Brokers chasing you for negative account balance | Page 32 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Brokers with Negative Balance Protection 41 replies

Brokers that liquidate accounts at zero before negative balance occurs 22 replies

When would chasing a trade be worth it to you? 17 replies

What brokers would you want to use if you had 100k + million + account? 6 replies

Can someone answer question about Brokers chasing stops? 7 replies

Attachments: Brokers chasing you for negative account balance
Exit Attachments

Brokers chasing you for negative account balance

  • #621
  • Feb 19, 2015 7:54pm Feb 19, 2015 7:54pm
Quoting Silver777
Very simple, the reason why creditor approval is needed is court costs including defense (e.g. traders with negative balance) lawyer costs need to be paid UPFRONT to the court in case they lose,
You still insist that KPMG is going to sue you. Either you are one of the 9 or you did not read what I wrote. If you are one of the 9 then stop reading, yours is not a basket case. If you are not then neither KPMG nor Alpari is going to sue you. Debt collectors will be happy to cover all costs and perform all necessary legal actions in any EU country for small percent of collected debt. No any additions cost for Alpari creditors. Clients will not be even asked, they are not creditors unless there is not enough money on the segregated account.


Quote
I signed no such contract.

Oh, that's OK then. If you did not sign any contracts then you did not have any money with Alpari and did not trade, you do not have anything to worry about.

Quote
If client agreements are as solid as you say, then we wouldn't have seen trader complaints lead to hefty fines on brokers by financial regulation authorities.

Brokers are fined for breaching the regulation, not contracts. So far regulators do not have any issues with this. If you think that this is the first time someone had a negative balance you are mistaken, it happens all the time. It is by far margin the largest of such events, but it is one from many. As now, clients run around send angry letters to FCA, to their MP's, ombudsman and so on, some even try to sue, but unfair execution is very difficult to prove even in futures market where every price is recorded. Here KPMG will contact the liquidity provider to confirm where the orders were actually executed. Liquidity provider will confirm the price and KPMG will consequently confirm your balance (positive or negative). If you do not agree with that you do not have a choice, but to sue Alpari. Alternative is ignoring their demands and waiting while they come to you with bailiffs.
Wookey
  • #622
  • Edited 9:52pm Feb 19, 2015 9:24pm | Edited 9:52pm
It's funny how you completely ignore Silver's or my arguments.

Quoting wookey
{quote} You still insist that KPMG is going to sue you. Either you are one of the 9 or you did not read what I wrote. If you are one of the 9 then stop reading, yours is not a basket case. If you are not then neither KPMG nor Alpari is going to sue you. Debt collectors will be happy to cover all costs and perform all necessary legal actions in any EU country for small percent of collected debt.
I was self employed for many years and have sold claims to debt collectors myself. They don't charge small fees. They are in the area of 10-30%. Also I have never seen one that buys disputed claims. Even if Alpari / KPMG would manage to find such a debt collector these guys would have to sue you first and prove - using Alpari's data and Alpari's contracts - that the claim is actually valid before they can collect anything. Given that the chance of succeeding in court is questionable, lets say 70% if you want to be super optimistic, you'd also have to take clients unknown (and therefore possibly bad) credit situation and your own legal fees into account. Conservatively you could deduct another 50% for just that. A debt collector could maybe buy a (disputed) claim for roughly 30 cents on the dollar. Since it is KPMG's job to act in the best interest of the creditors it would be unreasonable to outsource this hassle and get a third party on board that only adds to cost. They would want to sue people themselves. Also a potential buyer of disputed claims would need to constantly check back on Alpari for documents proving that the claim is actually valid, data, email logs, etc., all the information which disprove the defendant's arguments in lawsuits that will take years each. Who would do this for a "small percentage"? You're just following your agenta of spreading unrealistic fear. There is nothing to be afraid of, no matter which entity might decide to sue you.

