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

Broker Discussion Forex Brokers
86

Well well, whats even more interesting is that forexscholars location is just

Moderator: It’s appropriate this thread be ended with “badass’s” comment but it shouldn’t dissuade members from reading the rest of the thread because I think it has been highly instructive. It’s interesting that badass’s IP address is only 12 miles West of Forexscholar’s which is only 5.4 miles West of FXCM’s Manhattan offices. Like badass, I’m sure the inner circle at FXCM wishes this fear campaign (whoever started it) hadn’t gotten as much attention as it has.

87

NFA Forex Dealer Dead Pool - The NDD Forum - Savvy Traders Want to Know

Moderator: It has been determined that the source of this post may well have come from a one of the dealing desk brokers shown as one of so-called “Healthy Forex Firms” on the list below. Be sure to take the time to read the related discussion before you jump to any conclusions. It interesting to note that Forexscholar disappeared from the scene when it was pointed out that his motivations were suspect and that the identical post appearing below has been published by the same individual on numerous forex forums.

88

What’s up with you WhipSaw? You taking the same steroids as Barry Bonds? Like others who cannot effectively rebut my arguments you instead resort to smearing the messenger. It didn’t work before, it won’t work now.

89

A few months ago the NFA filed a complaint against One World Forex that stated among other things, "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."
BASIC Case Summary

Well, with each passing day One World appears to be vindicating the NFA�s assessment as they continue their death spiral downward. The last few weeks I have been flooded with tips about One World Forex. No other firm in the Dead Pool has generated more feedback. And all that feedback has been overwhelmingly negative. But I have been holding back waiting for a clearer picture to emerge. However, this thread at an obscure bulletin board has provided me with the Smoking Gun on One World:
GoldenMoneyTree.com :: View topic - 1world-forex.com

First my sources combined with the users on this thread indicate that One World is having severe problems with customer transfers/withdrawals. The reason why is unclear. It could be due to One World�s changing bank accounts from Citi to Bank of America. Or it could be that One World�s books are such a shambles that we may have another CFG on our hands. There is no way to tell right now. However this customer of One World said the following:

[b]�Day 21: Still haven’t granted my redemption request. I am so angry now that I don’t know if I should still expect to get my money. Last week Jack Walsh said they are having problems or that they still cannot accomplish international wires and blamed it on bank of america. They said hopefully they could do it within the next 40 minutes but until today, it still hasn’t been deducted from my account. I don’t know why they singled me out to do this to me. Is it because I’m far away and won’t sue them because it would be more expensive than my $18,950 that I’m trying to withdraw? I called the NFA and the guy I spoke to states that it is no guarantee that I would get my money back, he says it depends on the agreement with one world that I signed. Well, there’s an expensive lesson for not reading the fine print. In my country $18,950 is roughly 900,000 pesos. And that wasn’t my entire account with them, I still have $2,756 that I don’t know if they’ll give back to me. It’s my entire savings since I was a child. Although it won’t hurt my lifestyle since I still live at home, IT SURE HURTS!
Am I just supposed to sit back and lose my money? I thought I was safe with an american nfa registered broker. The guy from the NFA said he would send a team over to one world but again, he says, there is no guarantee. He said I could file a complaint or he could send me an arbitration kit. This is so sad news for me, and a sad realization. Suddenly, my dreams of having time freedom and doing this full time comes shattering. How do I really know which broker to trust? Will I ever get my savings back?

Day 22: My boyfriend called one world again. They said to wait until next week because they are having management problems and that almost all accounts are under review and that my account is one of those under review. I’m guessing that next week, they’ll tell me to wait until next month, and then until next year…I wonder what went wrong and wonder if this is finally the truth. the NFA hasn’t gotten back to me yet.[/b]

Other traders have sent me private messages confirming the rough shape One World is in. The word on the street is that the situation at One World has become so dire that a large chunk of their sales force resigned because they hadn�t been paid for two months. Other traders are reporting non-responsive customer service, emails that go unanswered and phones that keep on ringing. All the signs of a firm in its last death throes�

The bottom line is when you can�t return a customer�s money when they ask for it you are finished in this business. One World may be able to limp on indefinitely but it is hard to see this firm making a comeback to respectability. Barring a fat sugar daddy willing to pump in ten million dollars this firm�s days appear to be numbered.

