Trading couple for 3 years are harassed by UBS Bahamas, your help will bring victory

[CSEtrader]

So if I have this right, I understand that -

* you were trading with borrowed money and making a profit, with which you were able to meet your loan repayment requirements

* you lost 30% of your total accumulated profits to that date in one day, 18 September 2013.

* after that you did no more trading and so of course you were unable to meet the loan repayment requirements.

At this point in one sense it doesn't matter who caused you to stop trading, whether you decided to stop or UBS decided to freeze your trading. The conclusion from 18/09/13 is that your trading was high risk. There is therefore some probability that you would eventually make further large losses and that would not help you or the lender. It is not relevant that you made profits before this date, as a record of a series of profits does not indicate that the level of risk attached to a strategy is low.

Alright, maybe late execution did turn a small loss into a large loss, so maybe that was indeed UBS's fault. But it remains the case that because a few minutes delay caused you to experience an increase in loss from 5% of total profits to 30% of total profits, this indicates a very high risk strategy. It was the right thing that you stopped (or were stopped) using it, you would probably have gone broke anyway.

Also relevant is that your entire business model was high risk - i.e., locating in a low regulation jurisdiction, selecting trading as a means of income, borrowing capital to fund trading, using your own residence as security on the loan. All exceptionally high risk decisions.

So from 08/10/13, your trading is over. You should not have been trying to trade via UBS or anyone else, with borrowed money or your own capital. However, you still had a legal obligation to repay the loan plus interest to the lender.

At this point you adopt a further high risk strategy, which was the legal one - you keep the borrowed money and stop the repayments while you fight the case against UBS. High risk because -
a) resorting to the law is to some extent resorting to a lottery - even experienced lawyers lose cases they thought were sound
b) you risked losing the security on the loan, your main residence
c) you laid yourself open to counter-claims, which you could not fully predict or quantify
d) you would be at a disadvantage in proceedings, through your adversary being able to secure greater and better quality legal support than you could afford
e) by withholding repayments you breach the contract that you are now trying to seek enforcement for.

It might be that most legal cases never come to court Surely at some point did UBS offer to settle? Or you must have had the opportunity to offer to settle?

I am now mixing my opinions with my understanding of your case, but leaving aside what I think, are the facts correct?

Thank you for your time and expertise.
Sadly you missing number of facts and inverting others.
Will be interesting if you can make a real exam of your attitude toward my case and a discovery of what caused you to be so biased and to look for a confirmation of your assumption that we are not victims robbed by two big banks (the BNP Paribas is the third still not sued by us).
I divide my reply in two groups of facts in the hope that you may look at from a different point and have a neutral position based on the facts and not on the wrong assumptions.

Here is a number of facts where your expertise was only partially correct
1. Our business model was not high risk, but measured and balanced.:
for every professional active trader, the delay of more than a few seconds can rise lost of profit for more than 30%. Even here on ET many can confirm it, if they will wish to speak. Our whole risk of capital for every trade was very tiny and whole exposure was never more than 2%, the number largely accepted as more conservative and reasonable. For this reason, we did not invest in two stocks which made a very nice jump later - UBS refused to hold stop losses when their offices close, but the market is open! And as you know, they refused our electronic platform and DMA.
2. You omitting the very important fact that UBS refused our electronic platform and DMA. And the whole discussion about delays would not rise. We heard that it can be part of a manager's greed who are getting extra% to their salaries from the trades executed manually or extra fees collected from the clients. While it may be truth motivation, I don't know, and it is not relevant to us. What is relevant is that two of the most reputable service providers miserably failed to serve our activity and created a large number of damages., while showing the deep disrespect for law and civil rights of the consumer and individual traders
3. At the distance of this years, we certainly would not use UBS's product, but it is their fault that they advertise the product which in reality had no intention to offer and planned all ready to wind up in the Bahamas.

As for the whole risk models and risk tolerance, please, allow me few more words:
I believe we are speaking from different towers - considering your writing style and position, you probably born with the capital. We don't. But we were able to create an important for us capital in only three years from first borrowing and then paying back all, and has much more left, which allowed us to have then significantly higher lifestyle, the one which we had no access before. Have you ever done similar? Do you know how much borrowed Jeff Besos? And Starbuck's founders? And others successful entrepreneurs? Where world would be without risk takers?