Quoting wookey
{quote} Here KPMG will contact the liquidity provider to confirm where the orders were actually executed. Liquidity provider will confirm the price and KPMG will consequently confirm your balance (positive or negative). If you do not agree with that you do not have a choice, but to sue Alpari. Alternative is ignoring their demands and waiting while they come to you with bailiffs.
The business terms say that you are placing "bets" with Alpari, the Market Maker, not some obscure third party in the background that you officially don't know anything about. Even if LPs had problems this does not prove anything. If LPs technology failed then it is simply their problem, not the traders. They could have chosen backup LPs. It is known that many LPs did work all the time, most did not however. Alpari was the market themselves. People's trades were not automatically forwarded to any other "Market" (such as in Futures or Stock trading) and therefore the argument that some obscure third party was not providing an accurate price feed is not a valid argument to prove a claim. As previously said the situation is complex, highly individual and there are plenty of counter arguments for every argument. This is exactly what will make things expensive for them. Or why else were they not even able to provide statements for people one month after the incident? They are obviously discussing with an army of lawyers how to perfectly present the claim and argue why different customers were treated differently by their system. If things were this obvious why not simply send statements out asking people to repay quickly? :-D
  • #623
  • Feb 19, 2015 11:27pm Feb 19, 2015 11:27pm
Quoting r4in123
I was self employed for many years and have sold claims to debt collectors myself. They don't charge small fees. They are in the area of 10-30%. Also I have never seen one that buys disputed claims. Even if Alpari / KPMG would manage to find such a debt collector these guys would have to sue you first and prove - using Alpari's data and Alpari's contracts - that the claim is actually valid before they can collect anything. Given that the chance of succeeding in court is questionable, lets say 70% if you want to be super optimistic, you'd also have...
Well, I never told you that you could not dispute the debt. Quite the opposite I always say that if you do not do anything the debt will be undisputed.
What is dispute in your opinion? Writing e-mails or forum posts? There is a certain legal process. When a company sends you a bill for example for your phone, the bill has small text at the bottom saying that if you do not agree you have to send your dispute to this address. For example they overcharged you for calls you did not make. So you mark them and send your claim to the provided address. This is how dispute starts. In few days you receive a reply saying sorry, but your claim was declined, but if you do not agree with that decision you can write to a higher manager to that address. You do that. Now the higher manager replies you saying, sorry, your claim is declined, if you want to continue this dispute go to court where by your contract you agree to settle disputes. The law gives you time to decide, if you do not file a lawsuit the dispute is considered closed and the debt recovery begins. It is the same process with any contractual debt unless your contract have other terms. Enforcing contractual debt is the whole point of debt collecting business, you as a businessman should know it.

I think you also seriously overestimating the amount of clients wanting to go all the way. I think the majority of clients will either settle the debt on KPMG terms with reasonable haircut or ignore the demands completely playing dumb.

