Refco Fallout
- Thread starter FXsKaLpEr
- Start date
- Status
100% Agreed.
In fact, 60 of his last 70 posts are on REFCO.
It appears that Mr. Rockford is a legend in his own mind.
A quite obsessive one at that!
)Apex Capital's most recent post provides another example of his dishonesty, and of his efforts to create a hostile atmosphere deterring participation in this thread.
I have, in this thread, accused ET of careless censorship which unintentionally helps frauddoers. An ET member, thewoodcutter, misunderstood me, and made a posting saying that I had accused ET of deliberately siding with frauddoers. He also assumed, incorrectly, that I was unwilling to consider other viewpoints as to how hundreds of millions of dollars of Jim Rogers client funds disappeared from segregated futures accounts at Refco. I then made a posting, in this thread, explaining these misunderstandings, and clarifying my statements and opinions.
Apex Capital, however, subsequently ignored my clarifications of my own statements and opinions, and posted a repetition of thewoodcutter's incorrect presentation of my statements and opinions. Apex Capital has done this to me many times. Apex Capital falsely puts words in my mouth, in order to make me appear to say things that I didn't say, and to make me appear to believe things that I don't believe, and to make me appear to be unreasonable.
This type of behaviour is not only an "off-topic" distraction, it creates an atmosphere of hostility and intimidation, poisoning and choking what was once a very constructive, informative, and helpful thread. This is part of a pattern of behaviour, in which Apex Capital misuses ET to circulate false reassurances about the risks of doing business with Refco, and uses dishonest tactics to punish challenges to his false information.
I therefore suggest that everyone should complain to Baron about Apex Capital's childish vendetta. It is extremely important, however, to explain that you value this thread, that you don't want this thread to be closed, that you don't want legitimate participants and postings in this thread to be censored, and that you want this thread to be protected from Apex Capital's ongoing interference.
I have, in this thread, accused ET of careless censorship which unintentionally helps frauddoers. An ET member, thewoodcutter, misunderstood me, and made a posting saying that I had accused ET of deliberately siding with frauddoers. He also assumed, incorrectly, that I was unwilling to consider other viewpoints as to how hundreds of millions of dollars of Jim Rogers client funds disappeared from segregated futures accounts at Refco. I then made a posting, in this thread, explaining these misunderstandings, and clarifying my statements and opinions.
Apex Capital, however, subsequently ignored my clarifications of my own statements and opinions, and posted a repetition of thewoodcutter's incorrect presentation of my statements and opinions. Apex Capital has done this to me many times. Apex Capital falsely puts words in my mouth, in order to make me appear to say things that I didn't say, and to make me appear to believe things that I don't believe, and to make me appear to be unreasonable.
This type of behaviour is not only an "off-topic" distraction, it creates an atmosphere of hostility and intimidation, poisoning and choking what was once a very constructive, informative, and helpful thread. This is part of a pattern of behaviour, in which Apex Capital misuses ET to circulate false reassurances about the risks of doing business with Refco, and uses dishonest tactics to punish challenges to his false information.
I therefore suggest that everyone should complain to Baron about Apex Capital's childish vendetta. It is extremely important, however, to explain that you value this thread, that you don't want this thread to be closed, that you don't want legitimate participants and postings in this thread to be censored, and that you want this thread to be protected from Apex Capital's ongoing interference.
2cents,
If someone were filling a website with false accusations against you, over and over again, and if you knew that people you respected had believed some of those accusations, are you sure you would be able to just ignore the false accusations?
Do you share my additional concern that Apex Capital's constant stream, of off-topic personal attacks, deters people from participating in the thread? Do you care at all about protecting this thread from deliberate interference?
mate its a holiday today and sunny or almost out here in tokyo but... ok...
yes honestly humor aside, i wld ignore pretty much any form of 'accusations' on such a medium... anything that would detract from the more important matter at hand... nobody is going to take a poster's attack on another poster seriously here anyway, it just can't beat WWF for entertainment value can it?, people will just form an opinion based on their own filtering of your present & past posts, and i'll bet u they won't spend much time looking at the "he is lying..." type tirades... life's just too short mate...
concern-wise... i don't really have a concern - other than the fact that its mildly annoying to have to go thru pages of garbage on an otherwise interesting thread.. - but plse realize your not doing yrself any favours in demonizing apex either... we can all read by ourselves all of apex's profound & substantial contributions on how to best handle clients monies in the event of a refco repeat - i mean, in segregated futures accts cases hellooo! - ... after all just because i, for one, do not share his views, doesn't mean he is not entitled to hold them forth, right?...