90

Smear campaign, you’ve got that wrong. I’ve just posted quotes to interesting material I found on other forums which you have posted the exact same preprepared material on. Aparently trying to smear the smaller firms with the false suggestions / allegations that they are close to insolvency/bankruptcy.

Steroids ? Well, its funny you should say that because you sure are putting a lot of effort into your smear campaign against all the small forex companies.

I have made some very good points with reference to Refco on the OANDA forum. The net capital requirements wouldnt have helped in the case of the only significant bankruptcie to hit the forex market in its entire history, so how is tightening the net capital requirements going to help it now … Thats right, its not, its simply going to move funds to the bigger operators who infact are more likely to be hit by insolvency if Refco is anything to go by.

In anycase, I also raised another important point by pointing out your posting the same material on every available forum:

[B]Whats your motivation or payoff for your ‘smear’ campaign against the smaller firms all over the internet ? [/B]

[B]Are you paid to do this ? [/B]

[B]Why have you never posted before under these identities on these forums ? [/B]

You have made a number of mistakes, in your posts where you suggest that these smaller firms are going bankrupt. Case in point, particularly being “I TRADE FX” - Your first post stated that they were close to bankruptcy with a -$3M net capital, now they have +$4M net capital. Your posts have no doubt cost them business, when they are clearly experiencing dynamic growth.

I also pointed out on the OANDA forum that the Net capital requirements have historically been very dynamic, with OANDA’s number fluctuating by over $30M over the past year. When they are clearly not in any way concievable having any problems. I’ll put the post from OANDA in the next post of mine here.

91

From :
OANDA FXMessage: NFA Forex Dealer Dead Pool

Originally posted by forexfigure:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WhipSawFX:
Not that I’m saying that these companies should be avoided. Just because a company is regulated doesnt make it safe, Refco being a particular case in point. In anycase, I think its important to recognise that the forex market is only more recently recieving more regulatory intervention.

This article by Richard Olsen and Michael Stumm of Oanda, makes an interesting read :

Retail FX: the triumph of hope over experience

Retail FX: the triumph of hope over experience August FiX

I particularly like this quote on the result of the regulatory environment.

[QUOTE] If anything, regulatory action is working to limit inflows of new ideas and processes and the always necessary increased efficiencies.
[/QUOTE]thank you for pointing out the article whipsaw. It is excellent. However I would argue regulated firms are certainly safer than unregulated firms. RefcoFX was not regulated. And neither are these Swiss firms. And that is an added level of risk traders should be very wary of.

no doubt regulation can be a hindrance if implemented in a haphazard manner. But overall if the industry wants to mature like futures and equities it needs rules and regulations and a fair arbiter to ensure its healthy growth. [/QUOTE]

Its irrelevant whether RefcoFX was regulated or not, as it wasn’t RefcoFX which went bankrupt, but Refco which was a regulated organisation infact here’s a post I did on the increase in the net capital before Refco went belly up :

OANDA FXMessage: OANDA lost half capital? – Serious

net capital / req / excess
434,396,953 149,538,068 284,858,885 OCT 31 2005
443,361,067 324,470,436 118,890,631 SEP
376,425,713 239,244,825 137,180,888 AUG
380,089,511 183,889,783 196,199,728 JUL
337,758,112 188,122,845 149,635,267 JUN
354,518,630 186,819,750 167,698,880 MAY
323,842,068 196,599,538 127,242,530 APR
342,308,408 184,949,611 157,358,797 MAR
283,860,286 171,702,919 112,157,367 FEB
286,674,439 156,901,955 129,772,484 JAN

Refco went under in a similar fashion as worldcom, bad accountants and shuffling debt. In the case of Refco it was a bad receivable, money which was due to Refco from clients adversely affected by the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990’s.

Here’s a nice article from bloomberg :

Bloomberg.com: News & Commentary

Its the principal risk for most firms you put your money with in my opinion, and what ever your doing your money’s at risk, unless its segregated.

In anycase, I would agree that a firm which is regulated, and is in constant compliance, and is proactively so like OANDA is a good company to place your money. But, not to the exclusion of all others. I think due dilligence is the most important thing to do when you are investing money with any firm.

The net capital requirement is something that these firms will adapt to rather than go out of business. And for that matter its not an issue of bankruptcy but, not being solvent enough to do buisness as deamed by the CFTC. If they can’t meet the requirements they consolidate with the larger firms.

