Are Your Funds Safe? NFA to Shut down small forex fcms

[forex savior]

Whipsaw has been attacking your firm at a number of other forums as well...

[forex savior]

That is the title of an article by John Jagerson over at PFXglobal:
Profiting with Forex (PFX) - Watch Forex Professionals Currency Trade

The retail forex business is young and relatively unregulated but that won't last. I was surprised that the regulators have not moved faster in the U.S. when the Refco disaster occurred a few years ago but we are starting to see some action. What's coming down the pipeline might affect your dealer so do your homework and check them out.

Because many forex dealers are headquartered in the U.S. they are subject to the NFA and the CFTC. Although registration requirements for FCMs (Futures Commission Merchants) have been loose in the past, they are tightening fast. There are two big changes coming down the pipe. The one I think retail traders should be aware of is the change to the net capitalization requirement. There is a minimum amount of cash (outside of customer accounts) that an FCM has to have to stay in business. That minimum used to be $250,000 then was recently raised to $1,000,000 and it is now going to be raised to $5,000,000 in the very near term. Did you know that if you are working with a dealer in the U.S. you can find out how much net capital they have? Just go the the CFTC's website and look up their financial data for FCMs. In fact, if you google "CFTC" it will give you a link right to the spreadsheet you want to look at. There is a bunch of other interesting goodies in that spreadsheet as well.

The bottom line is that you should know whether your dealer can meet those requirements because if they can't your account could be tied up while they shut down their operations or raise capital. I realize most of us are working with large dealers but smaller boutique firms have a certain appeal and service levels that attracts a lot of traders. Just make sure you are not working with someone that is too small.

Couldn't have said it better myself...

[forex savior]

Many forum users have been asking for a specific link to the National Futures Association website so that they can read the proposal for themselves and hear it from the regulators themselves. Well, here it is:

National Futures Association | News Center

As you can see the National Futures Association has spelled out clearly why they wish to raise the minimum capital requirement to $5 million. They apparently mailed out the formal proposal to the CFTC by Federal Express on August 17, 2007. So it looks like the NFA has fully signed off on the proposal. Now all that is required is the CFTC's approval.

I would strongly encourage everyone to read through the NFA's reasoning for increasing the minimum capital requirement at this link here:
National Futures Association | News Center

Everyone will have their own quotes they will highlight. Here are the ones I found most interesting:

"NFA received sixteen comments regarding the proposal. Eight commenters supported the increased capital requirement and eight opposed it."

"The comment letters that opposed the proposal noted that it will likely eliminate a number of the smaller FDMs. These smaller FDMs will be, obviously, those with less capital. The comment letters in opposition also noted that more capital does not necessarily mean that an FDM is better able to support and properly operate its forex activities. While more capital does not necessarily correlate to "better" FDMs, more capital does mean that they will have, at a minimum, a greater financial stake in running their forex businesses."

"One comment letter also noted that an FDM's risk-management and operational internal controls are more important than the amount of capital an FDM has. NFA agrees that an FDM's internal controls are important and, under separate cover, NFA is submitting for Commission approval a new rule to ensure that FDMs have proper internal controls."

"Several FDMs pointed to the recent MRAs and receivership proceedings as evidence that the current regulations are working. Regulating solely by enforcement proceedings is not the best way to protect customers, however. One of these FDMs claims that staff was unfair in its characterization of the problem with FDMs and forex. Specifically, this FDM pointed out that the number of bankruptcies involving traditional FCMs and FDMs is the same, with two of each.5 What this FDM does not recognize, however, is that the two traditional FCM bankruptcies occurred over a seventeen-year history of regulation, while those for FDMs has occurred in only a little more than seven years. Moreover, the traditional FCM population has average around 250 while the FDM population has averaged around 40."

All those critics who've been saying how "alarmist and irresponsible" my postings are now owe me an apology. The NFA itself is saying that the smaller firms opposed to the measure were telling the NFA the proposal could possibly eliminate themselves! That's right, some of the smaller firms in the Dead Pool we're telling regulators "you know this proposal could put us out of business." Yet when I say the same thing to the trading public the call goes out I'm "scare mongering." I'd love to know which firms opposed the rule and why they did. Wouldn't it be amusing to know which firms are right now telling their customers "nothing to worry about this rule won't have any effect on us" while they are pleading with regulators "please don't pass this or we could be forced to go out of business!"