Here are some other facts, whether your expertise has inverted the truth statements of facts
1. We did not breach the contract and never stopped to pay. You omitting three important facts:
A. If UBS executed my trades in the two weeks followed 18 September 2013, the generated profit was enough to cover interests for the next two years
B. If UBS were executing my trades within promised 20 seconds, we would have funds to pay all the interests up to loan expiration
C. UBS sequestred money from our account and refused to take all interests pre-paid
2. You forgetting that UBS went in liquidation, announced in Media in March 2014, and legally resolved in March 2015.
3. You omitting that UBS refused to settle and accept our offer to ger interests pre-paid and let us use the rest of the capital. It would not be more there concern - in their position, for risk management, they should consider that in case we fail to produce enough capital to repay the loan, we could sell the home.
But they could not, because went already in liquidation from one side, and behind the name UBS there is a branch of people, filled with envy and greed.
4. You omitting Credit Suisse, there was no loan at all. But the Law firm representing both is the same and this is also important to understand of why so stupid and blind aggressivity from the part of UBS's actions - just in hope to squeeze us.

Said that it is very interesting to know, why instead of helping us you are trying to label with inverted facts? While answering to you is already helpful and make me understand more the strength of our position and futility of our adversaries, for which I am grateful, one question still puzzling me - why you are so negative towards me? In the thread "Why you are posting on ET", you stated that your motivation is to help other traders, correct?
So what is wrong with my case? Can it be because my trading strategy is simply different from yours? Is it because we born in deferent worlds and environments? Can it be because you are from institutions side or big hedge funds and is having kind of snobbism towards little flyes who can make big jumps, as Richard Dennis and many others.. Or maybe it is disturbing that with my broken English we already made some exceptional numbers and in only two months generated the whole amount of interests for UBS's loan, until it's expiration plus some good for living, if only trades were executed within promised 20secondd, which is still too long for the today world.
you easily can know my name and background, I don't know why you are in real life. Only you know what is your real motivation in trying to present our clamorous story as a trivial case of humans stupidity instead of understanding and support this ferocious war for the rights and honor fo all individual traders?

Thank you very much for coming back with honesty and sincerity.

 

[CSEtrader]

Do you have written proof or anything to back it up?
.

Yes, thank you. We do. Do you have time, would you like to see? We can give you access to our file in CaseLine, as we did to unfortunate Destiero's friend lawyer. What a story. What a type of poster rising all these likes here. Thanks, G-d I finally followed wise indication and put him on ignore. Should have done it before.
So, coming back to me, please, forgive this comment, it is this type of your disbelieve reminding me the scandalous type who miraculously had news about our home accessible only if you were part of people who went in the house after possession and let it go done in first months. I never lie in my life, not that I will ever. This is my choice, my life, this is how my mother raised me.
Thank you for your time and expertise.

If you called UBS and they just went "sure, in the future", that's not something that holds up in court nor is it binding in any way.

Will you, please, bring me light about this extraction of my sentence"sure in the future"? Obviously, we have all facts and proves in writing. Our position is very strong. Law is binding, the law is must be respected, the law is for what we, all humans, have worked for many centuries in order to co-exist peacefully and create more peace and prosperity for those who will come, for our children.

If you were had an e-mail saying trades happen within 20 seconds, then why don't you complain to US authorities? .

Please, not"if", but we do, Again - would you like to see? I certainly can post it here, but it may disturb again somebody needs for privacy here, once it is the anonymous blog. please, direct, how is better to stop all this "if' and "maybe", it is, even if hard to believe.
As from my other thread - we tried, but UBS was broker here, in the Bahamas and not in US. I received refusal from Finra and Arca. We are working on the way to bring it in USA and if you have some suggestion, please, help.
The SEC of the Bahamas started only now to cooperate, we have a very interesting document from them. Let's see how it will help on 12 November and then i can post it on our website and here.

Quite easily solved if they are really at fault.
I had a very similar case and the broker compensated me for it. .

I am very happy for you, compliments. I believe the difference is that we are in the Bahamas, and many locals believe that they can manipulate law at their pleasure and they succeed quite a lot in the past. It's changing now. Why UBS acting so childish... ? I can only guess different scenarios.
Well, their gang here I have already largely described... The UBS's liquidator was my neighbor in this prestigious community, his villa's name was Nequa, the Wiki's means of this word is quite scary. Som, the whole hate expressed towards us by certain individuals in this community, because of nazi's sympathy, antisemitism
and simple greed and envy.
Why headquarter is not intervening? I can only guess.. the story is not yet largely known, they may be assured that we will give up... At the end what are a couple of millions and five years for one big gorilla as UBS is? Especially in the jurisdiction, where they feel the justice and persecution against them will hardly happen?