There had been concern about OANDA’s net capital which fell most of last year, and reached a low of $11M last december. it has risen as high as $42M this year, and appears to be quite a dynamic number. Here are some of the threads :

OANDA FXMessage: Another large drop in Oanda’s Capital…

OANDA FXMessage: OANDA’s financial health

OANDA FXMessage: CFTC OANDA FIgure Dropped again

However, as I have posted in the other threads, OANDA’s platform, business model, quality of client customer service, innovation, and their progressive developement of their platform and tools demonstrates their financial health whatever was going on with the ‘net capital’.

Michael Stumm has made a couple of posts on the forum about this very matter :

OANDA FXMessage: OANDA lost half capital? – Serious

Originally posted by Michael Stumm:
Unfortunately, it is not a warning sign. This is an issue that comes up periodically. For example, please see OANDA FXMessage: Another large drop in Oanda’s Capital…

The situation is the same now as it was then: the CFTC requires us to deduct amounts from OANDA’s capital that depend on our clients’ positions. In some cases, we are required to deduct 20% of individual client nominal position size (the so-called “concentration charge”), which can cause large swings in the reported Net Capital. I can assure you that OANDA is continuing to operate profitably with positive earnings each month for several years now without exception, and as a result, OANDA’s own capital has been only increasing, the Net Capital numbers published notwithstanding.

OANDA FXMessage: CFTC OANDA FIgure Dropped again

Originally posted by Michael Stumm:
For what it is worth, I just posted this: OANDA FXMessage: OANDA lost half capital? – Serious on another thread with the same topic.

The bottom line:

OANDA is profitable each month and has been for years.
as a result, OANDA’s own capital has only been increasing.
the Net Capital published on the CFTC Web site is equal to OANDA’s own capital minus various haircuts and charges. The concentration charge, in particular, requires us to deduct in some cases 20% of nominal client position sizes, which can cause huge swings in the published Net Capial

This is reminiscent of the variation seen at “I TRADE FX” which you listed as -$3M and close to bankruptcy, and now has $4m Net capital …

I TRADE FX LLC N NFA 06/30/2007 3,957,357 1,000,000 2,957,357 0 0

Thats an $8M turnaround in a couple of months, similar to that of OANDA. I think this thread, should be recalled NFA forex Dealer consolidation, cause thats all its about.
If the firms can’t maintain these levels of net capital they will have to move clients to the larger firms, which all in all is not good for the average guy on the street. Since there is
less competition, and innovation and the posibility of spreading your funds around to protect from potential Refco’s is greatly reduced. It would seem to me there is a big potential Refco in that list of healthy firms of yours, which this whole thread seems to promote and are the very companies which your funds are most at risk with. I so think the quote of Richard Olsen and Michael Stumm I posted earlier is to the point :

If anything, regulatory action is working to limit inflows of new ideas and processes and the always necessary increased efficiencies.

I would strongly agree and think this degree and type of regulation is probably more unhealthy for the forex market. The major bankruptcy to affect a forex broker was Refco, who I mentioned before had nothing to do with the net capital requirements. Infact, the net capital requirements would suggest Refco would be the place to trade. What is the new net capital Requirements going to have on the OANDA’s of the future, or is the future your big 2 or 3 firms.

92

Well looks like I have made a new friend. Let me correct you on a couple points.

  1. RefcoFX was not regulated. Refco LLC was regulated and the customers got their money back. Regulation matters. That’s why the customers of RefcoFX in Hong Kong and Canada also got their money back. The Refco case is very complicated and since you don’t know too much about it I suggest you not use them to “build your case” since you don’t know too much about it.

  2. The issue is not “dynamic capital numbers” the issue is firms that don’t have enough money to properly run a forex operation. The NFA is saying they don’t believe firms under $5 million are properly equipped to do so. Thus they want to raise the requirement. The record, as I have shown on this thread, backs their assertion up.

93

What about Refco? This is a common refrain I have been hearing from critics of the NFA Forex Dealer Dead Pool. Refco was massive and they went under in record time which proves that being adequately capitalized doesn’t matter right? Wrong. While citing Refco is a good sound byte it in no way helps the case of the poorly capitalized. Here’s why:

First of all Refco was a gigantic octopus of a company that had various affiliates and subsidiaries that were both regulated and unregulated. The two main players in the Refco saga were Refco Capital Markets (the unregulated outfit in Bermuda that was doing all those shady off-exchange trades) and Refco LLC (which was the licensed futures brokerage most traders knew about.) Refco Capital Markets was where the scandal erupted. For years executives at RCM covered up huge trading losses with creative bookkeeping. But when the scandal became public it caused a bank run everywhere at Refco. The bank run occurred even though Refco had adequate capital to handle the huge trading loss RCM had incurred. But that didn’t matter because Refco was a publically traded company. As the stock price tanked talk of lawsuits by shareholders accelerated the bank run and that’s when Refco’s creditors stepped in and pushed the firm into bankruptcy knowing the only assets the firm had were the customer funds on deposit.