In any case the NFA has apparently brushed aside the dissenters. They have officially put the rule on the table and all it will now take is the CFTC's signature. Apologies will be accepted in the order they are received

[Tess]

Originally Posted by forex savior

I would strongly encourage everyone to read through the NFA's reasoning for increasing the minimum capital requirement

All those critics who've been saying how "alarmist and irresponsible" my postings are now owe me an apology.

The NFA itself is saying that the smaller firms opposed to the measure were telling the NFA the proposal could possibly eliminate themselves!

"Yet when I say the same thing to the trading public the call goes out I'm "scare mongering."

Apologies will be accepted in the order they are received

That final comment had me virtually choking on my coffee!!!

A little background on just exactly who & what the wonderful NFA are & represent!

NFA is a Joke - The NDD Forum - Savvy Traders Want to Know

More to the point, your buddy (WhipsawFX) is still waiting for his questions to be answered & has more strange occurances to report.

Deary me, the motives of all this garbage get stranger & stranger huh?


NFA Forex Dealer Dead Pool - Page 8 - Forex Trading | MetaTrader Indicators and Expert Advisors

[tymen1]

Apologies will be accepted in the order they are received

So forex savior (savior of what?) would like someone to lick his boot!

I have the answer - please open the attached thumbnail...........

[forex savior]

With the NFA officially hiking the minimum capital requirement to $5 million (http://www.nfa.futures.org/news/new...?ArticleID=1942) all eyes are now on the CFTC. Look for two things:

1) Some kind of formal statement by either the CFTC or the NFA in which CFTC signs off on the NFA proposal (or the unlikely prospect of the CFTC rejecting it.)
2) The new updated CFTC Adjusted Net Capital Report which will be published here: Financial Data for FCMs

The next updated adjusted net capital report will be particularly revealing. All the firms on this report will have had several months since the proposal was issued to start increasing their reported net capital. While no firm is required to hike their capital yet it will be very telling to see which firms have begun to prepare for the inevitable and which firms continue to hold their cards close to their vest. At this point any firm that isn’t ponying up the dough to capitalize themselves on these reports is really begging the question: is this firm destined to be strapped into the forex dealer electric chair? Or will they get a stay of execution?

My advice to the firms in the Dead Pool is simple: put up the money now and save everyone the trouble of guessing whether or not you will be here a few months from now. If your company capital is tied up and not available at the moment, well, tell the public what it is tied up in and specifically why you are not reporting it. Customers who open accounts with forex brokers are required to detail their own private financial holdings. In light of the seriousness of the capitalization issue, I think forex brokers should be held to the same standard.

[forex savior]

In the last few weeks I have reported on two poorly capitalized/unregulated forex broker dealers who are currently holding customer funds hostage. Well, both firms appear to be in complete chaos judging from what’s going around on various bulletin boards.

We’ll start with NFA regulated One World Capital. Their troubles started earlier this year when the NFA inspected their books and discovered they were not meeting their financial requirements. The NFA said at the time, “One World lacked an understanding of, or was inattentive to, regulatory requirements and was ill prepared to accept customer business as either an FDM or an FCM. The firm had not established adequate systems to enable it to handle customer funds or comply with customer reporting requirements."
http://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/...17&contrib=NFA

Since then One World has been losing staff and appears to be experiencing a severe cash crunch which has resulted in the halting of customer withdrawals, as detailed here:
http://www.goldenmoneytree.com/foru...r=asc&start=100

At the same time that my Inbox has been piling up with messages from distraught One World Capital customers now a report has come out at Forex Factory that One World is revoking a whole series of rollover interest payments on GBP/JPY trades as well:
http://www.forexfactory.com/showthr...700#post1576700

It came to my attention that 1World has resorted to dirty tactics in withholding profits/money from clients.

