[clickr12]

Originally Posted by Fat Tony

Well, I did that. I went to the link you provided to the CFTC. And for the most part it confirms what this savior guy has been saying- that the firms on his list don't have a lot of money.

So, if I'm just starting a new job, and I have just received my first paycheck, that means I'm going bankrupt because I don't have a lot of money on hand?

I *might* go bankrupt if something goes wrong. It doesn't mean I *will* go bankrupt. And therein lies the difference for me. He deliberately implied they were all going under, which may not be the case. They might be managing their limited funds very well by limiting who can have an account. They might have a parent company (and I know, despite what he says, that two of those companies do have parents, at least) To say they're going under implies something different than just saying they don't have a lot of money.

I don't have a problem with him saying they don't have a lot of money (although some of the firms obviously weren't going bankrupt, as the next report showed them having more money). I have a problem with the tone - "They're dead firms walking!" "They're bankrupt!" and then making links to companies that committed fraud as if EVERYONE on that list had committed fraud or will commit fraud by having lower funding.

You don't want to invest with them? Fine. That's understandable. But I don't like the way he phrases it, because it's scare tactics more than informing. And he has been wrong on some of them.

If this new rule goes into place these little firms may have to close up shop. Do you dispute that?

What is so hard to understand? That may or may not be true. That has nothing to do with his linking of "fraud" to "undercapitalization". He's linking the two together like a chain. A fraudulent company might be undercapitalized. An undercapitalized company might be fraudulent. They're not guarrentees, and they're not necessarily linked. But he weaves the two seperate threads together to make it sound like his Dead Firms Walking are doing so because of fraud. He makes mention of fraud several times. That MAY or MAY NOT be the case! It's like he's deliberately trying to seed the idea of fraud into the readers, so someone skimming the forum will be like "Fraud! Money issues! Bankruptcy! Panic!" That's irresponsible to me.

And even if that was the case, and the regs were raised, that would be an orderly closing, and not fraud. That certainly would not mean you couldn't get funds out. I've worked for an investment company (not forex) where requirements were raised and some companies had to leave. They didn't declare bankruptcy - the administering body made them move the accounts to another company. It didn't mean people had to run for the hills, which is AGAIN the tone implied.

As such I don't think I'm being a fool for not wanting to take a chance with my money by sending it to a firm where the odds are good they won't be in business six months from now.

I dispute the "odds are good" part, but that is your choice. My problem is with his phrasing, as I've been stating