You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Tuco not an anomaly
- Thread starter downtickboy
- Start date
Quote from Landis82:
You are incorrect in your claim.
Tuco was NOT an isolated incident.
The SEC has made "inquiry" type phone calls to "other" LLC's with the same business model and structure. I know this from personal experience late last month.
Were those "inquiry" type phone calls to UNREGISTERED LLCs who do not require their traders to have S7 licenses and are therefore not subject to SEC or SRO oversight?
And have ANY of them been shut down like Tuco?
If they are indeed unregistered LLCs, then they should be getting phone calls from the SEC.
To Tito and ESSTUD:
Let me again reiterate that I was in no way involved with running Tuco. No ownership stake, not privy to any info from management. All I did was trade. I was a remote manager in the sense that if someone from ET had questions and pm'd me, I answered them. If they opened an account, I helped them with paperwork and software setup. If they were new, I helped them with some general trading guidance. I taught some strategies to a few. I wasn't a recruiter and didn't actively try to persuade people to open an account. I just made myself available to inquiries. In exchange they gave me a good commission rate and I got commission overrides on about half a dozen small traders. I also backed one trader and was mentoring another on a profit split arrangement.
Are you two suggesting that I had advanced knowlegde of what would happen and that I dishonestly duped people into putting their money in a firm that I thought was going under? It sounds like that's what you're saying.
From my point of view Tuco was a very well run firm. If I recomended it to anyone, it was based on my honest opinion. I've got over $50,000 in there myself. I'm still expecting to get most, if not all, of the money back.
Let me again reiterate that I was in no way involved with running Tuco. No ownership stake, not privy to any info from management. All I did was trade. I was a remote manager in the sense that if someone from ET had questions and pm'd me, I answered them. If they opened an account, I helped them with paperwork and software setup. If they were new, I helped them with some general trading guidance. I taught some strategies to a few. I wasn't a recruiter and didn't actively try to persuade people to open an account. I just made myself available to inquiries. In exchange they gave me a good commission rate and I got commission overrides on about half a dozen small traders. I also backed one trader and was mentoring another on a profit split arrangement.
Are you two suggesting that I had advanced knowlegde of what would happen and that I dishonestly duped people into putting their money in a firm that I thought was going under? It sounds like that's what you're saying.
From my point of view Tuco was a very well run firm. If I recomended it to anyone, it was based on my honest opinion. I've got over $50,000 in there myself. I'm still expecting to get most, if not all, of the money back.
Quote from lescor:
Are you two suggesting that I had advanced knowlegde of what would happen and that I dishonestly duped people into putting their money in a firm that I thought was going under? It sounds like that's what you're saying.
If you reread my post, you will see that I made no such implication.
All I said was that you should stop defending the Tuco owners and stop making irresponsible statements such as "there was no capital shortfall at Tuco, no missing money" since you yourself do not know all the facts about this firm. The only thing you know are what your good buddeis Mike Kestler and Doug Frederick are telling you, and I would not consider these two as unbiased sources of information.
There are quite a few traders on ET who signed up with Tuco because they trusted you and considered you credible when you gave high recommendations on this firm. Now that a lot of people are getting hurt financially because of what happened to Tuco, I think you should at least show some sensitivity (and class) by stopping your positive spin about this company.
tito, corey may be making assumptions about the capital acct based on his relations with mike/doug, but he happens to be right, like i've already stated. he's not making irresponsible statements, YOU are. do your homework before accusing others of spinning.
why don't you register at pacer and see for yourself? acct statements were submitted to the court and are on public record. NO NEED FOR SPECULATION. i've looked at them, and they're as stated. i suppose you could claim that those are also fraudulent, but me thinks their lawyer's wouldn't want to risk a perjury count by falsifying. http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-ilndce/case_no-1:2008cv01685/case_id-218370/
the shortfall claim by the sec/receiver stems from the fact that they would not count receivables into the equation. i, personally, find it interesting the receiver chose not to post the accounting record on his website... would calm a lot of fears. the only concern traders of tuco should have right now is that the receiver may draw on trader money to pay expenses. as someone stated, he already got an extension to october, that's a lot of time. the court order said no lawsuits could be brought against tuco, not so sure nothing could be brought against the receiver.
