SpreadProfessor Clients - Thanks !

[lucysparabola]

HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO:

GLENCORE 2013 profits are 1 billion net. Balance sh



a.) i agree but if a broker statement is setup to keep daily commissions, then usually these broker statements are setup to keep a mtd pnl, this item is missing from the attachment. The mtd pnl is kept on both daily and monthly statements. You are clearly missing the point, cash movement is not PNL. in order to verify that 486k is from profits, you can look at the prior months YTD or MTD pnl to reconcile with the starting cash balance on the current statement. again, if you step to me, step correct.

b.) i agree, if the statement can keep commissions, it usually keeps pnl, nearly all of the brokers do this as a standard. where is the PNL item on his statement, it might be in another part of the statement, but its purposely left out.

i attach an example of my personal account. (please note that i am not a fulltime trader as i work at a billion dollar commodities fund)

you can see two items, mtd commission and mtd pnl on the left.

i netted on real trading 12k USD
but i moved withdrew 5400 pounds from my account with no PNL impact.
i did an fx transaction to to convert my PNL in USD to cover my GBP deficit.
but oh wait, i have a neg balance in another currency so my overall PNL doesn't look that great afterall!

if you see on the bottom YTD PNL, the cumulative running total of closeouts, that's all that matters on my statement if you want to see what I made.

again cash movement does not indicate PNL. the point is that the only half of the story is being shown and a claim is being made in a falsified manner based on that story, all we are asking for is PROOF. Let me explain my point further with a hypothetical scenario:

if glencore had 300mm USD in oil vessells sitting in the gulf coast from one quarter to the next and sold it, the movement from asset to cash will show up as an asset inflation which would appear to be a profit. But wait, the accounting manager forgot to put in the liability side that there is a revolving loan with BNP they have to pay back for financing the OIL cargo, so in reality the PNL is a very different figure than what initially appeared through the asset inflation. International Accounting Standards don't allow for balance sheet items to be included as PNL items bc of how book cooking can occur in this manner. EVERY BUSINESS has to uphold this standard -GLOBALLY.

imagine if glencore forgot to put that it had a revolving loan on its balance sheet, over inflating assets, their stock would drop 20% in a heartbeat. Even then, the PNL is determined from operating turnover and not how one interpret's balance sheet items. In other words, PNL or net income is determined from Purchases and sales. Bonehead is doing the exact opposite. He is using a balance sheet items to determine that he made a profit on purchase and sales which is actually illegal under international accounting standards.

It should not matter if it is glencore or a self acclaimed spread professor tryiing to lure the naive with ridiculous marketing tactics.

i don't personally care what people pay bone, it is each individual's right. It is my opinion that his services are overvalued, but who cares.

THE REAL POINT HERE is that a guy is using a public forum as a marketing tool in which his marketing tactics appear to be without integrity. THIS IS THE ISSUE - FACT

 

[bone]

Or should I say, guinea pig of sorts.

If you'd like to email me directly and discuss this instead of posting under an alias five years after the fact it would add some credibility. I would be happy to provide you with the webinar recordings and materials I have been providing clients recently, gratis. It is indeed much more material than you were originally provided and I would only ask that you can verify your name and contact info and that we indeed had a contract, which is understandable.

 

[convexx]

If you'd like to email me directly and discuss this instead of posting under an alias five years after the fact it would add some credibility. I would be happy to provide you with the webinar recordings and materials I have been providing clients recently, gratis. It is indeed much more material than you were originally provided and I would only ask that you can verify your name and contact info and that we indeed had a contract, which is understandable.

It's the same alias that contacted you for services.

 

[bone]

It's the same alias that contacted you for services.

No it's not, dickhead. Real clients past and present contact me directly using real names and real email addresses. I've never had an existing or past client contact me on ET under an alias. Especially five years after the fact. If he's that timid or scared there's two sides of the story. I'll believe it when I get contacted directly and facts get verified and adult conversations can take place.

If you're the big swinging dick you claim to be, get your FCM to back up your claim about my statement. Should be easy for a man of your purported stature.

 

[stereo70]

Bone, if you were truly stand-up you'd recognize at the very least that you didn't have your shit together when I started. And then you'd offer at least a partial refund.

 

[convexx]

No it's not, dickhead. Real clients contact me directly using real names and real email addresses. I've never had an existing client contact through ET under an alias. Especially five years after the fact.

If you're the big swinging dick you claim to be, get your FCM to back up your claim about my statement. Should be easy for a man of your purported stature.

He's stated otherwise. His name is also Patrick, and he contacted you via his "stereo70" username.

I have no interest nor need to post his full name and address here.

 

[bone]

Bone, if you were truly stand-up you'd recognize at the very least that you didn't have your shit together when I started. And then you'd offer at least a partial refund.

Umm, if you can't email me or Skype me or call me I have no clue who you are. And I'm not going to continue this conversation publicly on ET if you're not stand-up enough to have a mature, private conversation about it. Patrick who ?

And if you insist on negotiating through convexx I'm afraid I will not be able to do anything for you.

 

[stereo70]

I'm not timid or scared. I haven't posted my side of the story.

 

[convexx]

Umm, if you can't email me or Skype me or call me I have no clue who you are. And I'm not going to continue this conversation publicly on ET if you're not stand-up enough to have a mature, private conversation about it. Patrick who ?

And if you insist on negotiating through convexx I'm afraid I will not be able to do anything for you.

It's not the issue to me. The $486K is the issue. I am hugely sympathetic, however.

He came to me solely of his own volition due to the $486K debit BS. He told me that it's why he went with you... the illusion of $486K in gains. Why else would he contact me?

 

[bone]

Ohhhhhhhhhhh. Right. For the first few weeks you were rock solid and participating. You had just been let go by a boutique fixed income group as I recall and you assured me that you had received a nice separation package and this was a perfect fit for you. Then, your girlfriend dumped you because your best friend was banging her, you were in an emotional mess, and I extended your contract term TWICE, gratis, understanding that your emotional state was fragile and you needed extra time to sort things out. I remember talking to you on the phone and telling you that I would give you as much time as you needed to sort things out and get what you needed out of the training. Twelve months into a six month contract you still couldn't find the time to participate in webinars or meet with me individually or put in the work to build your charting space and paper trade with me. I did everything I could. In fact, I still have a recorded individual webinar session with you that took place a considerable time after your contract expired. You just kind of fell off the face of the earth and disappeared. Many, many months later, you contacted me saying you were destitute and needed the fee back. Which, of course, I can't do because it is IP.

So, you would like for me to void the terms of our contract and you want to shake me down for some money five years after the fact ?

Five years later, your excuse is that you need a refund because the materials were early work. I offered to update them completely - gratis, and you apparently are refusing that. Which kind of flies in the face of the "materials" excuse.

I have plenty of clients around your vintage who are doing just great with the system and they are happy to provide references to the effect.

I think maybe the accountability starts with you, Patrick.