Refco Account Security
- Thread starter Htrader
- Start date
- Status
I think part of the problem was that a lot of misinformation was being stated by both people who were appearing to defend Refco and by others who weren't.
I clearly stated that people at Mac were having their accounts frozen and indeed had an email from a senior person at LIFFE telling me this. The information was wrong though.
What I found strange was that Apex and others were telling people not to worry as the accounting issue was at the Holding company and not the various related entities. I thought this was, and still do, crazy advice. There is no point going through the rights or wrongs of the argument again but I just thought anyone with any exposure to any Refco entity was sensible to withdraw funds until the situation became clearer.
Although the situation is still far from clear both 'sides' could currently claim their advice was right. No one with funds with Refco have lost or had their funds frozen but the situation has certainly escalated far more than was implied by Apex and the people with similar views to him.
I hope that this remains the position and that the situation does not deteriate further. If I had any Refco account though I would be withdrawing my funds for the time being, if I had not already done so.
I clearly stated that people at Mac were having their accounts frozen and indeed had an email from a senior person at LIFFE telling me this. The information was wrong though.
What I found strange was that Apex and others were telling people not to worry as the accounting issue was at the Holding company and not the various related entities. I thought this was, and still do, crazy advice. There is no point going through the rights or wrongs of the argument again but I just thought anyone with any exposure to any Refco entity was sensible to withdraw funds until the situation became clearer.
Although the situation is still far from clear both 'sides' could currently claim their advice was right. No one with funds with Refco have lost or had their funds frozen but the situation has certainly escalated far more than was implied by Apex and the people with similar views to him.
I hope that this remains the position and that the situation does not deteriate further. If I had any Refco account though I would be withdrawing my funds for the time being, if I had not already done so.
Like I said earlier, if you think you were libeled on ET then I think you have larger problems.
Morover, if your firms (if your handle actually correspsonds to a real firm ) officers allow you to post here then there is an even greater problem.
There is a reason people laugh at most of the activity on this board and your postings and this thread only bolster their claims.
Well....your "guess" could not be more wrong and far off the truth. Further no advice is given.
Simply a musing of what some lawyer --looking for business --might do who is paid to protect the interests of a client under a body of existing law (written by more lawyers, creating an industry for themselves) in a highly litigous society.
Simply a musing of what some lawyer --looking for business --might do who is paid to protect the interests of a client under a body of existing law (written by more lawyers, creating an industry for themselves) in a highly litigous society.
Quote from ellokn:
Quote from jimrockford:
Quote from ellokn:
ellokn,
You misinterpreted my post.
Some traders believe that no trader should expose his capital to any risk, unless there is a potential reward to justify taking that risk. Your posting does seem to encourage people to risk staying at Refco, instead of moving elsewhere. I merely asked you whether any trader, who takes that risk, might receive some potential reward for taking that risk.
I never insinuated that you were getting some sort of reward for your comments. This was purely a figment of your imagination.
Your posting does seem to encourage people to take the risk of staying at Refco. If this was not your intent, then you need to give more thought about what you write, and how and why you are writing it. Your suggestion that I was accusing you, or attacking you, is, once again, a figment of your imagination.
I will happily accept your apology, should you offer it.
Quote from jimrockford:
Quote from ellokn:
ellokn,
You misinterpreted my post.
Some traders believe that no trader should expose his capital to any risk, unless there is a potential reward to justify taking that risk. Your posting does seem to encourage people to risk staying at Refco, instead of moving elsewhere. I merely asked you whether any trader, who takes that risk, might receive some potential reward for taking that risk.
I never insinuated that you were getting some sort of reward for your comments. This was purely a figment of your imagination.
Your posting does seem to encourage people to take the risk of staying at Refco. If this was not your intent, then you need to give more thought about what you write, and how and why you are writing it. Your suggestion that I was accusing you, or attacking you, is, once again, a figment of your imagination.
I will happily accept your apology, should you offer it.
Mostly old news by now, just one of our weekly round ups on this:
http://www.fow.com/articles/foweek_article.asp?storyCode=3949
FCM officials seemed pretty much to be at the consensus that you'd be pretty foolish to keep your money in there.
BTW, as a journalist I feel I ought to point out that you'd have a hard job proving libel against a pseudonym. But anyway.
http://www.fow.com/articles/foweek_article.asp?storyCode=3949
FCM officials seemed pretty much to be at the consensus that you'd be pretty foolish to keep your money in there.
BTW, as a journalist I feel I ought to point out that you'd have a hard job proving libel against a pseudonym. But anyway.
Interesting article.
Is this the FCM official that supports your conclusion above:
"John Damgard, president of Futures Industry Association, told FO Week that the case should be looked at in context as a corporate scandal, not a customer scandal, as no customer accounts were affected."
"The important thing here is that the regulated entity does not appear to be affected at all," Damgard said. "They passed their audit with the ( Chicago Mercantile Exchange ), which was their self-regulator, with flying colours. I think this whole thing comes as a surprise to the people who were really running the core business there."
Jim Kharouf of FO Week
- Status