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.
MF Global On A Massive Scale?
- Thread starter Swan Noir
- Start date
Why wouldn't you be an unsecured creditor of the bank? Are FX accounts at the bank a deposit account and FDIC insured?
Quote from Pippi436:
Its still the case, you are an unsecured creditor in the case of a FX firm bankruptcy (except if you deal with a bank).
UK is way safer from that perspective (and its the center of the world as far as fx is concerned anyways).
Quote from Swan Noir:
Why wouldn't you be an unsecured creditor of the bank? Are FX accounts at the bank a deposit account and FDIC insured?
I think they are, in addition to the implicit govt backstop of the bigger banks. Not sure what happens to a margin position in the worst case tho and if ECP / professional clients are protected.
In the UK there is a futures-like segregation requirement with trust accounts - sounds rather safe (assuming no fraud).
UK futures & FX customers fared badly in the Lehman collapse. US customers lost zero but UK clients -- mostly hedge funds -- bit the bullet for a billion plus.
Quote from Pippi436:
I think they are, in addition to the implicit govt backstop of the bigger banks. Not sure what happens to a margin position in the worst case tho and if ECP / professional clients are protected.
In the UK there is a futures-like segregation requirement with trust accounts - sounds rather safe (assuming no fraud).
I don't know how it is, that after opening a trading account with a broker and then
funding it, it appears that MY money suddenly belongs to the broker
wtf came up with that idea
there's something insidiously sick and diseased with a system that can't separate
MY money from the funds - and debts belonging to the business
I admit to not reading the 'Customer Agreement' - I can't change it so why bother
but why aren't fx client funds segragated ? not - as we know it makes any difference
I'll have to read Oanda Canada's CA to see what it has to say about segregation
but as you know client funds at any/all Canadian brokers - no differention are insured
up to C$1,000,000 , so segragation doesn't come into the equation, likewise where
the trade takes place has no bearing on client funds being insured
I have to think that the U S of A is a corrupt country
don't think it started out as corrupt, but the way in which LAW has been used to
change the way things are done has corrupted systems
why the U S of A has placed LAW above all else is something for a political scientist
or historian to answer, but it's definitely a corrupt system that allows a company's
creditors to 'steal' the company's client funds to pay themselves
it's completely unsensible to me that such a thing can happen, and nothing whatsoever
to do with the LAW nor accounting, nor bankruptcy acts
some Americans know about the corrupt entity the U S of A has become, the OWS
is one reaction to it, homeowners occupying/fighting foreclosure another
insurance of course flies above the corruption but it shouldn't be left to brokers to
decide whether or not their clients should be permitted to have their funds insured
particularly when it isn't the clients that are stealing their own money
as to the SIPC
" . . . investment fraud in the U.S. ranges from $10-$40 billion a year.
Congress specifically considered creating a Federal Broker-Dealer Insurance
Corporation, but *law*makers* wisely concluded that such a designation
would be both misleading and out of step in the risk-based investment
marketplace that is so different from the world of banking." - emphasis added
http://www.sipc.org/who/notfdic.cfm
funding it, it appears that MY money suddenly belongs to the broker
wtf came up with that idea
there's something insidiously sick and diseased with a system that can't separate
MY money from the funds - and debts belonging to the business
I admit to not reading the 'Customer Agreement' - I can't change it so why bother
but why aren't fx client funds segragated ? not - as we know it makes any difference
I'll have to read Oanda Canada's CA to see what it has to say about segregation
but as you know client funds at any/all Canadian brokers - no differention are insured
up to C$1,000,000 , so segragation doesn't come into the equation, likewise where
the trade takes place has no bearing on client funds being insured
I have to think that the U S of A is a corrupt country
don't think it started out as corrupt, but the way in which LAW has been used to
change the way things are done has corrupted systems
why the U S of A has placed LAW above all else is something for a political scientist
or historian to answer, but it's definitely a corrupt system that allows a company's
creditors to 'steal' the company's client funds to pay themselves
it's completely unsensible to me that such a thing can happen, and nothing whatsoever
to do with the LAW nor accounting, nor bankruptcy acts
some Americans know about the corrupt entity the U S of A has become, the OWS
is one reaction to it, homeowners occupying/fighting foreclosure another
insurance of course flies above the corruption but it shouldn't be left to brokers to
decide whether or not their clients should be permitted to have their funds insured
particularly when it isn't the clients that are stealing their own money
as to the SIPC
" . . . investment fraud in the U.S. ranges from $10-$40 billion a year.
Congress specifically considered creating a Federal Broker-Dealer Insurance
Corporation, but *law*makers* wisely concluded that such a designation
would be both misleading and out of step in the risk-based investment
marketplace that is so different from the world of banking." - emphasis added
http://www.sipc.org/who/notfdic.cfm