Refco Fallout

[OldTrader]

Quote from jimrockford:

No, Oldtrader, nobody's posting has specifically identified any such statement. You and Apex Capital have endlessly chanted your mantra, repeating the vague, general accusation that I have posted such statements, but neither of you were ever able to demonstrate a specific example.


I didn't change or deny my statements. Nobody identified an incorrect or unsupported statement from me. You're just repeating Apex Capital's vague and unsupported mantra.

Allow me to re-post, once again, your post from 11/1/2005:

We learned from the headlines, just days ago, that Jim Rogers lost hundreds of millions of dollars of client money, and may eventually get back cents on the dollar or nothing, simply because he deposited it into segregated customer accounts at the Refco futures broker. This massive embezzlement from Jim Rogers should eliminate any doubt that everything Apex Capital said, about the safety of customer funds at Refco, is not only absolute rubbish, but a gross misuse and perversion of EliteTrader.

Now, let me break your statement down into it's parts:

Jim Rogers lost hundreds of millions of dollars of client money

This is a false statement at this time because it is unsupported by KNOWN fact. At this time Rogers' clients money is subject to a court ruling which will be coming in the future. No one can categorically make this statement at this time. Will it be true in the future? We can only GUESS.

This massive embezzlement from Jim Rogers...

You have evidence that a "massive embezzlement took place? I think not. Right now, there is a disagreement about what took place with the money, which will be decided by the court. There has been no arrest made in connection with this "embezzlement" that you allege. Will it be "embezzlement" in the future? Again, we can only GUESS.

Now, why don't you start with these two statements from your post and show us why these are not statements unsupported by KNOWN fact. All you have to do is give us the KNOWN facts.

OldTrader

 

[jimrockford]

Oldtrader, your latest posting is, once again, another counterproductive, irrelevant, and childish attempt to play the game of "gotcha".

Quote from OldTrader:

Now, why don't you start with these two statements from your post and show us why these are not statements unsupported by KNOWN fact. All you have to do is give us the KNOWN facts.

Allow me to re-post, once again, your post from 11/1/2005:

Now, let me break your statement down into it's parts:

Jim Rogers lost hundreds of millions of dollars of client money

This is a false statement at this time because it is unsupported by KNOWN fact. At this time Rogers' clients money is subject to a court ruling which will be coming in the future. No one can categorically make this statement at this time. Will it be true in the future? We can only GUESS.

Baloney, Oldtrader. My statement is true. This is a KNOWN fact. It needs no support from other KNOWN facts, because it is itself a KNOWN fact. The possibility that some of the lost money might be returned at some future time does not alter the fact that the Jim Rogers clients lost their money. Your argument is purely semantic, irrelevant, and childish.

You have evidence that a "massive embezzlement took place? I think not.

It is a KNOWN fact that Refco has a long history of repeatedly embezzling segregated customer funds, and a wide-ranging involvement in a variety of massive financial crimes. It is a KNOWN fact that Jim Rogers has accused Refco of embezzling $360 million of his client funds. It is a KNOWN fact that Jim Rogers has one of the best reputations a person could have on Wall Street. It is a KNOWN fact that Refco has one of the worst reputations for dishonesty in one of the most dishonest industries, and that it has one of the most extensive and worst enforcement histories on file with the CFTC.

All of these KNOWN facts support my current opinion that Jim Rogers was telling the truth. An accusation of embezzlement, made by Jim Rogers, is evidence of embezzlement. I was, at the time of my posting, satisfied that all the evidence proved that the embezzlement occurred.

I did not learn, until after my Nov 1 posting, that Refco filed court papers claiming that Jim Rogers authorized the disputed transfer of funds, and if this is true, then it was not embezzlement. I believe that the KNOWN facts, above cited, support a conclusion that Refco was lying, so nothing changes my opinion that embezzlement occurred. If a judicial determination, or some other additional information becomes available in the future, I will re-examine and perhaps revise my opinion at that time.