Sometime ago, 1World gave $40 or so per day in Swaps for LONG GBPJPY. Traders who made money on this have their profits and money withheld (indefinitely?). I also noticed about 6 weeks ago that swap rate for GBPCHF was zero for both long and short. This was already reported at StrategyBuilderFX forum. Was these swap rate an error or a deliberate Trap? After reading the horror stories, I suspect its a trap meant to screw traders.

How does this become a dirty ploy?

Assume you traded GBPJPY, made money in the process with 1World. Later they come to you saying, "Hey Mr Trader, you made money from a wrong swap rates and we are disqualifying them all". This includes the swaps you collected as well as the PIPS you made and to include ALL OTHER TRADES made after these trades; if these GBPJPY trades were not made, you wont have money to make further trades.". Remember, GBPJPY was soaring in June/July and these traders made money from it by going Long GBPJPY..

There are two possibilities being played here:
1. 1World did not hedge your trades with an upper tier broker (1World traded vs you); you made money and they now rescind those trades.
2. 1World hedged your trades with an upper tier broker. However, 1world now claims YOUR profits.
You dont earn swaps. you dont earn Pips. End of Story.
The trap is for traders to make positions on those pairs; if you did and after further trading (even with other pairs) made money, they will go to your account and "cancel" your profits claiming, these could not take place so there is no profit made.

Meanwhile, in Switzerland…

Tradex Swiss Ag is still at war with itself apparently. The SFBC is fighting with the Tradex office in Boston over who has the right to talk to the customers of Tradex Swiss AG. Meanwhile the customers, who just want their money back, have no choice but to watch this farce from the sidelines. I have posted the two dueling press releases below. UN-BELIEVALBLE:

From: Craig Karlis
Service address: 100 Franklin Street
Boston
Massachusetts
02110

To: All clients of Tradex Swiss AG

Date: 29 August 2007

Dear Clients

Re: "Hostile take-over" of Tradex Swiss AG (Boston office)

As most of you may be aware by now, Tradex Swiss AG is currently being investigated by the Swiss Federal Banking Commission (SFBC). This is not a criminal investigation but was ordered to determine whether Tradex Swiss AG needs a banking license in Switzerland to operate their business and structured products (please see the attached documents from the investigating trustees from Switzerland).

As a precautionary measure, your funds in the Bank of America account of Tradex were frozen on 3 July 2007, by the Swiss authorities in an effort to protect your interests. If protecting your money constitutes a "hostile take-over" as described in the e-mail from the Swiss Management, headed by Mr Nic M Jansen van Rensburg before the Swiss authorities took control of the company, then we are guilty. Since the "freeze" of your money the former management of the Boston office has initiated a suit in a Massachusetts court and obtained an injunction to protect your money - resulting in an injunction that prevents your funds being moved to Switzerland, as well as preventing Bank of America from dispensing any funds without the knowledge of all the parties involved. All legal expenses are solely financed by the previous management of the Boston office while the management in Switzerland has not paid its employees or other operating expenses (infra-structure) of the Boston office since June.

There was no "hostile take-over" by anyone in Boston and there are absolutely no direct or indirect relationship between Tradex Swiss AG and Boston Trading and Research LLC. The Swiss trustees were the ones who originally froze the account. I and the rest of the Boston management took the actions in court solely because they refused to inform any one in Boston as to the status of the accounts, and in fact would not communicate with us in any way. We have taken steps at our expense, to protect your interests and resolve your inconvenience, by getting your funds released and wired to you without delay.

To satisfy yourself about the true facts of the situation, you may consider obtaining concrete evidence/proof of the following from the Swiss Management:
• their efforts since 5 July 2007 to secure and get your money released,
• their response to your withdrawal request;
• the identity of their traders participating in their "capital guaranteed program";
• the opinion of the Swiss Federal Banking Commissions and other regulatory bodies about any guarantee of client funds, especially if it pertains to spot forex transactions (part of why the investigation was sanctioned);
• payroll details for the Boston office employees for July and August;

From myself and the former management of the Boston office of Tradex we can assure you of one thing only: We are doing everything within our power and the law to secure your funds in Bank of America and make sure it gets wired directly to you in terms of the Anti-money laundering regulations as soon as unfortunate matter is resolved. We have the "disadvantage" that we all live in Boston and have to make a living here.

