You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
FXCM Is Buying RefcoFX - Deal is Done - Funds are safe
- Thread starter Trader/God
- Start date
Quote from Xenia:
Nothing done so far.
Why do we have such a stupid thread title here ?
>> FXCM Is Buying RefcoFX - Deal is Done - Funds are safe <<
Nitwit, still 100% true, etch it in stone. Prepare a written apology when the deal goes through and remember where you heard it first. Please stop posting, the adults are having a discussion.
Trader/God
Quote from Xenia:
Nothing done so far.
Why do we have such a stupid thread title here ?
>> FXCM Is Buying RefcoFX - Deal is Done - Funds are safe <<
You are correct, Xenia. The thread title is a falsehood. Some of the RefcoFX customer funds are, in fact, missing; and this is why Bloomberg reported that the proposed deal will, if it goes thru, require the transferee broker to assume some debts owed to customers. Any funds still present at RefcoFX are not safe, because they might be used to pay Refco creditors other than RefcoFX customers; including possibly Refco creditors who have legally higher priority than RefcoFX customers. If the FXCM deal does not go thru, then millions of dollars of RefcoFX customer funds may be paid to FXCM, as a sort of consolation prize required by the Memorandum of Understanding, instead of to customers. If you want to learn more, then you should read this entire thread, if you haven't already done so.
I think the thread title is misleading and dangerous. I think it lulls retail spot FX customers, and especially RefcoFX customers, into a false sense of security, which prevents them from taking actions and investigations necessary to protect themselves from the risks they currently face. If they were really on the ball, they would ask Elitetrader moderators to alter the title of this thread so that it will no longer be a travesty.
Quote from jimrockford:
You are correct, Xenia. The thread title is a falsehood. Some of the RefcoFX customer funds are, in fact, missing; and this is why Bloomberg reported that the proposed deal will, if it goes thru, require the transferee broker to assume some debts owed to customers. Any funds still present at RefcoFX are not safe, because they might be used to pay Refco creditors other than RefcoFX customers; including possibly Refco creditors who have legally higher priority than RefcoFX customers. If the FXCM deal does not go thru, then millions of dollars of RefcoFX customer funds may be paid to FXCM, as a sort of consolation prize required by the Memorandum of Understanding, instead of to customers. If you want to learn more, then you should read this entire thread, if you haven't already done so.
I think the thread title is misleading and dangerous. I think it lulls retail spot FX customers, and especially RefcoFX customers, into a false sense of security, which prevents them from taking actions and investigations necessary to protect themselves from the risks they currently face. If they were really on the ball, they would ask Elitetrader moderators to alter the title of this thread so that it will no longer be a travesty.
Jim:
I agree with most of what you said. But as far as the consolation prize goes for FXCM, I don't believe that is a automatic feather. REFCO FX has lost the power to make financial agreements on their own, and need the courts approval.
Your right, the deal is far from over. But hopefully some more clarity will come from todays hearing...
I also question certain individuals motives when they proclaim something as being done//or certain when they know it is not.
I remember awhile back, a certain somebody proclaimed "Mission Completed" in regards to Iraq, when he knew that their was far more to do before those words could be proclaimed.
In my mind, only a child would be so foolish to utter such words, until he really knew.
My funds are not safe until I have free use of those funds. Right now I consider those funds as if they have been stolen.
For at one time, they were mine to do as I wished, but now someone else gets to make the decision wether or not I will ever get my money back.
The customer funds issue is a property Rights Issue. REFCO FX customers did not knowingly lend their money to REFCO, they were stolen.
If the Court dose not insure that Customer's get their money back before the Creditors, I believe that the best recourse of action is to use the Fifth amendment.
People can not be denied their property rights without due process...
Though this seems to be happening every day, since the Judges just plain ignore the constitution, and look at it as a guide book, instead of a rule book....
And besides, those who trade FOREX must be rich, and can afford to loose. Since FOREX is really risky, what the difference, loosing the money in court or while trading? Right?
Not for me!!!!
I've been trading for awhile, and I pay plenty of taxes because of it. I just wish some of those tax dollars went to help me protect my money, instead of line the pockets of lawyers who could care less about their customers, but instead look for ways to eat up their retainers quickly to come back demanding for more money to put in the kitty.
What a bunch of whiners.
When I suggested y'all go look at the terms your FX brokers offered and YOU AGREED TO when you signed their forms, you'd have found that none of this is a surprise. At the time. I was bashed as someone who "didnt get it". You are simply an UNSECURED GENERAL CREDITOR. Get in line with the guy they buy pencils from.