Right now, there is a disagreement about what took place with the money, which will be decided by the court. There has been no arrest made in connection with this "embezzlement" that you allege. Will it be "embezzlement" in the future? Again, we can only GUESS.

Oldtrader, perhaps you are a slow learner, so I will repeat something I already said. It is not reasonable to assume that the Court will make any decision about whether embezzlement occurred. The Court may rule that, under the law, such a determination is not material to the decisions which the law requires it to make. The Court is deciding a civil bankruptcy case, not a criminal prosecution for embezzlement.

There has been no arrest made in connection with this "embezzlement" that you allege. Will it be "embezzlement" in the future? Again, we can only GUESS.

You seem to believe that no crime has been committed, until after an arrest has been made, and until after a plea or verdict of guilty has been entered by the Court, even though the case is a civil bankruptcy case. This is so absurdly unreasonable that I refuse to spend time arguing about it. If the Court case were a criminal proceeding on embezzlement charges, your reasoning would still be absurdly unreasonable. Your argument suggests you are profoundly unable to think for yourself, and that you must rely on authority figures to interpret reality for you.

You are drawing a distinction between whether there was embezzlement, or merely an as yet unproven allegation of embezzlement. This distinction is immaterial to my Nov 1 posting's reasoning that it is certainly not safe to deposit funds with Refco. Your argument is, once again, an irrelevant and childish game of "gotcha", which further damages the quality of this thread's discussion.

I'm sure that everyone else, other than yourself, sees your little "gotcha" game as a complete waste of time. I hope you wil stop wasting my time, so that I can move on to discuss relevant topics, about which people have specifically asked.

Let me repeat, for the 3rd time, my previous challenge to you, Oldtrader. I challenge you to contibute one single idea, or one single piece of information, somehow useful or relevant to this discussion of Refco Fallout.

Can you do it? Are you capable?

 

[marketsurfer]

Quote from Trader5287:


So it seems pretty clear that a low margin, highly leveraged player is potentially at risk for, say, a Sunday night gap away from him.

Do I have this wrong?

Geo.

sure, a highly leveraged player is at high risk from gaps. however, we are not talking about the viability of the firm, not the viability of the traders trading via the firm.

best,

surfer

 

[jimrockford]

Quote from man:

jim

just out of curiosity ... how come do you know previous identities of Apex?

peace

man, let's see if Apex Capital denies that he was waggie945. If he denies it, I promise I will release proof that he was, in fact, waggie945.

 

[OldTrader]

Rockford:

What an eloquent testimony to the idea that you make false statements. What I didn't know until now though is that what is obvious to most of us is not obvious to you.

Here is the most absurd statement you make: After making the statement that a "massive embezzlement" took place, you provide your proof:

1. Refco has a long history of embezzling.
2. Jim Rogers accused Refco of embezzling.
3. Jim Rogers has a good reputation and
4. Refco has a terrible reputation.

Here were your exact words:

It is a KNOWN fact that Refco has a long history of repeatedly embezzling segregated customer funds, and a wide-ranging involvement in a variety of massive financial crimes. It is a KNOWN fact that Jim Rogers has accused Refco of embezzling $360 million of his client funds. It is a KNOWN fact that Jim Rogers has one of the best reputations a person could have on Wall Street. It is a KNOWN fact that Refco has one of the worst reputations for dishonesty in one of the most dishonest industries, and that it has one of the most extensive and worst enforcement histories on file with the CFTC.

Not exactly compelling proof now is it? In other words, if someone has a poor reputation, and they are charged with a serious crime by someone with a good reputation, that all you need eh Rockford? This is the psychology of the "lynch mob" Rockford. And you're the head executioner.

But in yet another statement you set American jurisprudence back a couple of centuries:

You seem to believe that no crime has been committed, until after an arrest has been made, and until after a plea or verdict of guilty has been entered by the Court, even though the case is a civil bankruptcy case. This is so absurdly unreasonable that I refuse to spend time arguing about it.

