Quote from thewoodcutter:
Let's focus on this history for a minute.
You've have also stated this "embezzlement" was to help pay Refco's debts and thus stop it from going bankrupt.
Let me just seize on the offence they were fined for in 1996, the offence was commited during a period 1989 to 1992 where REFCO were found "guilty" for moving monies between segregated accounts where they had the SAME PARENT COMPANY, to offset that parent companies debits against its credits. I haven't looked at the other 3 cease and desist orders from 1983/88/90 to comment and yes, as REFCO didn't have the required paperwork in place, the segregation rules were broken but this is far cry from REFCO helping themselves to client segregated cash to keep afloat/PB in cigars etc , is it?
I recommend a tone down in the rheotoric.
It's a shame you can't find the time to comment on one of your other statements concerning FXCM.
No, thewoodcutter, your history is incomplete and incorrect.
The CFTC, in 1994, found that Refco transferred well in excess of $100 million dollars from segregated customer futures trading accounts, moved the money to non-segregated accounts, and then used those funds to pay Refco's debts, temporarily, until other financing enabled Refco to return the funds to the segregated customer accounts. So, contrary to your view, this was in fact a case of keeping Refco afloat in cigars, horse farms, hookers, cocaine, etc. If Refco had gone bankrupt before the money had been returned to the segregated accounts, then the customers would have suffered a loss. The CFTC found that this had been done over and over again, on an almost daily basis. Refco consented to the findings and neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing.
The worst offenders, within the CFTC's jurisdiction, never admit or deny wrongdoing when they strike their deals with CFTC, and this is a sign of the CFTC's weakness as a regulator. We can also perceive, in the 1994 matter, yet another example of the classic Refco move of concealing deficits by shuttling them back and forth between various entities. This same
modus operandi was apparent in the sham transactions which later helped conceal the CEO's related party receivable, which in turn generated the spark which triggered Refco's collapse.
I haven't seen the 1996 order, but your explanation of it doesn't make any sense to me. Your description makes me suspect that the offending conduct may have been much worse than you seem to think it was, and may have been yet another case of embezzlement, so I would like to see it. Don't you think such info would be more valuable than personal attacks?
I didn't have to think much or to organize much for the preceeding paragraphs, because prior discussions have given me some preparation for them. But the FXCM stuff would require me to do a lot of homework, for which I just don't have time, because I waste so much time denying the constant stream of false accusations from Apex Capital and Oldtrader.
I can't just continue to give and to give to this board, if I will not be treated with minimum level of respect. If you guys want to discuss and to debate with me on the real topics, you must demand that Baron put a stop to the off-topic abuse I am getting.
