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

[forex savior]

And the hits just keep on coming for One World Capital. The NFA just announced that One World has been fined $100,000 for the complaint brought against them last spring.
BASIC Case Summary

For a firm already struggling to meet the coming $5 million capital requirement that’s another 100 grand the firm will have to cough up.

Here is a summary of the NFA’s original complaint:

On June 4, 2007, NFA issued a Complaint charging One World with failing to maintain required books and records, failing to meet its minimum adjusted net capital requirement, and failing to notify NFA that its books and records were not current. The Complaint also charged One World with using misleading promotional material and failing to adopt and enforce written procedures to supervise its associates and employees in the use of promotional material. Finally, the Complaint charged One World and Walsh with providing false and misleading information to NFA.

This was the NFA’s official decision in the One World Case:

On November 14, 2007, One World was ordered to pay a $100,000 fine and pay an additional fine of $50,000 unless certain conditions are met. Walsh was ordered to guarantee payment of the fines, in the event that One World fails to pay them.

The settlement of the case and the Decision does not relieve One World of its obligation to comply with all NFA Requirements, including capital requirements for FDMs and the increased capital requirements for FDMs which go into effect on December 21, 2007.

I like that comment at the end, “the Decision does not relieve One World of its obligation to comply with all NFA Requirements, including capital requirements for FDMs and the increased capital requirements for FDMs which go into effect on December 21, 2007.”

Hmm, seems to me like the NFA is worried that One World isn’t going to be able to make the new requirement. Hence this gentle reminder along with the demand Walsh pay up for One World should One World default on its payment!

In any case, I strongly recommend ANYONE who has an account with One World for the love of criminy get your money out of that firm once and for all- if you even still can…

[forex savior]

Three Jeers for Switzerland! Over the past year I have been documenting the sad collapse of Tradex Swiss AG. Tradex is one of the many unregulated firms that Switzerland allows to operate inside their borders without any serious oversight. When customers get burned Swiss Government officials are only too glad to sit on their hands, or in the case of Tradex, make the situation worse.

Example, customers at Tradex have been begging and pleading with Swiss authorities to grant Tradex the authority to release their funds, which they have inexplicably frozen with nary an explanation. After months of stonewalling Swiss Authorities have apparently informed the clients of Tradex that Tradex is now going into bankruptcy!

Tradex Swiss AG - Page 5

The regulatory environment in Switzerland is a complete shambles. As such fx traders should avoid Swiss firms at all costs. The following Swiss firms are completely unregulated and by trading with these firms you risk suffering the same fate as has befallen the customers at Tradex Swiss AG. I repeat, YOU HAVE NO PROTECTIONS if you open an account with an unregulated Swiss firm.

Unregulated Swiss Brokers
Finex
Tradex Swiss AG
WestCapFX
ACM
MIG
DukasCopy
GFX Group (Forex.CH)
Crown Forex

Do not trade with these firms if you care about safety of funds. Here is an article from the Boston Business Review reporting on the latest from Tradex Swiss AG:

Troubled Tradex may be forced into bankruptcy - Boston Business Journal:

Troubled Tradex may be forced into bankruptcy
Boston Business Journal - by Jackie Noblett Journal staff

Investigators for the Swiss Federal Banking Commission have recommended the Swiss government place Tradex Swiss AG, a foreign exchange trading shop operating out of Boston, into bankruptcy, according to a report and sworn statements filed in Suffolk Superior Court.

The specter of bankruptcy places into jeopardy a suit by dozens of Massachusetts Tradex investors that would ensure their funds are returned in full before other investors and creditors divide the company's assets. There are roughly 1,600 investors in 60 countries who have alleged claims to Tradex funds, according to court records.

The report was filed Oct. 25 in response to an order by Superior Court Justice Allan van Gestel as part of a legal battle over Tradex funds frozen in two Boston banks. Portions of the report translated from German to English state that "the Tradex group is very likely overindebted, and in any event, insolvent and therefore not fully able to fully meet its presumed obligations in a timely manner."

Swiss investigators Peter Lutz and Romeo DaRugna state in the report that customers of Tradex claim at least $15.3 million in receivables, of which $5 million have been claimed in U.S. courts. The investigation further concludes Tradex's assets are only $7.1 million, with $5 million frozen in a Boston branch of Bank of America account and $500,000 held by Sovereign Bank.