The last thing, I never said that KPMG will be able to recover 100% of the debt. I believe that 70% will be great success. 50% is more realistic. So selling the debt for 50% of the face value is fine for them. 30% is probably low but they will do it with hopeless debt (for example a student without any assets and income owing 50k he will pay it many years, debt collectors can wait, but KPMG cannot). I think they will be privately offering haircuts of 50% easily (they will decide it of course individually basing on your standing, location and credit score). KPMG does not need to recover the full debt to pay all creditors. About $36m lost. $14.6m of professional clients money, $12.8m of own money and $8.8m remainder to pay to Citi. $12.8m is their cushion. So to fully pay the creditors they need to recover $24m + probably about $5m of their fees and remained 50 employee salary. If they recover half of $36m, it is going to be $18m, the rest they will get from sales of the assets. $90m customer database will alone I think cost enough to cover it.
Wookey
  • #624
  • Feb 20, 2015 1:01am Feb 20, 2015 1:01am
Quoting wookey
{quote} So selling the debt for 50% of the face value is fine for them. 30% is probably low but they will do it with hopeless debt (for example a student without any assets and income owing 50k he will pay it many years, debt collectors can wait, but KPMG cannot). I think they will be privately offering haircuts of 50% easily (they will decide it of course individually basing on your standing, location and credit score). KPMG does not need to recover the full debt to pay all creditors. About $36m lost. $14.6m of professional clients money, $12.8m...
Based on my personal experience, the numbers you are throwing here are way off . I would love to see some collection agency pay 30% to buy up "hopeless" (your word) debt. Even if you go to court and win a judgment against somebody who is not "hopeless" but still decide to sell the debt to a third party, you can hardly hope for more than 20%. And that's after you have done all the work to win at court and the defendant is not "a student without any assets and income". So KPMG selling the debt for 50% or 30% has no bearing in reality, a number in the single digits is more likely. Again, this is my personal experience but I have never heard anything like what you said from people in the field but keep seeing it on various forums so decided to share my thoughts.
Trying to settle with their clients for 50% or 30% and hoping they agreeand not play hardball is another thing and a reasonable strategy. But let's see how things unfold.
  • #625
  • Edited 1:33am Feb 20, 2015 1:20am | Edited 1:33am
Quoting wookey
{quote} Well, I never told you that you could not dispute the debt. Quite the opposite I always say that if you do not do anything the debt will be undisputed. What is dispute in your opinion? Writing e-mails or forum posts? There is a certain legal process. When a company sends you a bill for example for your phone, the bill has small text at the bottom saying that if you do not agree you have to send your dispute to this address. For example they overcharged you for calls you did not make. So you mark them and send your claim to the provided address....
But your example with the phone company can have two possible scenarios.
1. they already deducted the money from your account and now you have to prove that they were wrong.
2.You never gave them your bank info and instead used to pay cash at the local branch. Now, you see that big bill and you refuse to pay it. In this scenario, the phone company will need to prove that you owe the money first and can't simply sell your debt to some collection agency. The same with negative balances, KPMG must take these people to court and prove that the clients owe the money before any debt recovery begins. So, the way I see it, you are comparing apples to oranges. In your example, the client will have to prove his/her claim while in 'real life' KPMG must take clients to court first once the clients refuse to pay. But I may be wrong, any feedback will be appreciated.
  • #626
  • Feb 20, 2015 9:18am Feb 20, 2015 9:18am
Quoting william17
{quote} But your example with the phone company can have two possible scenarios. 1. they already deducted the money from your account and now you have to prove that they were wrong. 2.You never gave them your bank info and instead used to pay cash at the local branch. Now, you see that big bill and you refuse to pay it. In this scenario, the phone company will need to prove that you owe the money first and can't simply sell your debt to some collection agency. The same with negative balances, KPMG must take these people to court and prove that the...
​There is no difference with the negative balances. They do have your bank info, but of course they cannot charge it unless you have a direct debit set up. And you can refuse to pay as with any other debt. Collectors from phone, utility, credit cards and other companies come much earlier than any lawsuits. You can refuse to pay to them too of course. Then they will have to sue you to enforce the debt, but it is the last thing they do and you already are in disadvantaged situation. After out of court settlement ends without agreement the law gives you time to dispute the debt in court. The company cannot start enforcement until this time passes. But when it does, the debt can be treated as not disputed and subject to enforcement.

I wrote before that you will not pay anything in one of 3 cases:
1. They do not bother to come after you.
2. You can prove the Alpari or other broker breached the contract.
3. You can prove the contract is not valid in your jurisdiction specifically in the part of negative balance recovery.

Obviously, if they come to you the first option does not apply. To invoke the second option you have to sue the broker in the specified timeframe in the country by which laws the contract was signed. (English court in the case of Alpari, Danish court in the case of Saxo bank). Your contract should specify the court where the dispute resolution can take place. But the most important thing here is that you have to act and sue.

So, that leaves you with the last option to try to prove that the contract is void in your country and in any other country where you have assets or planning to have assets. r4in123 thinks it is easy. If you agree, you can relax too.
Wookey
  • #627
  • Feb 23, 2015 1:11am Feb 23, 2015 1:11am
Quoting Silver777
{quote} Very simple, the reason why creditor approval is needed is court costs including defense (e.g. traders with negative balance) lawyer costs need to be paid UPFRONT to the court in case they lose, because Alpari is insolvent Creditors include the account holders with positive balance, ask them if they want to pay some of the money owed to them upfront to cover legal costs so they MIGHT get all of their money (Those with accounts >50K GBP) several years later where winning and losing will be all based on Alpari's client agreements, execution...


1. Totally agree.
2. Agree. Even though, unless you own 50 USD , I don't think anybody should pay or ignore, but dispute!!!
3. You are right. They might want to try that with the UK customers, maybe some of the other EU countries. I think the main problem is ( I am not a lawyer, I just use common sense) that UK and US law is very different that others European countries where the law is based on the Roman law, and that could provide even more problems for KMPG to bring non UK customers to court. Combine it with language barrier and it gets very expensive to start the process which you are not sure you can win.
4. Agree
5. Agree.