From the attached documents it is clear that the Swiss trustees, appointed by the SFBC, are currently in control of Tradex Swiss AG for the duration of their investigation. If you have any queries feel free to contact any of the Swiss trustees at Lutz Rechtsanwälte: contact or call them at Tel +41 44 560 8080 or Fax +41 44 560 8090 or e-mail to Peter Lutz peter.lutz@lawyerlutz.ch ; Romeo Da Rugna romeo.darugna@lawyerlutz.ch ; Michael Bopp michael.bopp@lawyerlutz.ch .

Please accept our most sincere apology for the inconvenience cau sed by the continued transgressions of the SFBC prescriptions by the Swiss Management. In our opinion the best course of action would be to let the legal process, set in motion by myself and the Boston management, continue uninterrupted. I undertake to keep you up to date of any new developments or progress concerning our legal process against the Bank of America and Tradex Swiss AG.
Yours Sincerely
Craig Karlis

The SFBC responded in kind:

Memorandum

Mandate: SFBC / Tradex and Swiss Garant
Subject: Further information to clients of Tradex Swiss AG
to: Clients of Tradex Swiss AG / file
from: Dr Peter Lutz and Romeo Da Rugna
Date: 3 September 2007

Dear Madam, dear Sir,
we have informed earlier that the Swiss Federal Banking Commission (SFBC) has opened an investigation on Tradex Swiss AG ("Tradex"). The purpose of such investigation is to verify, whether the company has been conducting financial activities without the necessary homecountry licence. The SFBC terminated the signatory power of the former signatories of Tradex and appointed the undersigned Dr Peter Lutz and Romeo Da Rugna to carry out the investigation on behalf of the SFBC. The SFBC granted Dr Peter Lutz and Romeo Da Rugna the exclusive authority, with sole signatory power, to represent and act on behalf of Tradex.

Further to our former information we can give you the following update about the pending investigation: We are at the moment not in a position to complete our investigation since part of the management of Tradex refuses to cooperate with the undersigned and do not deliver requested information and documents in a complete and timely manner.

A part of the management of Tradex even filed a complaint against Tradex in Boston USA. Tradex therefore had to employ US counsel in order to defend this complaint which is seriously obstructing and delaying the pending investigation.

Without the complete information and documentation about all assets and liabilities of Tradex, we are not able to determine which clients and/or creditors have legitimate claims towards Tradex. Therefore, lacking this information and documentation, we can not find out, and we consequently can not exclude, whether there is any risk of preferential treatment of
creditors if now payments are made to individual clients and/or creditors.

Until we do not have a complete overview on all of Tradex' assets and liabilities, we are therefore not in a position to make any transfer to clients and/or creditors of Tradex.

We finally would like to inform that none of the messages which have been sent since 3 July 2007 by the management of Tradex have been authorised by the undersigned. Such messages and information therefore do not reflect the opinion of the undersigned. As soon as the investigation will be completed, you will receive further information.

Yours sincerely
DR PETER LUTZ AND ROMEO DA RUGNA
Investigators appointed by the Swiss Federal Banking Commission

If it is any consolation to the traders stuck in these two firms both the NFA and SFBC are making big changes to try and keep these kinds of things from happening again (NFA by raising capital requirements and SFBC by regulating forex in CHF.) As for everyone else, please conduct your due diligence and avoid poorly capitalized and/or unregulated firms for this is what can happen if you don’t.

[forex savior]

In July I put out an alert to the FX Community about Dead Pool Member Nations Investments, LLC. Well, shortly there after the NFA went in and closed them down. Now it appears the CFTC has stepped in to collect their pound of flesh. Nations was hauled into court by the scruff of their neck by the Feds and a court receiver has now taken over the defunct firm. Have customers lost money? I'll keep everyone informed.
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission Files Action Against Futures Commission Merchant Nations Investments, LLC, for Failure to Maintain the Minimum Amount of Net Capital Required by Federal Law

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission Files Action Against Futures Commission Merchant Nations Investments, LLC, for Failure to Maintain the Minimum Amount of Net Capital Required by Federal Law

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced today the filing of a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Nations Investments, LLC (Nations) of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a futures commission merchant (FCM) registered with the CFTC.