If the US authorities already denied your claim then I think you're probably at fault.
.

No, we are not at fault, Would you like to see answers from SEC and Finra - the are dialing only with USA based brokers. And in our case, it was UBS Bahamas. Sorry, if you still have this sentiment to dislike us - we can't give you this satisfaction, we are not at fault.
And if I am not wrong, here on another thread, someone who claimed to be robbed by his broker in Estonia,m while traded in US markets, you gave an opinion that USA authorities are dealing only with USA members. Here is the same.
I know, UBS name brings to believe that it is in USA, we were of the same belief too.

You wanted the collaterized loan, you have to accept their terms. Otherwise, why didn't you just go to another broker, problem solved.

And we accepted and honored, they breached it. First by not giving promised electronic platform and DMA, by going in liquidation in March 2015, while loan's expiration was September 2018, then by lie in courts that:
- we felt under 50% of loan to keep in the account,m which we don't.
- that we were no paying interests - we did and I pointed it exactly in my many replies here, last one to Tomorton, here above.
And of course, it is all in documents. That's why they worked so hard in 2015 to lie to the judge and to bribe the attorney who supposedly represents us, to lie us about the court date - all of that in order to obtain the summary judgment. No one of our proves was heard yet in the court. That's why they took possession uppon interlocutory order, not final, but interlocutory - it never happened. The interlocutory orders in Common Low are not enforceable, that is why exist two type of orders - interlocutory and final.
The only means - is to create to us such a hardship that we will give up.
We will not, and all UBS's money will go to the charities, minus direct expenses and little capital if we will still need it.

If what you said is true, you're in the right but again, .

I hope now, you can stop with all this "if". The documents are available at any time for you and for everyone who wishes to see - it is public documents and I am glad to provide access..

you're in the right but again, why did UBS single you out? If you have contracts showing fees as X and you were charged Y, the case is simple and straightforward. Sounds more like you misunderstood their commission schedule and now are upset about it.

They single out us simply because we were first and probably only one to try this new product - Real Estate Collateralized loan, invented always by the same "friend", greek guy, George Maillis, account manager, who sell it to us.
The schedule issue was with Credit Suisse and there were written clearly - "flat fee 07.%/year pro/capital". So, we did understand it correctly but were charged mistakenly and in the unthinkable amount.

Thank you again for trying really to understand what is happening.

By the time, I would invite again all ET's members to sign our petition - we will not use your name or get it public without your permission. But at least UBS's attorneys and liquidator receiving an email, that someone else signed, someone else knows and interested what type of persecution they are committing.

 

[tomorton]

Thank you for your time and expertise.
Sadly you missing number of facts and inverting others.
Will be interesting if you can make a real exam of your attitude toward my case and a discovery of what caused you to be so biased and to look for a confirmation of your assumption that we are not victims robbed by two big banks (the BNP Paribas is the third still not sued by us).
I divide my reply in two groups of facts in the hope that you may look at from a different point and have a neutral position based on the facts and not on the wrong assumptions.

Here is a number of facts where your expertise was only partially correct
1. Our business model was not high risk, but measured and balanced.:
for every professional active trader, the delay of more than a few seconds can rise lost of profit for more than 30%. Even here on ET many can confirm it, if they will wish to speak. Our whole risk of capital for every trade was very tiny and whole exposure was never more than 2%, the number largely accepted as more conservative and reasonable. For this reason, we did not invest in two stocks which made a very nice jump later - UBS refused to hold stop losses when their offices close, but the market is open! And as you know, they refused our electronic platform and DMA.
2. You omitting the very important fact that UBS refused our electronic platform and DMA. And the whole discussion about delays would not rise. We heard that it can be part of a manager's greed who are getting extra% to their salaries from the trades executed manually or extra fees collected from the clients. While it may be truth motivation, I don't know, and it is not relevant to us. What is relevant is that two of the most reputable service providers miserably failed to serve our activity and created a large number of damages., while showing the deep disrespect for law and civil rights of the consumer and individual traders
3. At the distance of this years, we certainly would not use UBS's product, but it is their fault that they advertise the product which in reality had no intention to offer and planned all ready to wind up in the Bahamas.

As for the whole risk models and risk tolerance, please, allow me few more words:
I believe we are speaking from different towers - considering your writing style and position, you probably born with the capital. We don't. But we were able to create an important for us capital in only three years from first borrowing and then paying back all, and has much more left, which allowed us to have then significantly higher lifestyle, the one which we had no access before. Have you ever done similar? Do you know how much borrowed Jeff Besos? And Starbuck's founders? And others successful entrepreneurs? Where world would be without risk takers?

