One World Capital Group - "Setting the Record Straight"

Dear OW Client:
A streetwise competitor once told me that the more successful the newcomer (or any challenger), the more defensive the incumbent had to be -- and, he would invariably add, the best defense is offense. As a rookie, I thought he was dispensing wisdom. Over time, I have come to realize that he was betraying fear and competitive weakness.
Recently, OW and several of our more successful fellow newcomer competitors have been the subject of a flurry of excited warnings and misstatements about capital levels and other imagined shortcomings. Allow us to put our two-cents' worth into the fray.

1. We have strong reason to believe that the hyperbole in the 'blogo-sphere' concerning our firm (and like-firms) is little more than self-serving scare mongering by the incumbents who hope to attract business that they could not otherwise hold competitively.
2. One World adjusted net capital (ANC) exceeds the minimums required by the NFA. Should the NFA increase the ANC, or adopt other ANC rules changes, we have every confidence that we will meet that requirement as well.

We ask that anyone with questions arising from the negativity being promoted on the internet on various websites and blogs please give us the courtesy of a call so that we may have the opportunity to share our side of the story. Possibly, just possibly, we are doing our jobs so well that competitors are simply nervous.
Yours truly,
Jack Walsh

Here is my take on this subject matter.

I had a problem with OW about a year ago over a $6400 trade that OW basically stole the money from me by actually executing a trade on my platform for a loss of this amount. After getting nowhere with my remedy I promptly filed a complaint with the NFA, and then Jack Walsh personally stepped in and gave me the funds back. Now either he knew they (OW) screwed up or just didn't want the NFA involved in this dispute at all. So he did what I requested of him and thus I must state that he seems like a stand up person.

Now, it seems to me this rash of sudden NFA complaints on the "mom & pop" shop FCM's does seem a little strange. But the fact of the matter is that FCM's are required to uphold certain requirements. No matter if they are attacks by competitors or not, you have capital requirements to meet and when the NFA comes knocking and they get the run around with providing data according to the press releases with the complaints in them, there are no excuses, PERIOD.

Either you have the required capital at all times and can be validated or not. If you don't have it, then you should be out of business, and there are no excuses.

The best thing to come from this deal is UGM getting shut down. They are the epitome of "bucket shop".

Thanks for the information but I am still a bit confused.

Based on their CFTC numbers for May you have 1 Million in required capital and just about 500K in additional excess capital.

How would they propose to stay afloat if requirements were raised that they need to make the 5 million mark in required capital? Would it be via merger? I overall appreciate them addressing the matter but again with only 1 million in capital its just hard to see how much additional safety of my funds I'd have with them compared to a broker who has more net excess capital and funds overall as has been around longer. Plus that answer is just so ambiguous

There are more FCMs to fold...so many were started by individuals who hadn't a clue on how to run a business, much less adhere to strict ANC and AML requirements. They looked to this as a "quick buck" and not as a legitimate long term business.

The NFA and CFTC are cracking down on these bucketshops. Unless you are one of the unfortunate souls to be sold on the cheap sales tactics of these small shops, this recent run is a blessing. It will eliminate the true garbage in the industry, hold the larger FCMs (say 10?) more accountable for their actions and who THEY DO BUSINESS WITH, and will ultimately lead to a more secure, competitive trading environment for retail traders.

Gone will be the days of the excessive money manager commissions, Profit Sharing and "hidden fees". Transparency will emerge and scam artists will have to find a new racket to prey on innocent individuals.

That being said, be fearful of some of these "transparent" shops now; they aren't all what they claim to be.

Sean

I was browsing through looking for a broker when I read this sort of diary thing where one world did not grant a withdrawal request of a client for some $19,000. Here's the link
http://www.goldenmoneytree.com/forum...=692&start=125

Quite disturbing the way they keep making these mistakes that are worth thousands of dollars that the client suddenly loses.

I almost opened an account with them but the thought of just suddenly disappearing money kind of stays in the back of my mind no matter how good the trading conditions.

I'd like to see if they give back the money. That means they are responsible. I might even go ahead and open that account since it's proof they can be trusted when something goes wrong.

Who wrote that post FXMasterjedi or Jack Walsh? first and the second post are written by same person.