I think, in Alpari case, nobody really wants to save the company. If they wanted to save it, they would have done the same thing what FXCM did, got a loan and continue business as usual. Alpari is in the hand of vultures now with everybody trying to get a piece of it before it is completely rotten.

That's way all people that have negative balance should be very careful, try not to ignore any emails from KPMG. Dispute it and fight them!!! And share information here, people are stronger when fighting together!!!
  • #628
  • Feb 23, 2015 6:00am Feb 23, 2015 6:00am
Quoting wookey
{quote} ​There is no difference with the negative balances. They do have your bank info, but of course they cannot charge it unless you have a direct debit set up. And you can refuse to pay as with any other debt. Collectors from phone, utility, credit cards and other companies come much earlier than any lawsuits. You can refuse to pay to them too of course. Then they will have to sue you to enforce the debt, but it is the last thing they do and you already are in disadvantaged situation. After out of court settlement ends without agreement...
You continue to confuse claim with debt.

It's funny, that you mention the example with a phone bill, because this happened to me a while ago. Someone called me from either the phone company or a collector, I forgot the details. This guy was quite aggressive and sounded very upset and angry, saying that I have an outstanding bill that needed to be paid. I mentioned that I never saw any bill, so he should send me a copy. He went on shouting that they are under no obligation to provide a copy of the bill to me but I still needed to pay. I told them that I will only pay once I see and confirm the bill. Never heard from him or the phone company again. Didn't need to complain to higher level managers or sue in court.

Quote
1. They do not bother to come after you.
Not sure what you mean by "coming after", more than likely they will contact neg balance holders to pay, but this is a claim not a debt. To which the clients can dispute that they do not owe any money.

Quote
2. You can prove the Alpari or other broker breached the contract.
Don't need to do any of this, according to US, EU and UK law, it is the one who wants the money that has to do the leg work (e.g. provide evidence and proof). In this case if Alpari wants the money, then Alpari / KPMG need to prove that money is owed to them. As I mentioned, I think they (Alpari/KPMG) will ask neg balance traders to pay but most traders will dispute that any money is owed. Then Alpari/KPMG can try to get EOP (European Order for Payment) via the UK court for undisputed claims, but for retail traders this will end up in the jurisdiction of their home country (yes, this is according to UK and EU law), which the client can officially dispute by answering the necessary forms that they do not agree with the claim. Then a lawsuit against the client in the client's home country will be the only option left.

And if there are debt collectors that take the claim before a title is granted, it will be even easier for client's to defend, they only need to ask for VALID proof of debt.

Quote
3. You can prove the contract is not valid in your jurisdiction specifically in the part of negative balance recovery.
Again, same as above, the party wanting money needs to prove that their claim is valid. The laws are very clear about this. Once the claim is in dispute, Alpari /KPMG will need to prove money is owed in the client's home country.

Quote
To invoke the second option you have to sue the broker in the specified time frame in the country by which laws the contract was signed. (English court in the case of Alpari, Danish court in the case of Saxo bank....
If the client is a retail trader (i.e. consumer) then he/she has the right to choose whether to sue in their home country or the country of the broker. Again the laws are VERY clear about this. If the client is an institution, then the client must sue in the country of the broker. Also this would only need to be done if the client wants to sue, but it is not needed in the case of defending against neg balance recovery attempts by the broker. If Alpari/KPMG wants to recover a DISPUTED debt claim, then it MUST be done in the clients home country, again EU law is VERY clear about this.

Quote
Your contract should specify the court where the dispute resolution can take place. But the most important thing here is that you have to act and sue. So, that leaves you with the last option to try to prove that the contract is void in your country and in any other country where you have assets or planning to have assets.
For retail traders, this is completely wrong. Retail traders don't need to do or prove anything except dispute the claim, it's the broker that needs to prove that the contract is valid in the retail trader's home country.

Quote
r4in123 thinks it is easy. If you agree, you can relax too.
I agree with r4in123, the laws are very clear.

I have my own investment business that sometimes does insolvency deals and lends money, e.g. debts. If the laws worked as you described, I would have made billions already. A contract saying that a client COULD end up owing money doesn't mean that the client WILL or must pay because the broker decided the client should pay. Also I can say with certainty that the client agreement is NOT a debt obligation, not even close. I know this, because I deal with these quite often and even debt obligations have to be proven if disputed.