Maybe next time y'all will read what brokers send you. The only one to blame is YOURSELF.
When I suggested y'all go look at the terms your FX brokers offered and YOU AGREED TO when you signed their forms, you'd have found that none of this is a surprise. At the time. I was bashed as someone who "didnt get it". You are simply an UNSECURED GENERAL CREDITOR. Get in line with the guy they buy pencils from.
Maybe next time y'all will read what brokers send you. The only one to blame is YOURSELF.
Quote from tomcole:
What a bunch of whiners.
When I suggested y'all go look at the terms your FX brokers offered and YOU AGREED TO when you signed their forms, you'd have found that none of this is a surprise. At the time. I was bashed as someone who "didnt get it". You are simply an UNSECURED GENERAL CREDITOR. Get in line with the guy they buy pencils from.
Maybe next time y'all will read what brokers send you. The only one to blame is YOURSELF.
The victims are only partly to blame. Most blame should be reserved for the perpetrators taking candy from babies, those perps taking advantage of people too many mentally weak to protect themselves from fraud or theft.
Quote from tomcole:
What a bunch of whiners.
When I suggested y'all go look at the terms your FX brokers offered and YOU AGREED TO when you signed their forms, you'd have found that none of this is a surprise. At the time. I was bashed as someone who "didn't get it". You are simply an UNSECURED GENERAL CREDITOR. Get in line with the guy they buy pencils from.
Maybe next time y'all will read what brokers send you. The only one to blame is YOURSELF.
Could you please tell me where in my trading agreement that it says that I am an unsecured general creditor???
I've read the contract through an through, and I don't see that spelled out.
Also, standard contract law rule is that when there is ambiguity in contractual language, the courts are to rule in favor ot the party that didn't author the contract.
In addition, one party can not change the terms of a contract without the agreement of the other party. If this were the case, insurance companies would have a hay day, and wouldn't have to ever pay out any money.
Your statements are void of common sense.
You need to go and read some Alexander Hamilton about the role in the government the markets...
When you enter into any transaction unless there is LEGAL contractual security between the parties, you are an unsecured general creditor. Just because someone at a company SAYS you're OK, it doesnt mean you are.
When you deal with reputable firms, with good credit ratings, you're paying for their balance sheet strength. Why do you think firms like GS, JPM etc have customers knocking on their door and FX bucket shops rely upon stupid retail customers to show up?
Maybe the fine print is put in there for a reason - like to seperate you from your money when a problem occurs. And it looks like the fine print will win again in this case.
Maybe you should send YOUR multi-page agreement for transactions to a broker and see what THEY do!
When you deal with reputable firms, with good credit ratings, you're paying for their balance sheet strength. Why do you think firms like GS, JPM etc have customers knocking on their door and FX bucket shops rely upon stupid retail customers to show up?
Maybe the fine print is put in there for a reason - like to seperate you from your money when a problem occurs. And it looks like the fine print will win again in this case.
Maybe you should send YOUR multi-page agreement for transactions to a broker and see what THEY do!
Quote from ZoneTrooper:
Could you please tell me where in my trading agreement that it says that I am an unsecured general creditor???
I've read the contract through an through, and I don't see that spelled out.
Also, standard contract law rule is that when there is ambiguity in contractual language, the courts are to rule in favor ot the party that didn't author the contract.
ZoneTrooper,
Your contract doesn't explicitly say you are an unsecured general creditor, because it doesn't have to say it explicitly. You are an unsecured general creditor, unless the contract says otherwise. The contract is silent, on this question, and therefore, you are an unsecured general creditor, therefore you are the loser. An unsecured general creditor has no protection from bankruptcy. It's kind of like having unprotected sex with a crack whore, and then complaining because she gave you a disease. You are partly at fault because you failed to perform due diligence as to the risks you were taking, by depositing funds into a totally unprotected account, at a totally unregulated bucketshop, operating in the disreputable retail spot FX industry, owned by yet another disreputable company, headquartered in the Bermudas, a land well known for its laws shielding international financial criminals and their assets.
Your contract is not ambiguous as to your unsecured general creditor status. It only seems ambiguous to you, because you failed to perform due diligence, and you still lack the knowledge you should have had before you ever opened an account.
Read between the lines of the section 6, "Collateral", of the FXCM's "Trader Agreement".
I think the agreement EXPLICITLY tells that you ARE going to be an unsecured creditor of them.
I think the agreement EXPLICITLY tells that you ARE going to be an unsecured creditor of them.