Here are some other facts, whether your expertise has inverted the truth statements of facts
1. We did not breach the contract and never stopped to pay. You omitting three important facts:
A. If UBS executed my trades in the two weeks followed 18 September 2013, the generated profit was enough to cover interests for the next two years
B. If UBS were executing my trades within promised 20 seconds, we would have funds to pay all the interests up to loan expiration
C. UBS sequestred money from our account and refused to take all interests pre-paid
2. You forgetting that UBS went in liquidation, announced in Media in March 2014, and legally resolved in March 2015.
3. You omitting that UBS refused to settle and accept our offer to ger interests pre-paid and let us use the rest of the capital. It would not be more there concern - in their position, for risk management, they should consider that in case we fail to produce enough capital to repay the loan, we could sell the home.
But they could not, because went already in liquidation from one side, and behind the name UBS there is a branch of people, filled with envy and greed.
4. You omitting Credit Suisse, there was no loan at all. But the Law firm representing both is the same and this is also important to understand of why so stupid and blind aggressivity from the part of UBS's actions - just in hope to squeeze us.

Said that it is very interesting to know, why instead of helping us you are trying to label with inverted facts? While answering to you is already helpful and make me understand more the strength of our position and futility of our adversaries, for which I am grateful, one question still puzzling me - why you are so negative towards me? In the thread "Why you are posting on ET", you stated that your motivation is to help other traders, correct?
So what is wrong with my case? Can it be because my trading strategy is simply different from yours? Is it because we born in deferent worlds and environments? Can it be because you are from institutions side or big hedge funds and is having kind of snobbism towards little flyes who can make big jumps, as Richard Dennis and many others.. Or maybe it is disturbing that with my broken English we already made some exceptional numbers and in only two months generated the whole amount of interests for UBS's loan, until it's expiration plus some good for living, if only trades were executed within promised 20secondd, which is still too long for the today world.
you easily can know my name and background, I don't know why you are in real life. Only you know what is your real motivation in trying to present our clamorous story as a trivial case of humans stupidity instead of understanding and support this ferocious war for the rights and honor fo all individual traders?

Thank you very much for coming back with honesty and sincerity.

My opinion is that both your business model (borrow money against your house to trade in the Bahamas) and your trading strategy you used (a few minutes delay in order execution on one key day wiped out 30% of your accumulated profits) were both high risk .

Your opinion is that neither were high risk. The outcomes so far suggest I am right but OK we will see what is the eventual result - whether you get your money back, whether you get your house back, whether you return to consistently profitable trading, whether you win damages from UBS, etc. You might be right in the long run, I am happy to wait and see.

You say I am negative towards you, I say I am sceptical. After all, you can't expect people like traders to be as easily convinced as the ordinary man in the street. We are a bit more hard-headed than that and we need to see a damn good argument before we'll believe today is Sunday..... Its not antipathy towards your case, its just that I'm not going to be easily convinced.

You blame UBS for stopping you trading. I say they did you a favour, I think you'd have lost everything if you carried on trading. But again, maybe one day you'll be a consistently profitable trader.

Please don't blame me for getting some facts inverted as to e.g. who is suing who or who did what and when, this is a most complicated story. I still want to read more here about how your case progresses. Good luck.

 

[CSEtrader]

My opinion is that both your business model (borrow money against your house to trade in the Bahamas) and your trading strategy you used (a few minutes delay in order execution on one key day wiped out 30% of your accumulated profits) were both high risk .

Your opinion is that neither were high risk. The outcomes so far suggest I am right but OK we will see what is the eventual result - whether you get your money back, whether you get your house back, whether you return to consistently profitable trading, whether you win damages from UBS, etc. You might be right in the long run, I am happy to wait and see.

You say I am negative towards you, I say I am sceptical. After all, you can't expect people like traders to be as easily convinced as the ordinary man in the street. We are a bit more hard-headed than that and we need to see a damn good argument before we'll believe today is Sunday..... Its not antipathy towards your case, its just that I'm not going to be easily convinced.

You blame UBS for stopping you trading. I say they did you a favour, I think you'd have lost everything if you carried on trading. But again, maybe one day you'll be a consistently profitable trader.

Please don't blame me for getting some facts inverted as to e.g. who is suing who or who did what and when, this is a most complicated story. I still want to read more here about how your case progresses. Good luck.

