protecting the trader, but I don't like to be unfair either to a company who (that I know of) hasn't done anything wrong.
  • #262
  • Aug 15, 2007 11:28am Aug 15, 2007 11:28am
Quoting fxchant
I have never attacked FX Observ.
I agree with Savior though (I know, heart attack city), that one comment you made about Observ's post count made it sound like you were attacking him.

I know you were just skeptical of his post count and partial agreeing with Savior, but they weren't lockstep in agreement.

If we're going to have legitimate discussions on this, we have to call a spade a spade. I agree with Savior, it just sounded bad.
  • #263
  • Aug 15, 2007 11:38am Aug 15, 2007 11:38am
Quoting forexfun
Here's one for an example: http://nobsforex.net/2007/07/03/brok...lert-from-nfa/
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! I never said that and that IS NOT MY POST! In case you haven't noticed a lot of people have been cutting and pasting what I have been writing and changed it around and re-posted it. But of course you can't be bothered to go pester them. I never said I Trade FX was bankrupt. I joked they were in trouble due to their negative capital. But I never said they were bankrupt. And since then I have stated they appear to be in better shape than most dead pool members.

You know ForexFun I'm getting tired of you saying this. In fact, since what you are saying is patently false, it seems to me that you just might be liable for libel...
  • #264
  • Edited 12:24pm Aug 15, 2007 12:07pm | Edited 12:24pm
Quoting forexsavior
But of course you can't be bothered to go pester them.
You know that for a fact? I'm sorry I don't CC you on every email I write. Maybe I did pester them, maybe I didn't. Of course, the fact that they do something shady doesn't excuse you.

Also, incidently, that website merely pasted together two of your posts together to make a post. They didn't do a whole lot of changing. The context is exactly the same, and I have posted them below...

Quote
I never said I Trade FX was bankrupt. I joked they were in trouble due to their negative capital.
Direct quotes:


" I Trade FX -$3,039,000!!!!! (Run Forrest, RUUUNNNN!)" is a joke?(Post 1 of this thread)

"GET OUT NOW" is a joke? (Post 1 here: http://forums.babypips.com/rate-my-b...orex-fcms.html)

"I Trade FX (-$3,039,000!!!!! Close to Bankruptcy!!!!)" is a joke? (Post 6 here:http://forums.babypips.com/rate-my-b...orex-fcms.html)

There's a pile more on those two forums. Unless you're claiming that's another forex savior. Or that somehow "Run Forrest, RUUUUNNNNNN!" wasn't intended to convey that they were essentially broke. I quoted them here, just in case you feel the need to go back and change them, although they'd still be on Wayback Machine Internet Archive, I'm sure.

That's just two main forums, I've found others that sound very much like you, because they post the news bulletins.

I'm missing the "Ha ha" part that would imply a joke. And I guarantee you that basically everyone else thought you were serious. You might skate by on other things, but cut the crap, you were exactly implying what you did.

They're the easiest to point out where you went overboard, but they're but one example.

Quote
And since then I have stated they appear to be in better shape than most dead pool members.
After it was pulled out of you after being flogged, and actively questioned by people, including by the mods. Please don't try to tell me you did it out of any sense of honor.

Quote
In fact, since what you are saying is patently false, it seems to me that you just might be liable for libel...
Then you don't know what libel is.

You know, I'm trying to reach common ground by agreeing that traders need protection, but you make it awfully hard.
  • #265
  • Aug 15, 2007 12:20pm Aug 15, 2007 12:20pm
Quoting forexsavior
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.
Savior-

I just like to keep the posts on these boards civil. I think you have stepped over the line far more than the one time that Chant jumped to my defense and I asked him to calm down. But enough about that.

