again, brilliance abounds. Caveat emptor. I have nothing to add beyond Johno1's post.
If large number of people are caught out by the risks, then the fault lies with the shop for not sufficiently informing their customers. In this situation, the customers are entitled for refund, because the "products" sold to them are beyond their ability to use and not fit for purpose.
An analogy for this situation would be a shop selling anti-tank missiles to people and claiming the small prints signed by the customers relieves the shop from any responsibility. This argument cannot stand up in court. The shop is responsible if it mis-sells a product. The effect of this is to mislead.
In fact the financial "industry" is well known for the frequent practice of mis-selling products. This case is but another. Like other cases, in the end, the customers will be compensated.
Last edited:
Often I gotta admit I'm so "allergic" to market exposure that it limits my trading effectiveness.