After having checked EU and UK law, I agree with r4in123's lawyers, that most clients with neg balance can pretty much relax. But as always, the SNB event has created very complicated situations and clients should contact lawyers for their specific circumstances. My opinions are not legal advice, only what I believe could happen based on my experience and what I researched.
  • #629
  • Feb 23, 2015 6:09am Feb 23, 2015 6:09am
Thanks for chiming in Mojo.

Quoting mojo123
{quote} 1. Totally agree. 2. Agree. Even though, unless you own 50 USD , I don't think anybody should pay or ignore, but dispute!!! 3. You are right. They might want to try that with the UK customers, maybe some of the other EU countries. I think the main problem is ( I am not a lawyer, I just use common sense) that UK and US law is very different that others European countries where the law is based on the Roman law, and that could provide even more problems for KMPG to bring non UK customers to court.
From what I researched and now understand, KPMG can not "bring" any non UK customer to UK court, but will need to go to the non UK customers' home countries' courts.

Quote
Combine it with language barrier and it gets very expensive to start the process which you are not sure you can win. 4. Agree 5. Agree.

Thank you again, what you wrote pretty much confirms what I researched.

Quote
I think, in Alpari case, nobody really wants to save the company. If they wanted to save it, they would have done the same thing what FXCM did, got a loan and continue business as usual. Alpari is in the hand of vultures now with everybody trying to get a piece of it before it is completely rotten. That's way all people that have negative balance should be very careful, try not to ignore any emails from KPMG. Dispute it and fight them!!! And share information here, people are stronger when fighting together!!!

Yes, agreed, Alpari could have been saved if there was a will to save it. I also agree with you that shouldn't ignore emails from KPMG, but should dispute any attempts to recover neg balance. I believe that traders should take responsibility for losses, but I do not agree to creating moral hazard here by allowing brokers to control where trades get closed and forcing traders to pay neg balances to satisfy broker greed.
  • #630
  • Feb 23, 2015 6:51am Feb 23, 2015 6:51am
Quoting igeurchfloss
Anyone with any opinions on IG and their chasing of negative balances?
I have not seen what the IG client agreements look like, but I assume that they are not very different from the majority of broker client agreements that say that there is a possibility to lose more than the initial deposit.

In that case, the situation should be very similar to what is described for Alpari.

This is my opinion for all brokers chasing neg balance, not just IG:
If the client disputes the claim, then the brokers will need to do the leg work to prove that money is owed to them. I believe this will be very hard to prove as the broker can exit client positions where they want, thus creating infinite risk for clients, but this is probably no where described in their risk disclosures. Thus making the agreements immoral and not valid according to Consumer Protection laws in most countries.

But as advised earlier, everyone that has neg balance should consult a lawyer for their specific situation.
  • #631
  • Feb 23, 2015 7:38am Feb 23, 2015 7:38am
Guys,

any opinions on Interactive Brokers? The difference with IB is their widely advertised "automatic real-time immediate liquidation" policy. Presented everywhere on their website, account application form, disclosure on automatic liquidation document, even earnings calls.

The catch is the the small print in their TOS says that they may or may not use it. There are many people with negative balances now. However, liquidity was never an issue, IB was streaming executable bids and asks all the time as a true ECN. Any thoughts?
  • #632
  • Feb 23, 2015 11:51am Feb 23, 2015 11:51am
Quoting Silver777
{quote} I have not seen what the IG client agreements look like, but I assume that they are not very different from the majority of broker client agreements that say that there is a possibility to lose more than the initial deposit. In that case, the situation should be very similar to what is described for Alpari. This is my opinion for all brokers chasing neg balance, not just IG: If the client disputes the claim, then the brokers will need to do the leg work to prove that money is owed to them. I believe this will be very hard to prove...
English is not my mother tongue, but if they say there is possibility to lose more than the initial deposit, couldn't that as well mean that if I invested 1000, won few trades and had 1500 and then lost all 1500 that I lost more then I initially had deposited? Since I never deposited these 500 but I earned them and lost them...