You’ve made many comments about us that I feel could be slanderous in general, and so I have a question for you. Assuming that the NFA raises the guideline in January, and then we show over the requirement in net capital at that point, what public statement of apology will you make? Actually, we don’t know that this will happen in January, so let me just put it this way. At some point down the road when we show over $5 million in net cap, since that seems to be the number that you are most concern about, what will you say to apologize to us?
  • #266
  • Aug 15, 2007 12:20pm Aug 15, 2007 12:20pm
Once again forexfun you continue to libel me. Not once in any of those quotes did I state I Trade FX was bankrupt. The report showed NEGATIVE CAPITAL and thus I concluded that traders should, yes, "RUN." And spare me the nonsense about how I had to be "flogged" about this issue. Only in your mind is that the case. If you want to quote the Mods why don't you quote when the Mods thanked for me presenting due diligence.

Finally, you really screwed up with that link. It ain't my link. If you want to throw accusations at me please stick to the facts. I gave you credit for setting me straight on the use of the word "capitalization." So don't lecture me about how I can't admit when I'm wrong. Now I'd like you to admit when you're wrong. about that link But I suppose you are quite uncomfortable now that the whole libel accusation is being tossed at your feet...
  • #267
  • Aug 15, 2007 12:27pm Aug 15, 2007 12:27pm
Quoting jleblang
At some point down the road when we show over $5 million in net cap, since that seems to be the number that you are most concern about, what will you say to apologize to us?
savior, to be totally fair, i think you should make just as big a stink about being wrong as you do about being right. i think you have done that with your i-tradefx mistake, a continuation of that would be nice to see.
Relax and be happy.
  • #268
  • Aug 15, 2007 12:28pm Aug 15, 2007 12:28pm
Quoting jleblang
what will you say to apologize to us?
I'm not sure what I have to apologize for Justin. Right now you don't show you have the money. You may be right. You may very well have the money in January (you may even have it right now.) I'm not saying you won't or don't. And like I said before, if you show us your company financials that clears up the doubts since you are showing us money that you may not be reporting in the CFTC Reports. In that case I'll be happy to remove MB from the Dead Pool and say, "they have the money folks."

But in my opinion that burden is on you since it is your firm that is presenting itself to the trading public and soliciting the public's business. And that's why this issue of an apology is, well, silly.
  • #269
  • Aug 15, 2007 12:33pm Aug 15, 2007 12:33pm
guys, just want to step in here to say that this is a great discussion. i know its been uncomfortable and mostly negative, but this is really a discussion that needs to be had. if everybody started acting just a bit more respectful to eachother, this could really be a constructive discussion. everyone is wondering about the true intentions of the savior, me included, but regardless of the intention there is a lot to be learned here. this discussion has actually opened my eyes to a few things so i know there is some value in having this debate out in the open. i have seen the savior tone down his slander quite a bit, and he seems to be trying to rely on the facts more, so i think we are headed in the right direction. i think if we all can focus a bit more on facts this thread will be very useful.
Relax and be happy.
  • #270
  • Edited 1:23pm Aug 15, 2007 12:33pm | Edited 1:23pm
Euro Money has just published an article on the rule proposal that backs up everything I have been saying. Furthermore we are now seeing a lot of other Industry players offering their comments. Here are some choice quotes from some industry titans: http://www.euromoney.com/article.asp...icleID=1398928

Todd Crosland, Interbank FX's founder chief executive, says: "The NFA has proposed to raise the minimum net capital requirement to $5 million. If you offer greater than 100:1 leverage, you would have to maintain two times that amount, or $10 million. We believe that by the end of the year the NFA will have fully implemented the new minimum net capital requirements. Our current net capital is [now] in excess of $25 million."



Gain chairman Mark Galant says: "Making sure all FDMs are well capitalized is a positive for the industry. The management at many of the smaller FDMs have no real FX market experience and have never managed a 24/5 trading operation. Besides being able to cover your financial obligations to your customers, you also need sufficient capital to post collateral with bank liquidity providers. An FDM that does not have good credit lines can get in trouble pretty quickly if they are unable to lay off their risk as needed.


The Euromoney article is also quoted as saying,

"If, as expected, US regulator the National Futures Association implements a proposal it has sent out to its 43 forex dealer members (FDMs), the result will be that many firms will have to attract fresh funding or close down. The proposal is due to be discussed by the NFA's board in August. If ratified, it will then go to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which effectively acts as the NFA's gatekeeper. The CFTC will almost certainly rubber stamp it."