The SFBC was scheduled to meet Wednesday or Thursday to discuss the future of Tradex Swiss AG and its sister company, Swiss Garant. An affidavit by Lutz states "it is my sincere belief that the SFBC will order the liquidation and bankruptcy of Tradex at its Oct. 31/Nov. 1 meeting."
A spokesman for the SFBC said that as of press time, the court had not made a ruling on the future of the two companies.

As reported previously, Tradex is being investigated in Massachusetts for allegations that it was not properly registered in the state, according to the office of Secretary of State William F. Galvin. Most recently, Tradex investors have written letters to Attorney General Martha Coakley seeking assistance retrieving their funds.

If the Swiss government places Tradex into bankruptcy, which would be domesticated in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Massachusetts, the cases filed in Suffolk Superior Court by former Tradex employees and investors attempting to recoup their funds would be nullified, and investors would have to file claims in bankruptcy court, said Liam Floyd, a lawyer for former Tradex manager Craig Karlis, who is suing Tradex for back pay.

But Floyd said he is not confident in the figures provided by the Swiss investigators, who he says have not done due diligence in securing Tradex's files and trading platform.

In a letter dated Oct. 23 to the SFBC, Nicolaas Jansen van Rensberg, a Tradex owner and executive stripped of powers as Swiss investigators took over the company, says that the report by Lutz and DaRugna contains "massive calculation errors, completely ... inappropriate methods of calculation, baseless and inflammatory accusations, libelous slander, suppositions based on total negligent and wholly inadequate methods of investigation."

Evan Fray-Witzer, attorney for Lutz and DaRugna, did not return calls. Meanwhile, Tradex's investors say they are becoming increasingly frustrated with the lack of communication and are taking matters into their own hands.

"Personally, I don't know what's going on," said Jenny Zhan, a trader who is not a part of any investor suits. "Even people with attorney, they don't know."

Zhan said the group is split on whether to wait out the current legal battle or to take further action.

[forex savior]

Bad News for the folks over at Easy Forex. Not only are they below the $5 million capital requirement about to go into effect but now they are being sued by an angry customer who lost their shirt.

Of course, lawsuits from failed traders against forex brokers are a dime a dozen. But this case does not appear to be your ordinary frivolous lawsuit filed by some crank on a vendetta. Here are the details as reported in a major Israeli newspaper:

Globes Online – Israel business news – Israel economy – Israel banks – Tel Aviv Stock Exchange – Israel stocks - Shekel – Israel technology – Israel real estate – Israel defense companies - Globes [online] - Suit alleges Easy Forex rewards brokers fo

Suit alleges Easy Forex rewards brokers for client losses
Easy Forex: The plaintiff is a client who lost heavily; we don't want to judge him harshly.
Globes correspondent 19 Nov 07 09:55

A lawsuit has been filed against online foreign currency brokerage Easy Forex by one of its customers, alleging that the company paid its brokers incentives when investors lost money and fined them if they made a profit.

Easy Forex said in response that the customer had lost heavily, and it did not want to judge him harshly. It added that as part of its compliance with international standards, it warns customers, both orally and in its literature, of the risks inherent in foreign currency trading.

"All the allegations will be clarified in court," it said.

The claim followed a report on Channel 10 in which an Easy Forex broker was heard saying, "I had this evil grin on my face one day, when a client lost $35,000 in a quarter of an hour. A guy gets wiped out - I get my commission. A guy comes up a winner and turns a profit - I pay."

What jumps out is the line from the Easy Forex broker who brags on television to a news reporter that "a guy gets wiped out - I get my commission. A guy comes up a winner and turns a profit - I pay." I have heard of market makers running amok and giving customers bad order execution for their own benefit but I have never heard of an introducing broker getting compensated only when their customers lose.

So I did some digging to try and find this video. Here it is in all its glory:
ðòðò 10 - çãùåú - ëúá úáéòä çîåø ðâã çáøú ääù÷òåú "àéæé ôåø÷ñ"

Unfortunately, you need to speak Hebrew, which most of us don't. But a friend translated for me and the gist of the interview is that Easy Forex actually compensates these brokers everytime their customers LOSE money. Talk about being underhanded. Aren't introducing brokers usually compensated with a portion of the spread? Not here. Apparently these brokers would go into the religious community where the regulatory oversight is scant and get these guys to open accounts knowing they would get creamed.

Looks like all those critics of market makers have some new ammunition to fire away with in the great ECN vs. Market Maker debate.

By the way, beware forex brokers with evil grins...

