Quote from thewoodcutter:
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.
First of all, thewoodcutter has a habit of misrepresenting my postings. Thewoodcutter, in this case, stated that I was unwilling to discuss the how and the why of the loss, by Jim Rogers clients, of hundreds of millions of dollars deposited in segregated futures trading accounts at Refco. The fact is that I did state that I am willing to discuss it. I said, in a previous posting, directly addressed to thewoodcutter:
I certainly am prepared to entertain other viewpoints as to how hundreds of millions of dollars disappeared like a fart in the wind. I think it was unreasonable for you to assume otherwise.
Second of all, I will try to clarify my comment about the how and why of the disappearing funds. I am certainly open to seeing other viewpoints, but so far, I haven't seen any explanation having any relevance to the argument I have been making. I have been making the argument that it would not be prudent to deposit funds with a broker, if there is evidence that the broker MIGHT be more likely than other brokers to embezzle the funds. The uncertainty, as to the HOW and WHY of the disappearing Jim Rogers money, does not weaken my argument.
Third of all, the woodcutter says there is no point in my repeatedly making postings restating my view. Here is the point in my doing so. Thewoodcutter and Apex Capital have repeatedly made postings misrepresenting my views. It appears that they have misled others to see my views according to those misrepresentations, instead of according to what my views actually are. My point in repeating myself is to counter the repeated misrepresentations by thewoodcutter and Apex Capital. I would prefer that the repeated misrepresentations would stop, so that I could stop denying them, and then we could all focus on a more productive discussion.
Fourth of all, thewoodcutter says that he doesn't disagree with my posts about the need to remove funds from Refco. This contradicts the fact that he has decided to leave $150,000 on deposit with Refco. So he does, in fact, disagree with me. I can only hope that these are his own funds, instead of client funds. Are they client funds?
Fifth of all, thewoodcutter's explanation, for leaving funds with Refco, is that if it was going to collapse, it would have already done so. I find this reasoning process deficient. I don't think that somebody who makes decisions this way should be permitted to manage client funds. I say once again, I can only hope that he does not.
