IB is Refco 2.0!

Quote from bpl1000:

TP's decision to eat the losses is as transparent as they come... I just don't understand why??

Basically, if he owns 85% of the company, he's going to eat the losses one way or another. I assume by paying IB, he still wins if he's able to deduct it from taxes. I also assume his intention was to prop up confidence in his company. Also, I assume this will mask losses the next time they report earnings.

As for him going after the insider traders personally??

...I don't know about that one. Isnt the SEC handling the case?? They certainly have more resources and expertise (I would hope).

That's exactly my belief -- I think "prop up confidence" was certainly the motivation but bec of communications w/the street issues, the opposite happened. I would think a clearer statement expressing confidence, maybe a conf call, and the like would have helped.

It cannot mask any future earnings report as it's a related party transaction.

And remember this is in Germany it's the SEC-equivalent over there.
 
Quote from jimrockford:

I re-read your earlier post, and I am sorry to say that I am still appalled by the unfair way you have spewed your ignorance, apparently without regard to how your actions might harm others.

It is silly to draw comparisons between IB and Refco, or to suggest that the recent incident jeopardizes IB's survival. Your assertion that both companies acted in good faith, and therefore can be compared, shows appalling ignorance. Refco's loss resulted from its bad faith. Refco acted in bad faith by concealing that loss from its customers, investors, and creditors, and also from BAWAG, the Austrian bank left holding the bag after it purchased Bennet's $430M in shares days before they collapsed to zero. Refco acted in bad faith at all times, which is only one of the things making it totally different from IB.

I totally agree, IB is fine.

disclosure- long 1000 shares.
 
Quote from rayl:



It cannot mask any future earnings report as it's a related party transaction.

And remember this is in Germany it's the SEC-equivalent over there.

But it would distort cash flow from ops? How would they account for the +37M?
 
Quote from mde2004:

I totally agree, IB is fine.

disclosure- long 1000 shares.



Thanks for the disclosure. We can all breathe a collective sigh of relief.
 
Quote from jimrockford:

I re-read your earlier post, and I am sorry to say that I am still appalled by the unfair way you have spewed your ignorance, apparently without regard to how your actions might harm others.

It is silly to draw comparisons between IB and Refco, or to suggest that the recent incident jeopardizes IB's survival. Your assertion that both companies acted in good faith, and therefore can be compared, shows appalling ignorance. Refco's loss resulted from its bad faith. Refco acted in bad faith by concealing that loss from its customers, investors, and creditors, and also from BAWAG, the Austrian bank left holding the bag after it purchased Bennett's $430M in shares days before they collapsed to zero. Refco acted in bad faith at all times, which is only one of the things making it totally different from IB.

You just don't get it and obviously don't have the ability to discern what you read.
Again, I was answering ONE comment whereby it was stated no ceo officer etc from refco ever put in funds.
I stated a factual statement, regardless of where the funds came from, Bennett did indeed put in funds...that's it!
I also said "I am not saying IB is going to go bust" and infact said I am hoping the dust clears as soon as possible.
where do you see me slandering IB.
I did say and I still do that as there are lawyers and liars IB will still have issues, all corporations have issues at some time or another..like the back dating of options..frauds on us all the time.

The only other comparison I stated was the bid /ask price when the situation arose was the same and stated mostly how I felt the refco fiasco was bogus. Nothing inflammatory to IB
and by the way the IB drop is bs. We will never know the agenda of the institutions. Ib's drop was not individuals exiting but institutions or funds creating a head fake to ? us? to exit so they can pick up the shares cheap and as you may have noticed I was correct as the current bid /ask is lower. Ib is just lucky they have a small float and manipulation becomes much harder otherwise the drop would of been much greater. Personally, if I was looking to buy shares I would be looking at the high teens / 20 area if and when it gets there. Todays volume imo shows some stability as volume is back to normal?
nvda a few years back went from 27-29 area to 9 dollars in a few wks only to turn around and rally to 60 dollars?
tasr, brcm, mrvl,etc etc all retrace.
my point was refco was profitable and made money for years regardless of what / if Bennett was doing. They were the largest derivative broker in the world, offices in 14 countries several thousand employees to my understanding so how in hell do they go broke in a few wks....total bs as the profitable subs were sold off. in reality this bogus moves to take our the little mans shares is stock manipulation with no recourse and is just a daily fact as is what I stated and am saying.
I am sorry that the truth offends and scares you so much.
but it is what it is and it is you not me that has spewed ignorance and unfair accusations.

have a nice

w
 
Now let us review the facts:

Company has top notch technology
unbeatable commissions
ability to trade all products in a single account
great platform
excellent API
Solid FIX engine
best margins in the business
outstanding execution
huge market making division

What is the one thing that kills companies that doesn't show up on a balance sheet?
 
Quote from stock777:

I didn't know 40 million shares was a small float.

Management.

In my opinion the companies biggest weakness is TP himself and the other IT people he has running a brokerage business.

Have you ever wondered why with such a fantastic product they have zero institutional prescence?
 
Back
Top