why tuco chose not to fight it? come on, obviously it would have cost millions and millions of dollars. odds are trader money would have been at much greater risk in that situation.
also, to those claiming this is isolated, it's not... sec told the tuco guys they were going after 2 more, so head's up.
why don't you register at pacer and see for yourself? acct statements were submitted to the court and are on public record. NO NEED FOR SPECULATION. i've looked at them, and they're as stated. i suppose you could claim that those are also fraudulent, but me thinks their lawyer's wouldn't want to risk a perjury count by falsifying. http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-ilndce/case_no-1:2008cv01685/case_id-218370/
the shortfall claim by the sec/receiver stems from the fact that they would not count receivables into the equation. i, personally, find it interesting the receiver chose not to post the accounting record on his website... would calm a lot of fears. the only concern traders of tuco should have right now is that the receiver may draw on trader money to pay expenses. as someone stated, he already got an extension to october, that's a lot of time. the court order said no lawsuits could be brought against tuco, not so sure nothing could be brought against the receiver.
why tuco chose not to fight it? come on, obviously it would have cost millions and millions of dollars. odds are trader money would have been at much greater risk in that situation.
also, to those claiming this is isolated, it's not... sec told the tuco guys they were going after 2 more, so head's up.
thank you lescor and propseeker for shedding light on this case.
how can any of you others not get mad as hell when you read what they did to this office?
there was absolutely no accounting fraud. go read the complaint... the SEC tried to use bogus charges that made no sense when looking at the LLC business model. this was a witch hunt plain and simple.
the receiver sees this as income till october and this makes me want to throw up. to make money off of such a farce in order to justify your income and livelihood.
like i said previously the only defense we have is to get the state's attorney generals involved. if they refuse to do their duty... document it and publicize it. this is extortion and comes under RICO statutes.
how can any of you others not get mad as hell when you read what they did to this office?
there was absolutely no accounting fraud. go read the complaint... the SEC tried to use bogus charges that made no sense when looking at the LLC business model. this was a witch hunt plain and simple.
the receiver sees this as income till october and this makes me want to throw up. to make money off of such a farce in order to justify your income and livelihood.
like i said previously the only defense we have is to get the state's attorney generals involved. if they refuse to do their duty... document it and publicize it. this is extortion and comes under RICO statutes.
Quote from lescor:
To Tito and ESSTUD:
Let me again reiterate that I was in no way involved with running Tuco. No ownership stake, not privy to any info from management. All I did was trade. I was a remote manager in the sense that if someone from ET had questions and pm'd me, I answered them. If they opened an account, I helped them with paperwork and software setup. If they were new, I helped them with some general trading guidance. I taught some strategies to a few. I wasn't a recruiter and didn't actively try to persuade people to open an account. I just made myself available to inquiries. In exchange they gave me a good commission rate and I got commission overrides on about half a dozen small traders. I also backed one trader and was mentoring another on a profit split arrangement.
Are you two suggesting that I had advanced knowlegde of what would happen and that I dishonestly duped people into putting their money in a firm that I thought was going under? It sounds like that's what you're saying.
From my point of view Tuco was a very well run firm. If I recomended it to anyone, it was based on my honest opinion. I've got over $50,000 in there myself. I'm still expecting to get most, if not all, of the money back.
To vouch for corey, we had a PM exchange last year, simply because I asked some questions about tuco, and found out we had some similar connections (ie, where we trade from). In no way did he ever try to convince me to join Tuco, nor provide anything but honest facts. He was very pleasant. I'd pretty much say that anything I've seen come out of his mouth on here is probably quite reliable.
GIve the guy a break. He's in the same situation as everyone else.