The complaint alleges violations of the minimum net capital requirements of the Commodity Exchange Act and Commission regulations. More specifically, according to the CFTC complaint, as of July 21, 2007, and perhaps earlier, Nations’ net capitalization was below the adjusted net capital required by the Act and a Commission regulation. As of July 20, 2007, the complaint charges, Nations’ adjusted net capitalization remained below the required adjusted net capital with Nations’ total liabilities equaling $5 million while its assets were less than $2 million.

On July 30, 2007, the Honorable Marcia G. Cooke, U.S. District Court Judge, issued a restraining order freezing the assets of Nations and prohibiting the defendant from destroying documents or denying CFTC staff access to books and records. The Court also froze the assets of relief defendants Sulaiman “Sal” Husain, a Director, Chief Financial Officer, and principal of Nations, and Sammy Joe Goldman, an owner and former principal of Nations. Husain and Goldman allegedly contributed to the undercapitalization—which ultimately rose to approximately $4.5 million—by withdrawing a total of $1 million from Nations’ accounts.

On August 7, 2007, the court approved the appointing a receiver to marshal the assets of Nations. In the ongoing action, the CFTC seeks an order of permanent injunction against the defendant, monetary penalties, and other relief.

[forex savior]

FX Street has put together a very comprehensive review of the NFA Capital Requirement Proposal providing a number of links to magazine articles, current net capital numbers and other tidbits. Worth a look here:

The Brokers (re) Evolution: NFA New Regulation

[forex savior]

I came across this excellent post about the lack of regulation in Switzerland, as confirmed by Swiss Regulators themselves. Be very wary of doing business with a broker in Switzerland until the market gets regulated over there.

Originally Posted by minter
I requested info regarding a FX Brokerage firm in SWITZERLAND.

The first reply is from SBFC (Swiss Federal Banking Commission) and the second reply is from MLCA (Money Laundering Controlling Authority) .I personally do not feel the SWISS regulators are not as proactive as the US side .What about UK 's FSA ? I will try to find out .

Dear Sir ,

For the time being, financial intermediaries providing foreign exchange trading are not subject to licensing by the SFBC, provided that they exclusively deal in foreign exchange on the spot market. It is however intended to amend the law to the effect that foreign exchange trading becomes a privilege of authorised banks.

Foreign Exchange dealers fall under the scope of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA). As such, they may be subject - unless they are a member of a recognised self regulatory body - to direct supervision by the AML Control Authority (Anti-Money Laundering Control Authority AMLCA) at the Swiss Federal Finance Administration, Christoffelgasse 5, 3003 Berne, phone +41 31 323 39 94, fax +41 31 323 52 61, www.gwg.admin.ch/e/index.htm. You may check this authority concerning forex brokers in Switzerland.

We hope that we were able to help you further.

Yours sincerely


Secretariat of the
SWISS FEDERAL BANKING COMMISSION


sig. Christina Bürgi sig. Simone Flach
Communication&Media Communication&Media

Schwanengasse 12
P.O. Box
CH-3001 Berne
Phone +41 31 322 60 69
Fax +41 31 322 69 26
mailto:simone.flach@ebk.admin.ch
Unbenanntes Dokument




CH-3003 Bern, FFA, AMLCA, bdu
By email

xxxxxxxxxx@yahoo.com

Sir ,
Our reference: 10-9/VER2007/wj

Bern, 31 August 2007

Re: List of regulated forex brokers in Switzerland

Dear Sir,

We acknowledge receipt of your inquiry of 30 August 2007 and have to inform you that we cannot supply you with the requested list. Forex companies are not under prudential supervision. No security for deposited funds is therefore given and no supervision of the quality of the services provided takes place.

Yours faithfully,

Anti-Money Laundering Control Authority
Brigitte Dumont Judith Wyss
Adm. Assistant Adm. assistant