Thank you very much for your Good luck wish and for explaining to be skeptical and not just blindly critical.
Skepticism is very sane and helpful to build a stronger position for myself as well.

But will you., please, explain how are you joining to the conclusion that from constantly profitable all in one I would turn in losing? There should be a certain concern of many on ET, kind of unpleasant feeling, for those who may be traded for years and have yet to rise to the level of profitability the fact that we were able to accomplish constant profitability.
But why?
It was after three years of intensive training 2009-2012 ( when it was finished with Credit Suisse and before it started with UBS. ) I watched charts 10-12 hours a day, traded sim, full time. Prior to that, one should add, five years of passive long-term investing from 2002 till 2007, and unbelievable success in spring 2009. Plus, it must be added the fact that my husband started to learn and play markets since 1995. So, in 2012 his experience was 17 years, including tow crisis surviving, losing, learning, but surviving, not yet profiting - Russian in 1998 and Global in 2008. Nine years of myself which bring to the total of 26 years of experience by 2012, where three years was full time 10-12 hours daily charts and executions learning. We shouldn't forget that statistically big success more often coming to novices and never leave them, in the real-world business model more enterprises are jumping from micro to macro then medium to macro. This should be true for trading as well.
Thank you, I believe so far that the only argument against our profitability is my unlearned English for wish I beg your pardon.

Why you are saying that 30% loss of profit because of more than five minutes delay in execution is too risky, maybe you trade absolutely different size of capital? If you look at the chart of ES or NQ past two weeks - five minutes would bring more than 30% of the difference on one's profit/loss balance. Perhaps our dialogue is so hard because you are the size of a whale and I am for now just little fish? And you are trading different markets, different strategy? But can you strategy bring the same results as our's did? It is known that in a limited period of time, you can not double your capital if you managing 1bln, but you can easily do it with 100K or less in the same period of time. And also we, as humans, have the capacity to transform and the law we have created in centuries of our existence, is exactly protecting our growth, because it is by growing new with deep respect of what is accomplished we can progress together.

I will be very thankful that once skepticism is satisfied and vanished, some good suggestions and support words came more towards us. I am really feeling that we are surviving this situation mostly because devoting our strength to the higher case - the defense and growth of all individual traders, which will bring prosperity to the world, at least a little but significant drop which with years can really reverse most of problems we are having today.
We are all in preparing for the hearing of 12 November. By law and facts, the judge should give us Summary Judgment against UBS for more of our claims. Will, he has a courage? Has he had enough time to learn and understand the situation? Does he be satisfied with the time he already gave to UBS - from 5 July instead of two weeks? Will we be able to present properly our arguments and have a luck that our pleadings will receive proper attention? Will see and will post.
For that we need support. A sane critic is also supportive, but the lack of solidarity is weeping my energy, and sad. Especially in the context where we feel to be called to sacrifice us for all traders and getting disbelieves from very traders here on ET, assuming that I am communicating with serious traders and those who are pretending to be. Please, remember, all proceedings from UBS, minus expenses, will go to the charities.
Thank you.

 

[tomorton]

Thank you very much for your Good luck wish and for explaining to be skeptical and not just blindly critical.
Skepticism is very sane and helpful to build a stronger position for myself as well.

But will you., please, explain how are you joining to the conclusion that from constantly profitable all in one I would turn in losing? There should be a certain concern of many on ET, kind of unpleasant feeling, for those who may be traded for years and have yet to rise to the level of profitability the fact that we were able to accomplish constant profitability.
But why?
It was after three years of intensive training 2009-2012 ( when it was finished with Credit Suisse and before it started with UBS. ) I watched charts 10-12 hours a day, traded sim, full time. Prior to that, one should add, five years of passive long-term investing from 2002 till 2007, and unbelievable success in spring 2009. Plus, it must be added the fact that my husband started to learn and play markets since 1995. So, in 2012 his experience was 17 years, including tow crisis surviving, losing, learning, but surviving, not yet profiting - Russian in 1998 and Global in 2008. Nine years of myself which bring to the total of 26 years of experience by 2012, where three years was full time 10-12 hours daily charts and executions learning. We shouldn't forget that statistically big success more often coming to novices and never leave them, in the real-world business model more enterprises are jumping from micro to macro then medium to macro. This should be true for trading as well.
Thank you, I believe so far that the only argument against our profitability is my unlearned English for wish I beg your pardon.

