Former Madoff customers argue it wasn't a Ponzi

Van_der_Voort_4 said:
This is now,trading under UBS was done some years ago.

So why some dude goes on an attack,what is the reason he needs to defend UBS over some story on a trading forum?

To say something like this you need to know who you talking to

longshortwhatever said:
...They don't deserve a lunatic dad like you.


She is a easy target,so much that it asks for it.
More...


Dude, stop. There are 1K pages of docs. She blew-up. First it was suitability; then it was "my orders never went to the exchange." She stopped paying the IO payments within months. She stopped paying, everything. Absolutely it was dumb to fund the account with UBS, but I assume that was required by UBS. IOW she wouldn't have qualified without keeping the funds at UBS.

Merrill used to offer 80% (of equity) IO morts to HNW and their only requirements for the low rates were that the money stays in-house (cannot finance RE). Most people that take these morts beat the cost of funding. Obviously that is the point. A swap-spread.

Devil's Advocate: assume that UBS internalized orders. UBS was counterparty to every trade... they would still provide fraudulent confs and statements. "Sells and time" (time and sales) are available to everyone. 2009: you don't need UBS to provide time and sales. Match your conf with the tape. If the orders were worse then marketable (NOT her arg) then MAKE YOUR CASE. She was fighting eviction, period.
 
Last edited:
destriero said:
Dude, stop. There are 1K pages of docs. She blew-up. First it was suitability; then it was "my orders never went to the exchange." She stopped paying the IO payments within months. She stopped paying, everything.
More...

Maybe,i don't exclude this is what happened

I would not made a single post to her story,if it wasn't for this dude going on an attack after just one opening post,that gave me a pause.
 
Van_der_Voort_4 said:
Maybe,i don't exclude this is what happened

I would not made a single post to her story,if it wasn't for this dude going on an attack after just one opening post,that gave me a pause.
More...

Ok, who cares? You don't even have evidence of the post as it was deleted, so apparently the only one it made an impression on was... you.
 
El OchoCinco said:
My favorite part of the story of their trading with UBS....:

"February to March 2009 we turned USD $360,000 into USD $1,500,000. We begged them for some teaching, we knew nothing about technical analyses, stop losses, charts. We even did not know the word trader, yes, we reputed ourselves, active investors."

"It was 2012. Three years we learned and traded on simulator account, some small accounts with retail brokers, some success and some losses."
More...


She used this suitability-argument but the profits were imaginary. Again, assume the PNL was legit. You cannot do 400% and argue suitability. She's certifiable.
 
Van_der_Voort_4 said:
Champ ,you need to open subsequent links
More...


(Edit) Sport, I did. These are pointless. Proof of nothing. You believe that UBS gained something by posting anonymously with personal insults?

1st link (worthless): https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...will-bring-victory.320417/page-6#post-4643765

2nd link is an empty page of the now deleted alias: https://www.elitetrader.com/et/search/7774429/

3rd link (post #53) was a quote from deleted alias that proves nothing: https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...will-bring-victory.320417/page-6#post-4643753

4th link similarly worthless: https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...will-bring-victory.320417/page-5#post-4643732



Dude, face facts. You blowing up doesn't make the broker a fraud. It kinda makes you the fraud.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top