"In its proposal, the NFA points out that the under-capitalization of many FDMs is the main cause of many of the problems that have plagued the sector, It is therefore looking to raise FDM's net capital requirements from $1 million to $5 million. Two other proposed changes to the NFA's concentration charges and its accounting requirements are likely to result in FDMs being obliged to have a minimum of $10 million in adjusted net capital to stay in business."

"The majority of FDMs do not have this much free capital available, so unless they receive fresh funding, they will almost certainly go out of business if the proposal is passed."
  • #271
  • Aug 15, 2007 12:38pm Aug 15, 2007 12:38pm
Quoting forexsavior
Once again forexfun you continue to libel me. Not once in any of those quotes did I state I Trade FX was bankrupt. The report showed NEGATIVE CAPITAL and thus I concluded that traders should, yes, "RUN."
I thought you said that you were making a joke? Now you were reaching conclusions?

Doesn't "essentially bankrupt" basically say you think they're bankrupt?


Quote
Finally, you really screwed up with that link. It ain't my link.
As I mentioned in my original post on this: "Whether or not you meant it maliciously, if you check google, you will find other forex news sites which directly pasted your first post as a "news" source." All they did was put together two of your posts to make their story. I never said it was YOUR link, I said they were taking YOUR information as posted. Unless you're trying to say it was a sheer coincidence the wording was the same, with the same companies listed and the same exact phrasing on how they should run.

Quote
If you want to throw accusations at me please stick to the facts.
Dude, I'm giving you exact quotes from things you posted!


Quote
Now I'd like you to admit when you're wrong. about that link
Sure, paste where I said it was "your link". As I repasted above, that's not what I said.

Quote
But I suppose you are quite uncomfortable now that the whole libel accusation is being tossed at your feet...
The only reason libel was used before was when there was a concern you might be with a competitor company to the names on your dead list. At the moment, you've said you don't work for them, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, and I have not accused you of libel with regard to anything else. If you did work for a company that is a competitor, and posted information in the manner you did, that *could* be considered libel.

What I'm saying is NOT libel at the moment, and the fact that you bring it up clearly shows you have no concept what libel is.
  • #272
  • Aug 15, 2007 12:46pm Aug 15, 2007 12:46pm
savior, i just realized something...the real problem here is the name of your list "Dealer Dead Pool". because really you havent been making any direct accusations, but everyone seems to feel that you are. and my guess is that the name of your list is an indirect accusation that these firms will go out of business. why dont you rename the list to something else?? maybe that will calm some of these arguments??
Relax and be happy.
  • #273
  • Aug 15, 2007 12:46pm Aug 15, 2007 12:46pm
Quoting merlin
guys, just want to step in here to say that this is a great discussion. i know its been uncomfortable and mostly negative, but this is really a discussion that needs to be had. if everybody started acting just a bit more respectful to eachother
I've been guilty of being less than respectful to some people, and I try (but Savior makes it very very difficult). It is a discussion that has some merit.

I just plain don't like that posters are worthy of respect, but companies aren't because other companies have committed fraud. "Either what we hold as right and good and true IS right and good and true for all mankind, or we're just another robber tribe." (good quote, bad movie) Either we're respectful to companies as much as the traders, or there's no fairness.


Quote
everyone is wondering about the true intentions of the savior, me included, but regardless of the intention there is a lot to be learned here.
I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on working for a competitor to his dead list... I know others still openly express their doubts.

Quote
i have seen the savior tone down his slander quite a bit, and he seems to be trying to rely on the facts more, so i think we are headed in the right direction.
He has in some ways, but the damage has been done. He never went back and edited the threads he posted originally to remove the tone, which would be a good step.... it wouldn't change what can be found in archives, but it would show honest effort.

Unless there's some reason why he can't change something based on the forum post structure? I don't know, I'm not an expert on forum mechanics.

Quote
the real problem here is the name of your list "Dealer Dead Pool". because really you havent been making any direct accusations, but everyone seems to feel that you are. and my guess is that the name of your list is an indirect accusation that these firms will go out of business.