Why you are saying that 30% loss of profit because of more than five minutes delay in execution is too risky, maybe you trade absolutely different size of capital? If you look at the chart of ES or NQ past two weeks - five minutes would bring more than 30% of the difference on one's profit/loss balance. Perhaps our dialogue is so hard because you are the size of a whale and I am for now just little fish? And you are trading different markets, different strategy? But can you strategy bring the same results as our's did? It is known that in a limited period of time, you can not double your capital if you managing 1bln, but you can easily do it with 100K or less in the same period of time. And also we, as humans, have the capacity to transform and the law we have created in centuries of our existence, is exactly protecting our growth, because it is by growing new with deep respect of what is accomplished we can progress together.

I will be very thankful that once skepticism is satisfied and vanished, some good suggestions and support words came more towards us. I am really feeling that we are surviving this situation mostly because devoting our strength to the higher case - the defense and growth of all individual traders, which will bring prosperity to the world, at least a little but significant drop which with years can really reverse most of problems we are having today.
We are all in preparing for the hearing of 12 November. By law and facts, the judge should give us Summary Judgment against UBS for more of our claims. Will, he has a courage? Has he had enough time to learn and understand the situation? Does he be satisfied with the time he already gave to UBS - from 5 July instead of two weeks? Will we be able to present properly our arguments and have a luck that our pleadings will receive proper attention? Will see and will post.
For that we need support. A sane critic is also supportive, but the lack of solidarity is weeping my energy, and sad. Especially in the context where we feel to be called to sacrifice us for all traders and getting disbelieves from very traders here on ET, assuming that I am communicating with serious traders and those who are pretending to be. Please, remember, all proceedings from UBS, minus expenses, will go to the charities.
Thank you.

I don't doubt that you were able to make consistent profits through trading. However, the frequency of profitable trades does not indicate the level of risk inherent in a strategy. Nor does it off-set risk.

For example, a plane flying at 10,000 metres is a successful flight. Its still successful at 9,000m, its still successful at 8,000m. You can see where I'm going: the pilot is a brilliant pilot right up to the moment when he hits the ground. But the risk level inherent in his flight is not indicated by how long he was able to avoid crashing. He was not a brilliant pilot although he looked like one for a long time.

Similarly, using a more relevant trading example, those Nobel prize winners at LTCM looked like brilliant traders. They looked like brilliant traders right up to the moment when they went bust. They looked like brilliant traders if you only looked at how often they made profits for their clients, which was all the time. But as I say, their strategy's risk was not indicated by the number or size of trades that were profitable. Absence of loss does not indicate absence of risk of loss. This is not universally appreciated even by some professional traders and I do not criticise you for making the same mistake.

I have no idea what your strategy was and I don't trade intra-day anyway. However, it is an agreed the fact that a 20-minute delay in execution meant a 2-5% loss turned into a 30% loss - not of your open position(s) but of your entire accumulated profits historically to that point. It does not matter how many times that same strategy worked before, this should not have been taken to indicate low risk. Such a dramatic reversal in the financial situation caused by this single issue can only mean that your trading strategy was exceptionally high risk. High returns do not mean low risk.

Please please, if you ever get money together to resume trading, change your strategy.

 

[CSEtrader]

I don't doubt that you were able to make consistent profits through trading. However, the frequency of profitable trades does not indicate the level of risk inherent in a strategy. Nor does it off-set risk.

For example, a plane flying at 10,000 metres is a successful flight. Its still successful at 9,000m, its still successful at 8,000m. You can see where I'm going: the pilot is a brilliant pilot right up to the moment when he hits the ground. But the risk level inherent in his flight is not indicated by how long he was able to avoid crashing. He was not a brilliant pilot although he looked like one for a long time.

Similarly, using a more relevant trading example, those Nobel prize winners at LTCM looked like brilliant traders. They looked like brilliant traders right up to the moment when they went bust. They looked like brilliant traders if you only looked at how often they made profits for their clients, which was all the time. But as I say, their strategy's risk was not indicated by the number or size of trades that were profitable. Absence of loss does not indicate absence of risk of loss. This is not universally appreciated even by some professional traders and I do not criticise you for making the same mistake.

I have no idea what your strategy was and I don't trade intra-day anyway. However, it is an agreed the fact that a 20-minute delay in execution meant a 2-5% loss turned into a 30% loss - not of your open position(s) but of your entire accumulated profits historically to that point. It does not matter how many times that same strategy worked before, this should not have been taken to indicate low risk. Such a dramatic reversal in the financial situation caused by this single issue can only mean that your trading strategy was exceptionally high risk. High returns do not mean low risk.

