Proposed NFA Capital Requirement

Quote from KVincent:

Fact remains, even the One World client who emailed you hasn't lost their money yet.
More...

Wow, I'm sure the customers who can't get their money out of One World feel better now that KVincent is on the case.

Look this thread is about the problem of low capitalization in the industry and how this NFA proposal was created as a result of it. You can try and threadjack all you like with your FXCM bashing. It's obvious you work for a competitor of theirs.

In the meantime the NFA has moved ahead and officially raised the capital requirement to $5 million. The ball is now in the CFTC's court. And that is where my attention will remain.
 
Quote from forexsavior:

Wow, I'm sure the customers who can't get their money out of One World feel better now that KVincent is on the case.

Look this thread is about the problem of low capitalization in the industry and how this NFA proposal was created as a result of it. You can try and threadjack all you like with your FXCM bashing. It's obvious you work for a competitor of theirs.

In the meantime the NFA has moved ahead and officially raised the capital requirement to $5 million. The ball is now in the CFTC's court. And that is where my attention will remain.
More...

I'll keep asking the question until you answer it.

Should traders avoid dealing with brokers who have been sanctioned or are currently being sanctioned by the NFA or not? I don't care who they are. If nothing else such sanctions show that an FCM is poorly managed. In FXCM's response to NFA most recent complaint, they show a total contempt not only for the NFA but traders. Read the amended complaint and then FXCM's response to it and then tell us that capitalization requirements are the gorilla in the room.
 
Quote from KVincent:

I'll keep asking the question until you answer it.

Should traders avoid dealing with brokers who have been sanctioned or are currently being sanctioned by the NFA or not? I don't care who they are. If nothing else such sanctions show that an FCM is poorly managed. In FXCM's response to NFA most recent complaint, they show a total contempt not only for the NFA but traders. Read the amended complaint and then FXCM's response to it and then tell us that capitalization requirements are the gorilla in the room.
More...

You can keep asking the question as long as you like. But I'm not going to dignify your attempted thread jacking with a response. This thread is about the NFA capital requirement proposal and the issue of low capitalization in the industry. If you want to start another thread on all NFA complaints be my guest.
 
Quote from forexsavior:

You can keep asking the question as long as you like. But I'm not going to dignify your attempted thread jacking with a response. This thread is about the NFA capital requirement proposal and the issue of low capitalization in the industry. If you want to start another thread on all NFA complaints be my guest.
More...

At last, I'm vindicated.

Your credibility, if you had any at all, just evaporated and well it should. You've been outed on still another of the ten or so forums you've been dedicating your recent working life to and now FXStreet's moderator's are questionning your motives as well. Pair the most recent outing with your refusal to take a stance against brokers who are routinely sanctioned by the CFTC and NFA and I think everyone gets the picture.

What say you, Forexsavior? Afraid to say anything that might lead traders to abandon your broker for fear of losing your job or are you so high on the feeding chain that you don't have to worry about such things?

Oh, I almost forgot. You and others have suggested that I'm a shill for one of the potentially undercapitalized firms on his list of dead firms walking. Having revealed my broker preferences (Oanda and MBTrading) early on in this thread then I guess it's a fair conclusion that I must be a shill for MBTrading because they're one of the firms Forexsavior's includes in his list of dead firms walking. Just a matter of connecting the dots, isn't it?

Wow, that's a load off my conscience, FXCMsavior (oooops, Freudian slip there) care to follow suit? I'm sure a confession would be good for your soul and you wouldn't have to toss and turn at night wondering if this campaign of yours is ultimately going to turn against you and the folks you work for and/or represent.

I know. I know. You won't dignify that with a response but I just had to ask.

Still waiting for you to weigh in on the following question: Should traders abandon brokers who have been repreatedly sanctioned by the CFTC and NFA?
 