Bingo. The tone could also use some editing if he still isn't saying certain things about certain companies....
  • #274
  • Aug 15, 2007 12:47pm Aug 15, 2007 12:47pm
Quoting merlin
guys, just want to step in here to say that this is a great discussion. i know its been uncomfortable and mostly negative, but this is really a discussion that needs to be had. if everybody started acting just a bit more respectful to eachother, this could really be a constructive discussion. everyone is wondering about the true intentions of the savior, me included, but regardless of the intention there is a lot to be learned here. this discussion has actually opened my eyes to a few things so i know there is some value in having this debate out in the open. i have seen the savior tone down his slander quite a bit, and he seems to be trying to rely on the facts more, so i think we are headed in the right direction. i think if we all can focus a bit more on facts this thread will be very useful.
I thought that was the case too, and then he comes back harder. I wish this could be the good conversation that it could be, but it's not possible with Savior's general demeanor.
FXChant Singing the World of Forex
  • #275
  • Aug 15, 2007 1:05pm Aug 15, 2007 1:05pm
ForexFun you most definitely ARE LIBELING ME. I had nothing to do with the link or the wording of that post. You are accusing me of saying that I said I Trade FX "was bankrupt" and was "essentially bankrupt." I have never written, spoken or posted those words. You are doing it deliberately and maliciously. And as usual, you can't admit when your wrong.
  • #276
  • Aug 15, 2007 1:07pm Aug 15, 2007 1:07pm
Quoting merlin
savior, i just realized something...the real problem here is the name of your list "Dealer Dead Pool". because really you havent been making any direct accusations, but everyone seems to feel that you are. and my guess is that the name of your list is an indirect accusation that these firms will go out of business. why dont you rename the list to something else?? maybe that will calm some of these arguments??
If that will allow me to discuss this issue without the silly attacks from my critics I will be happy to do so. Only thing is Forex Factory does not allow you to edit old posts.
  • #277
  • Edited 4:02pm Aug 15, 2007 2:09pm | Edited 4:02pm
Thank you for your thoughtful post. Did I feel maligned by the allegation that I had only posted 3 times? No, because it was true. I had only posted 3 times. To clear the record, I am not in any manner affiliated with nor do I know FXSaviour other than on the Board(s).

The interesting aspect to me was that the principles between the posters appeared to be not that divergent but the manner in which the discourse was being addressed drew my attention. Thanks for the interesting discourse and discussion.
  • #278
  • Aug 15, 2007 3:20pm Aug 15, 2007 3:20pm
Quoting forexsavior
If that will allow me to discuss this issue without the silly attacks from my critics I will be happy to do so. Only thing is Forex Factory does not allow you to edit old posts.
great

yes, the forum only allows for editing withing a 24 hour period. if you ever need help with a post, you can press the "!" button in the top right of any post, and tell the mods what you want done to the post.

savior, what would you like to change the title of the list to? just let me know and i will make it happen.

guys, i think we are moving in the right direction here, thanks very much for the understanding!
Relax and be happy.
  • #279
  • Aug 15, 2007 3:33pm Aug 15, 2007 3:33pm
more on this subject...

http://www.forexfactory.com/news.php?do=news&id=42914

Quote
I-Trade FX welcomes and is in full support of the NFA’s most recent proposal to raise the minimum capital requirement from $1 million to $5 million for Forex Brokers. “Undercapitalized firms dramatically increase risk for the investor. Raising the capital requirements will substantially reduce the risk to current and future clients that open accounts and will provide greater security for the client,” reported Mr. Martinez.
Relax and be happy.
  • #280
  • Aug 15, 2007 4:05pm Aug 15, 2007 4:05pm
Quoting merlin
great

yes, the forum only allows for editing withing a 24 hour period. if you ever need help with a post, you can press the "!" button in the top right of any post, and tell the mods what you want done to the post.

savior, what would you like to change the title of the list to? just let me know and i will make it happen.

guys, i think we are moving in the right direction here, thanks very much for the understanding!
Change it to "Proposed NFA Capital Requirement" As an olive branch I will request this at other boards as well.
0 traders viewing now