Please please, if you ever get money together to resume trading, change your strategy.

 

[CSEtrader]

I don't doubt that you were able to make consistent profits through trading. However, the frequency of profitable trades does not indicate the level of risk inherent in a strategy. Nor does it off-set risk.

For example, a plane flying at 10,000 metres is a successful flight. Its still successful at 9,000m, its still successful at 8,000m. You can see where I'm going: the pilot is a brilliant pilot right up to the moment when he hits the ground. But the risk level inherent in his flight is not indicated by how long he was able to avoid crashing. He was not a brilliant pilot although he looked like one for a long time.

Similarly, using a more relevant trading example, those Nobel prize winners at LTCM looked like brilliant traders. They looked like brilliant traders right up to the moment when they went bust. They looked like brilliant traders if you only looked at how often they made profits for their clients, which was all the time. But as I say, their strategy's risk was not indicated by the number or size of trades that were profitable. Absence of loss does not indicate absence of risk of loss. This is not universally appreciated even by some professional traders and I do not criticise you for making the same mistake.

I have no idea what your strategy was and I don't trade intra-day anyway. However, it is an agreed the fact that a 20-minute delay in execution meant a 2-5% loss turned into a 30% loss - not of your open position(s) but of your entire accumulated profits historically to that point. It does not matter how many times that same strategy worked before, this should not have been taken to indicate low risk. Such a dramatic reversal in the financial situation caused by this single issue can only mean that your trading strategy was exceptionally high risk. High returns do not mean low risk.

Please please, if you ever get money together to resume trading, change your strategy.

Thank you again, it is nice to see how some compassion and support are coming, thank you!

If I am not wrong, my numbers looked so hard because I extract them from the whole picture. Let me re-represent them to you in the language and size I assuming you are trading with.
If I calculate net profit for 12 months period (not calendar, but real trading activity with capital), the loss on 18 September 2013, would be 2%, where if it was not for UBS's delay in execution it would be very acceptable 0.35% The difference because of late execution is 1.65%. Hope this describes better our strategy and may dissolve your doubts.

Totally agree with your example of the plane.
Few comments - as for us, we did not crash, and we were piloting just a small jet. As soon as we see that weather was getting bad (market conditions), we started emergency landing (liquidate position). Unfortunately, air traffic controller (UBS's trades executions team), did not take seriously the weather condition and kept operating in the usual sleepy way, which we protested and warned many times. And on this occasion cost us more damages than ever before.
The beauty of trading is that someone can come in and drive Boeing 777, others, like myself, must go all way through, and study all mechanics and exercise a lot before to get into a bigger jet (capital and knowledge).
I love day trading, which we consciously choose as most demanding but less risky (after crashes in 2008, overnights was scary). But I can not make less than respect the way of swing, the tranquility and free time it gives, without daily stress. Still - is it stress or beautiful exercise for knowing yourself, type of gym for awareness? It is a long topic.
For now, day trading is only one we can re-start due to our capital and beliefs. And this probably creating certain misunderstanding - our numbers are not usual for what is declared by daytraders, not because they are not doing it, I believe, but because they simply choose to not advertise their accomplishments. For instance, Slartibartfast is a day trader and his thread "Millions made" is the dream for many here. We never shared our successes before, but now the situation drives us to share our story.
As for protection from losses, again agree with you and we've been there. I like to paragon trading with the ocean and sailors who are coming to cross the ocean. Someone is equipped with a cruise ship, radars, crew(one who was born in traders dynasties), someone is just with a little paddle boat or even doesn't know how to swim (full of greed, impatient, arrogant, raised with wrong believes about money). When the waves are high (the market is moving) those who have the adequate marine vehicle (capital and knowledge) and attention, will enjoy the wind and waves (make a good profit), others will be damaged and even drawn.
What I don't agree is that traders, like us, could be labeled with all the doubts-labeling expressed in this thread.
Trading is the business, more particular than some others because dealing with human's primary attachments/feelings towards money, but it still is the skill. It is transcendental exercise, one must become better him/her- self in order to become successful in its performance. For this reason, I strongly dislike when it is portrayed as some kind of Halloween's enigma. And traders are not phantoms and our rights have to be respected as any other category, especially by such big services providers as our adversary.
Will see what will be in the court. By facts and law, we should obtain the summary judgment for the part of our claims which were merely denied, which is again the court's rules.
going through some threads here I can see too many people are OPM , with whom I feel to be very different. Many are yet to be successful. I wish the best to all of them and hope our example will invite all to stay for their rights and respect.