Ok KVincent if you want to indulge yourself with the fantasy that you are "vindicated" be my guest. Even if I were a shill for FXCM (which I'm not) that would not change the fact that the NFA just raised capital requirements to $5 million.

http://www.nfa.futures.org/news/new...?ArticleID=1942

They did this because they believe that poorly capitalized firms below $5 million are at a greater risk of insolvency.

You can go after all the big firms you want and claim how their complaints are proof they are no different from the undercapitalized. But the fact is when this rule is put into place the big firms are not the ones that will be staring death in the face. It will be the poorly capitalized ones. And that is what this thread is all about. No amount of spin or misdirection on your part can change these simple facts.

And it is these simple facts that the trading public is becoming keenly aware of.
 
Quote from forexsavior:

Ok KVincent if you want to endulge yourself with the fantasy that you are "vindicated" be my guest. Even if I were a shill for FXCM (which I'm not) that would not change the fact that the NFA just raised capital requirements to $5 million.

http://www.nfa.futures.org/news/new...?ArticleID=1942

They did this because they believe that poorly capitalized firms below $5 million are at a greater risk of insolvency.

You can go after all the big firms you want and claim how their complaints are proof they are no different from the undercapitalized. But the fact is when this rule is put into place the big firms are not the ones that will be staring death in the face. It will be the poorly capitalized ones. And that is what this thread is all about. No amount of spin or misdirection on your part can change these simple facts.

And it is these simple facts that the trading public is becoming keenly aware of.
More...

How have you managed to use FXCM's (Forex Capital's) server to publish this stuff? Are you a janitor there? If you aren't a shill for them, then how do you explain that your posts originate at their IP address?

I haven't dismissed the capitalization issue, I has just dared question the campaign's origins which you continue to suggest is irrelevant. The fact that you keep dodging a very simple and related question related to CFTC/NFA sanctions tells me that you could care less about the welfare of traders.

If I were a shill for any broker and my sole purpose in life was to trash FXCM, I'd be responding to you on all the forums you've been using to orchestrate this fear campaign. I have better things to do.
 
Uh, if you are that obsessed with FXCM's NFA complaint then why don't you go ask FXCM yourself about it? After all, you claimed to have contacted One World Capital. This thread is not about FXCM. And just because someone at FXCM went to Whipsaw's website doesn't prove a thing (except that Whipsaw and yourself are on an anti-FXCM jihad.)

I could care less if you attack FXCM which is why I can't be bothered to comment on their NFA complaint. Lots of the big firms have NFA complaints. But it isn't the big firms that are poorly capitalized and thus subject to the upcoming NFA Capital requirement increase.

Again, your attempt at misdirection doesn't change the fact that the NFA just raised capital requirements to $5 million.

http://www.nfa.futures.org/news/new...?ArticleID=1942

They did this because they believe that poorly capitalized firms below $5 million are at a greater risk of insolvency.

I will say that over and over and over again. Poorly capitalized firms are at a greater risk of insolvency, per the NFA. That is the issue. And I shall continue to speak out on it.
 
FXCMsavior:

Facts speak for themselves on both counts yet you refuse to address yourself to the issue of broker misconduct which, historically and to my way of thinking, has put and will continue to trader's funds at far greater risk than capitalization.

I won't be posted to this thread any longer. I've made my point and won't belabor it further.

Good luck to all.
 
Quote from forexsavior:Poorly capitalized firms are at a greater risk of insolvency, per the NFA. That is the issue. And I shall continue to speak out on it. [/B]
More...

An equally valid issue is the "well capitalized" brokers being charged with, according to the NFA website ...

• C.R.2-36(b)(1) - CHEAT, DEFRAUD, DECEIVE FOREX CUSTOMERS
(http://www.nfa.futures.org/BasicNet/CaseDocument.aspx?seqnum=1023)

Based on that it seems customers have an equally great risk of being screwed by a "well capitalized" broker.

http://www.nfa.futures.org/BasicNet/Case.aspx?entityid=0308179&case=06BCC00046&contrib=NFA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top