Yep, you're right Rockford. Everyone has a right to their day in court. We're all innocent until proven guilty. Yet, you find this so "absurdly unreasoable"?

Your argument that Rogers has lost all his money? Well, there was no argument....just the following "My statement is true". LOL! I suppose it does not occur to you that Rogers is attempting to have the funds categorized as segregated funds, and that IF he is successful this may get him some/all of his money back. In fact, right now we just don't know where it stands at all....yet you're comfortable making this sort of contention.

Finally let me just point out that I am aware that the bankruptcy court will not be ruling on the matter of embezzlement. That really was not my point at all. My point is that IF there was any idea of embezzlement, then I suspect that the attorney general would have been all over Refco. Perhaps you should provide your "proof" to them so that they can proceed!LOL.

Why not just stick to the facts instead of making these unsupportable statements Rockford? And next time maybe you could say what you have to say in about half the words...this is getting tedious.

OldTrader

 

[globalfxtrainer]

Quote from OldTrader:

Rockford:

What an eloquent testimony to the idea that you make false statements. What I didn't know until now though is that what is obvious to most of us is not obvious to you.

Here is the most absurd statement you make: After making the statement that a "massive embezzlement" took place, you provide your proof:

1. Refco has a long history of embezzling.
2. Jim Rogers accused Refco of embezzling.
3. Jim Rogers has a good reputation and
4. Refco has a terrible reputation.

Here were your exact words:



Not exactly compelling proof now is it? In other words, if someone has a poor reputation, and they are charged with a serious crime by someone with a good reputation, that all you need eh Rockford? This is the psychology of the "lynch mob" Rockford. And you're the head executioner.

But in yet another statement you set American jurisprudence back a couple of centuries:



Yep, you're right Rockford. Everyone has a right to their day in court. We're all innocent until proven guilty. Yet, you find this so "absurdly unreasoable"?

Your argument that Rogers has lost all his money? Well, there was no argument....just the following "My statement is true". LOL! I suppose it does not occur to you that Rogers is attempting to have the funds categorized as segregated funds, and that IF he is successful this may get him some/all of his money back. In fact, right now we just don't know where it stands at all....yet you're comfortable making this sort of contention.

Finally let me just point out that I am aware that the bankruptcy court will not be ruling on the matter of embezzlement. That really was not my point at all. My point is that IF there was any idea of embezzlement, then I suspect that the attorney general would have been all over Refco. Perhaps you should provide your "proof" to them so that they can proceed!LOL.

Why not just stick to the facts instead of making these unsupportable statements Rockford? And next time maybe you could say what you have to say in about half the words...this is getting tedious.

OldTrader

Well it seems clear that if Refco paid the kind of fine that they did that they weren't innocent. It also seems clear that when a large company like Refco has a record of being fined by the CFTC that is a clear sign that poor management was in place. Correct me if I am wrong but that fine was somewhere north of 890,000 dollars wasn't it? Hopefully that management is not still in place but it certainly was in place when they were fined. Often the systemic problem that caused them to be fined is hard to eradicate in a culture of a company. In which case it is likely to happen again. So perhaps embezzling is too strong a word to use, but certainly there is some type of clear impropriety to warrant the size of the fine imposed by the CFTC on Refco.

 

[Apex Capital]

Quote from jimrockford:

I would like to be able to discuss Refco Fallout, the topic of this thread, without a constant stream of false accusations from Apex, and without censorship instigated by Apex. I suggest that all readers, who want this thread to continue without Apex Capital's harassment, should complain to Baron about what Apex is doing, but make it very, very clear, that you do not want this thread to be closed, and that you want it to be protected from interference by Apex Capital.

Our resident REFCO basher, jimrockford has nothing better or more productive to do than to spend endless hours on ET beating a dead horse into the ground, after the fact.