 

[sss12]

Thank you very much for your Good luck wish and for explaining to be skeptical and not just blindly critical.
Skepticism is very sane and helpful to build a stronger position for myself as well.

But will you., please, explain how are you joining to the conclusion that from constantly profitable all in one I would turn in losing? There should be a certain concern of many on ET, kind of unpleasant feeling, for those who may be traded for years and have yet to rise to the level of profitability the fact that we were able to accomplish constant profitability.
But why?
It was after three years of intensive training 2009-2012 ( when it was finished with Credit Suisse and before it started with UBS. ) I watched charts 10-12 hours a day, traded sim, full time. Prior to that, one should add, five years of passive long-term investing from 2002 till 2007, and unbelievable success in spring 2009. Plus, it must be added the fact that my husband started to learn and play markets since 1995. So, in 2012 his experience was 17 years, including tow crisis surviving, losing, learning, but surviving, not yet profiting - Russian in 1998 and Global in 2008. Nine years of myself which bring to the total of 26 years of experience by 2012, where three years was full time 10-12 hours daily charts and executions learning. We shouldn't forget that statistically big success more often coming to novices and never leave them, in the real-world business model more enterprises are jumping from micro to macro then medium to macro. This should be true for trading as well.
Thank you, I believe so far that the only argument against our profitability is my unlearned English for wish I beg your pardon.

Why you are saying that 30% loss of profit because of more than five minutes delay in execution is too risky, maybe you trade absolutely different size of capital? If you look at the chart of ES or NQ past two weeks - five minutes would bring more than 30% of the difference on one's profit/loss balance. Perhaps our dialogue is so hard because you are the size of a whale and I am for now just little fish? And you are trading different markets, different strategy? But can you strategy bring the same results as our's did? It is known that in a limited period of time, you can not double your capital if you managing 1bln, but you can easily do it with 100K or less in the same period of time. And also we, as humans, have the capacity to transform and the law we have created in centuries of our existence, is exactly protecting our growth, because it is by growing new with deep respect of what is accomplished we can progress together.

I will be very thankful that once skepticism is satisfied and vanished, some good suggestions and support words came more towards us. I am really feeling that we are surviving this situation mostly because devoting our strength to the higher case - the defense and growth of all individual traders, which will bring prosperity to the world, at least a little but significant drop which with years can really reverse most of problems we are having today.
We are all in preparing for the hearing of 12 November. By law and facts, the judge should give us Summary Judgment against UBS for more of our claims. Will, he has a courage? Has he had enough time to learn and understand the situation? Does he be satisfied with the time he already gave to UBS - from 5 July instead of two weeks? Will we be able to present properly our arguments and have a luck that our pleadings will receive proper attention? Will see and will post.
For that we need support. A sane critic is also supportive, but the lack of solidarity is weeping my energy, and sad. Especially in the context where we feel to be called to sacrifice us for all traders and getting disbelieves from very traders here on ET, assuming that I am communicating with serious traders and those who are pretending to be. Please, remember, all proceedings from UBS, minus expenses, will go to the charities.
Thank you.

who calculated the "30% loss in profit ? let me guess...you ? let me take another guess...you used the most optimum fills on both sides of the hypothetical trade in calculating such lost opportunity ?

this point is only one of many weak spots in your whole story...good luck anyway, you will need it in court or arbitration. Have you read all the agreements you signed with the broker/dealers and the rights you gave them ?

 

[destriero]

Her story is fiction. It’s all there. Most of their trades were overnights and they went something like 11/12 for a loss of over $120K in one month. At that point they still had cash but just stopped paying the mortgage. They argued that they shouldn’t have to pay as UBS should have “cut them off” earlier.

 

[CSEtrader]

This loss was a spot, the performance was constant. And 30% are turning in 2%, if you calculate 12 months. It can be calculated by anyone - math has the same rules.
Thank you for Good luck. But why to diminish ourselves, traders, our rights? Or you are a broker, I mean the type of old-style broker who was heavily profiting on Madoff's schemes etc before the current laws come in force?

Certainly, we read everything and all the policies, including best execution, which is accepted market
practice.

this point is only one of many weak spots in your whole story...

"One of many" - which ones? Accusing without foundation was preferred style of hysterical poster whom I put on ignore.
And you still did not confirm that your nickname has nothing to do with horrible Nazi's organization.