[coscorp]

Hi,

interesting post...stregthens my inclination towards a segregated account..but I can't seem to find anything on FXDD...do you have any info on them please?

[maxiFX]

Originally Posted by coscorp

Hi,

interesting post...stregthens my inclination towards a segregated account..but I can't seem to find anything on FXDD...do you have any info on them please?

I think the reason for that is that they are not regulated...I would stay far away from them if I were you. I agree that segregated accounts are much better, that is what I have also. I'm just surprised that these shady unregulated brokers even have clients!!!! So shady....

[juxtatrader]

As of right now a brokerage firm does not have to be regulated to be open. Some firms have decided not to become regulated until the NFA comes down with their exact ruling. Because of no exact ruling from the NFA it has cost some firms lots of money tryin to get regulated and then get slapped with fines that cost them even more money.

As far as FXDD their parent company is regulated and have heard from reliable resources their reasons for not being regulated and have to say they have a valid reason for not doing so yet.

[loveforex]

Being regulated is great, but NFA will do nothing should you have a problem with a broker. They are just a membership body doing business by charging registration fees.

Everything seems to be over regulated in USA and in favor of multi million giants as if to indicate that higher capital = safety.

America no longer offer equal opportunity. More money more equal. Notice how all small mom and pops stores disappeared and owners now all work for big co. that "closed" them down. The same will happen with fx brokers.Traders will have no choice but to deal with giants, and when competition narrows guess who is in trouble? Traders, of course.

Also, just because someone have a Swiss address and a Swiss phone number does not mean they are Swiss co. and located in Switzerland.

Most of them are not actually Swiss, but based right in here ..USA.

Good day.

[forex savior]

Originally Posted by juxtatrader

As of right now a brokerage firm does not have to be regulated to be open. Some firms have decided not to become regulated until the NFA comes down with their exact ruling. Because of no exact ruling from the NFA it has cost some firms lots of money tryin to get regulated and then get slapped with fines that cost them even more money.

As far as FXDD their parent company is regulated and have heard from reliable resources their reasons for not being regulated and have to say they have a valid reason for not doing so yet.

FXDD is completely unregulated because they are taking advantage of their affiliation with Tradition. Trading with FXDD is EXTREMELY RISKY as you are not in the least bit protected by any regulatory authority. Avoid them at all costs.

[forex savior]

A few months ago PFG announced that it had purchased American National Trading Corporation.
PFGBEST.com - Press Room

However, that hasn't stopped the NFA from rubbing out its former executives in a ruling that has banished several former principals of ANTC to the futures equivalent of Siberia. Did PFG buy a pig in the poke?

Here is the NFA's decision:
BASIC Case Summary

On November 29, 2007, ANTC was permanently barred from NFA membership and from acting as a principal of an NFA Member. Varden was ordered to pay a $40,000 fine and Zummo and Roy were ordered to each pay a $20,000 fine. Varden and Zummo were each barred from acting as a principal of an NFA Member until May 11, 2009. If, after May 11, 2009, Varden or Zummo becomes a principal of an NFA Member, then during the time he is a principal of such Member, he will cause such Member to be subject to the enhanced supervisory requirements of NFA Compliance Rule 2-9. After a Member, of which Varden and/or Zummo is a principal, has been subject to the enhanced supervisory requirements of NFA Compliance Rule 2-9 for at least 18 months, then Varden and/or Zummo will be permitted to make an application with NFA's Waiver Committee for a waiver of the enhanced supervisory requirements with respect to such Member.

What did they do? They were charged with "deceptive, misleading and high-pressure sales tactics." And "poor supervision." Eh, what else is new. Poorly capitalized firms that do a poor job supervising their employees are a dime a dozen as Easy Forex so amply demonstrated. Just more evidence for traders to beware poorly capitalized firms.

[muddbuddha]

I just wanted to comment that this is an excellent thread and is very well done. I've read all of it and have appreciated the lack of biased broker bashings.

You've presented the evidence soundly and clearly concerning the brokers that are at risk.

More importantly, you've presented in the best possible forum as this is exactly what new traders need to know.

A trader wants to know that his funds are safe as his account grows. Fortunately I've never had an account with any of the risk brokers, but have had accounts with several of the well funded brokers....good choices on my part. But others may not be as lucky.

Personally, I hope this does get passed as this sort of thing is needed to mature the Fx market, which will in turn bring more money into it and provide more volatility.

Good work....and many thanks!!