Or the T&C are worded differently and this To lose more then the initial deposit is used just as a warning?
  • #633
  • Feb 24, 2015 3:43am Feb 24, 2015 3:43am
Quoting mojo123
{quote} English is not my mother tongue, but if they say there is possibility to lose more than the initial deposit, couldn't that as well mean that if I invested 1000, won few trades and had 1500 and then lost all 1500 that I lost more then I initially had deposited? Since I never deposited these 500 but I earned them and lost them... Or the T&C are worded differently and this To lose more then the initial deposit is used just as a warning?
If I remember correctly, if a company is marketing to international consumers and the agreements are not in the consumer's native language then it is left to how the consumer interprets the phrase in the agreement as well as local consumer regulations.

What I find interesting is that most broker agreements don't explicitly say that the client could end up in debt that could take a long time to pay back. It could be argued that if it the agreements did say this then most traders probably wouldn't have traded with that particular broker. Please see my earlier post on financial instrument "suitability" for retail investors.
  • #634
  • Feb 24, 2015 11:50pm Feb 24, 2015 11:50pm
Have you read last ALpari update? How does it impact people with potential negative balance in your view?

Any update from Saxo's and other brokers' customers that have been chased for some time now?
Has anybody actually paid the negative balance?
  • #635
  • Feb 25, 2015 4:11am Feb 25, 2015 4:11am
Yeah there was a great mess around "No liquidity" magic phrase, LP's and brokers are trying to pass over their losses to each other, those who don't have enough money to pay on their balance sheet, start prosecuting their clients or announce bankruptcy. Some of brokers used this ploy to drain out some decent client deposits saying there was no liquidity (maybe there was) and clients took that as is. True won't be revealed on the side of retail traders for sure..
  • #636
  • Feb 25, 2015 6:14am Feb 25, 2015 6:14am
Quoting leebsurag
Yeah there was a great mess around "No liquidity" magic phrase, LP's and brokers are trying to pass over their losses to each other, those who don't have enough money to pay on their balance sheet, start prosecuting their clients or announce bankruptcy. Some of brokers used this ploy to drain out some decent client deposits saying there was no liquidity (maybe there was) and clients took that as is. True won't be revealed on the side of retail traders for sure..
I guess, if they want to claim negative balance as customers fault they will have to prove there were no liquidity if it comes to a courthouse. As we already said, they cannot just send an email asking the money back...
  • #637
  • Feb 25, 2015 6:15am Feb 25, 2015 6:15am
This is part of the PDF document issued by kmpg regarding the clients that have negative balance.

Client debtors
The Company’s debtors fall into two main categories as follows:
a) Clients with negative cash balances as at 9:30 GMT, Thursday 15 January 2015 with no open or
subsequent trades;
b) Clients with negative balances after trades had been closed out on their accounts during 15 and
16 January 2015.
As detailed above, we are not yet able to confirm balances due from debtors or issue final account
statements. We anticipate that we will be able to issue final statements for those Clients falling into
category a) above sooner than those in category b).
Once we have issued final statements to Clients, those identified as owing money to the Company
will be contacted for settlement and payment details.
Pending completion of our review, we are available to discuss the situation generally with those
Clients who believe that they may have a negative balance.
  • #638
  • Mar 2, 2015 3:49pm Mar 2, 2015 3:49pm
http://www.garp.org/risk-news-and-re...?newsId=129462
  • #639
  • Mar 2, 2015 3:52pm Mar 2, 2015 3:52pm
Hi Guys,
I've been trading Forex with Alpari for approx. 5+ years & tried to learn different trading methods for 10years and I guess like most people in here had success and failure in that time. Luckily I had withdrawn my funds from my Alpari account just before Christmas due to being to busy in my day job to look at the markets. I was planning to start trading again around April. After witnessing what has happened since the CHF announcement I have gone back to long term share investing as I believe the Forex markets have far too much risk without control and your broker absolutely manipulates the markets in their favour. I really feel for those of you caught up in this shit & I wish you all the best in getting it resolved. I am not an expert in any of the topics already mentioned in previous posts, but if I was caught up in this, I would not pay a penny & fight it from every angle possible and get them to prove that their platform or risk controls did not let you down or put you at a loss no matter how big or small. My message for new traders is be very careful learning trading takes a lot of time, patience, money, an absolute respect for the market and risk control and even if you master all of this you can end up in a situation like this.

All the best Guys.
  • #640
  • Mar 4, 2015 12:34am Mar 4, 2015 12:34am
anyone being harassed by saxo?
Almost 2 month now and i have only received the "formal demand for payment"
0 traders viewing now