If he was so knowledgeable as he currently purports to be when it comes to the REFCO situation, then where was he earlier this year? Why didn't he come out on ET and warn ALL of us about this evil-doer futures corporation in which I can still trade my segregated futures account to this day???

Instead, jimrockford comes out bashing REFCO left and right with post after post after post after the fact. And now he wants all of you to complain to Baron because some of the people on this thread disagree with his obsessive diatribe and continual claims of unsubstantiated allegations.

It's almost like reading The World According to Jim Rockford
Rather entertaining, puzzling, amusing, and a complete waste of time . . . all at the same time.

What makes this even more bizarre is the fact that Jim Rockford does not even have an account with REFCO.

 

[globalfxtrainer]

Quote from Apex Capital:

Our resident REFCO basher, jimrockford has nothing better or more productive to do than to spend endless hours on ET beating a dead horse into the ground, after the fact.

If he was so knowledgeable as he currently purports to be when it comes to the REFCO situation, then where was he earlier this year? Why didn't he come out on ET and warn ALL of us about this evil-doer futures corporation in which I can still trade my segregated futures account to this day???

Instead, jimrockford comes out bashing REFCO left and right with post after post after post after the fact. And now he wants all of you to complain to Baron because some of the people on this thread disagree with his obsessive diatribe and continual claims of unsubstantiated allegations.

It's almost like reading The World According to Jim Rockford
Rather entertaining, puzzling, amusing, and a complete waste of time . . . all at the same time.

What makes this even more bizarre is the fact that Jim Rockford does not even have an account with REFCO.

I find Jim Rockford's posts very helpful most of the time. In fact he has validated most of what my suspicions about Refco were. So for me, for one, that has been very helpful.

In fact if he is such a waste of time, why do you continue to respond to him?

I wish I had read Jim Rockford's posts about Refco prior to becoming a Refco customer and I wouldn't have become a Refco customer in the first place and I wouldn't be in the position I am in now as a RefcoFX customer. I've been Refco'd.

 

[Apex Capital]

Quote from OldTrader:

I think this post is typical of many of your posts. You make a statement which is clearly unsupported by the KNOWN facts. When someone calls you on your statement, you then go on to making lengthy posts in which you change and/or deny your original statement.

It does not "damage" the quality of discusion about Refco to point out a statement unsupported by KNOWN facts. Rather, this type of statement unsupported by KNOWN facts that you have made numerous times during the course of this thread and others goes to undermine the quality of discussion.

Your point seems to be: "When I make a false statement it serves no purpose to bring attention to my false statement".

Please, sir, tell us how YOU propose to discuss the "evidence" regarding what either Rogers or Refco did or did not do. The parties are at this point awaiting a trial wherein the evidence will be submitted, and a judge will make a finding based on those submissions. Last I looked, neither you or I, or anyone else has those facts in their entirety, nor do we know the in's and out's of the law.

I think your tactics in many cases remind me of the guy who leads a "lynch party". "Let's get em folks...where there's smoke there is undoubtedly fire". This incessant "jumping to conclusions" on your part is getting wearisome.

OldTrader

Agreed 100%

 

[Apex Capital]

Quote from globalfxtrainer:

I wish I had read Jim Rockford's posts about Refco prior to becoming a Refco customer and I wouldn't have become a Refco customer in the first place and I wouldn't be in the position I am in now as a RefcoFX customer. I've been Refco'd.

Hmmmmm....

This sounds pretty strange to me given the fact that your good buddy Jim Rockford did not even post any kind of warning about REFCO FX let alone REFCO Holdings until after the issue with CEO Bennett. Care to find a post of Mr. Rockford's that made allegations about unscrupulous business practices occuring at REFCO before October 1st, 2005?

Why is it that you believe that you wouldn't be in the position that you currently are in now as a REFCO FX customer had you read warnings that weren't even posted until AFTER the FACT???

Care to explain this . . . because it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.