my advice fwiw...: well u guys r so wound up against each other, i suppose its not easy... but perhaps just try to be the smarter guy here and ignore any further criticisms coming from apex or others - just in passing, its not like your attitude on this forum vs baron etc doesn't deserve a few criticisms, ok? and plizzz don't reply -, don't try to 'have the last word' with apex, THATs childish, leave that to him...
now, whats the weather like where u live mate? ;-)))
Dang, I was just in Tokyo (almost 15 hours ago), the last leg of a long trip through Asia. There are a lot of stuff going on in the Far East, the Citadel expansion in Hong Kong is absolutely amazing (I took a tour of their new trading desk in Central), they are bidding up asian trading talents to almost 15-20% premium over US rates, unreal.
Anyways, I just spent 10 mins looking over this long thread of argument, and I just find it strange that two people would argue over something that even litigators have prepared volumes of arguments. Apex and I disagreed when the Refco situation first arise, I was primarily bearish, thinking that the situation would get worse before it got better (and yet I did not factor in the possibility of outright bankrupcy), and he was more up-beat. But that's a philosophical difference, that's all.
The Beeland (aka Jim Rogers) situation is particularly interesting, since some of the "Executives" of Refco that was quoted (and will be called to court) I happen to know personally (and no, I don't think highly of them at all, but that's a different story) in a past life.
The arguments from both sides (Refco's and Beeland's) both warrant merit. Refco's argument is that since Beeland filled out paperworks indicating that some of the accounts (funds is a bit different, bear with me) would be opened in the unsecured entity, while some would be maintained in the secured (segregated) accounts, any funds held in the unsecured account would be considered Refco's property and Beeland would be an unsecured creditor. Beeland's argument is that a substantial portion of the funds, being engaged in the trading of futures, therefore should be held in the segregated FCM accounts. Therefore, according to Beeland's lawyers, Refco is fraudulent in their keeping of the funds in the unsecured accounts. What complicated the matters more is that some Refco Executives (see above) have e-mail and vocal communcation with Beeland indicating that some of the funds will be shifted from the unsecured accounts to the segregated accounts.
Before we go out and call Refco embezzling Beeland's funds, I would reserve judgement before all the evidences are heard by the courts. Timing of when the instruction was received by Refco, the communication from Refco executives to Beeland, and the frozen of unsecured funds clearly are key issues here. Since Beeland have been receiving account statements indicating their equity in both the secured and unsecured accounts, and yet they only initiated the funds transfer I believe less than 48 hour before the RCM accounts froze (according to WSJ).
Problem here is that hedge funds frequently keep both secured and unsecured accounts (for trading that doesn't need financing and does), and the legal status of the accounts doesn't matter much, until a mess like Refco arrises. I know a few hedge funds are now looking seriously at better in-house monitoring of their account regulatory status. The situation is complicated and I would leave it up the courts.
Now let me go off on a tangent for a second, when I started reading ET a couple of months ago, I was hoping that I would get some of "grapevine" whispers that I missed about being in the trading floor of a top-tier hedge fund or an investment bank. While there are a lot of good stuff, especially from the exchange pits, there doesn't seem to be a lot of ex-institutional types around, weird. Which makes me miss those things even more, I guess.
Then I don't understand you. Your "argument" focuses on performing due diligence, which nobody (that I can see) has disagreed with, although there has been disagreement about what constitutes due diligence. But unless you are willing to discuss the how and why then there is no point you making countless posts repeating this - we need to know if the JR situation was a case of mishandling of client money (which I don't believe) or was it transferred for other reasons (an example of which I have previously cited and i think ET member rufus_400 had a good post on the subject) - this is vitally important in establishing the likelyhood of this happening at any other broker.
I do not disagree with your points about removing funds as there is no reward in loyality in this situation. For what it's worth I have I have transferred out a few futures accounts worth around $2m (incidently with no significant problems) but still have one smaller account with about $150k left, I've taken the view that the worst is likely over and if the regulated futures division was going to collapse it would have done so by now.
The word "conspiracy" means a joining of two or more parties as if by sinster design. You had asked the question:
I stand by my interpretation.
excellent post rufus_4000
- Status