Had Refco not been a public company the scandal would have been a one day hiccup and it would have been business as usual precisely because it had a lot of capital reserves. That is a huge distinction that needs to be made. But when undercapitalized firms such as CFG take huge trading losses there is no room for error. It’s one and done because they have no capital in reserve. Again, this is why the NFA has issued this proposal. Poorly capitalized firms do not have the luxury of taking the kinds of hits that large firms can take. This is also why there hasn’t been a single case of a registered forex dealer member with over $10 million ever going bankrupt. So to the critics I say cite Refco all you want but it has no place in this debate unless you want to discuss the perils of being unregulated.

94

nice sidestep, but answer the questions

95

Update on Swiss Regulation

It appears that the winds of change are blowing in Switzerland according to FX Street:
Forex Street Weblog: Wind of important changes in Switzerland

[b]Hi Everybody

As you may probably already know, SFBC (Swiss Federal Banking Commission) is decided to regulate the Foreign Exchange business in Switzerland . This process already started a couple of months ago and some important brokerages are already going through the process of getting SFBC�s approval.

One of my sources in Switzerland told me this morning that SFBC is implementing big changes in the way Swiss brokers use to work…

The restrictions that SFBC will require to brokers to implement to get their approval will probably force those not strong enough to disappear and this process could be faster than we think and could take place before the end of the year.

I�ll keep you posted about all this very interesting process.
Under my point of view, the fact that SFBC puts order in the Swiss Foreign Exchange business should be considered as a very good news for all the community, but we must remain alert over the whole process.
Francesc[/b]

So it could be that by the end of the year Switzerland will have instituted forex regulation at the retail level and the industry will not have to suffer any more Tradex Swiss AG style shenanigans.

96

The great consolidation has begun. A few days ago PFG purchased Dead Pool Member American National Trading Corporation. Expect more of these types of purchases in the months ahead as the FX world contintues to evolve in light of the proposed capital requirement increase:

August 23, 2007
Peregrine Financial Group, Inc. (PFG) today announced it is purchasing the assets of American National Trading Corporation (ANTC), which is headquartered in Los Angeles, CA. ANTC is a successful FCM which conducts business in futures, foreign exchange, and managed accounts.

PFG will transfer ANTC customer accounts as quickly as possible.

“PFG and ANTC are joining forces to better serve ANTC�s customers,” said PFG Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Russell R. Wasendorf, Sr. "There are so many synergies, and we believe there will be significant benefits to ANTC customers including:

Ability to utilize PFG�s proprietary online trading system, BEST Direct�
The opportunity to use multiple electronic trading platforms
Unique and additional suite of managed futures and forex product offerings
Auto trading systems and other exclusive electronic capabilities for clients."
PFG, one of the largest non-clearing U.S. FCMs, was registered in 1990 and has headquarters in Chicago, IL with customers, affiliates and brokerage offices in more than 80 countries. It has experienced rapid expansion in the past several years through organic growth as well as through strategic acquisitions.

ANTC was founded in 1988. It is led by Chairman Don Varden and President Guy Zummo in Los Angeles, CA.

97

Its interesting to note that the company which took over American National Trading Corporation, Peregrine was a few years ago, having exactly the same problem maintaining net capital as required by the CFTC, and this was at the time, when the requirements were a lot less stringent. And yet, the company is still trading years later, has now plenty of net capital to cover the current requirements, and is fact in a similar situation as FXCM as to its capabilities to cover any proposed net capital requirement changes.

As of 07/06/2007 http://www.cftc.gov/files/tm/fcm/tmfcmdata0706.pdf

Peregrines Net Capital : 13,758,638 
Requirement           :  5,000,000 
Excess                :  8,758,638
Requirement Cover     :  2.75x

American Trading      :  2,159,273 
Requirement           :  1,000,000 
Excess                :  1,159,273
Requirement Cover     :  2.16x

Here’s how some other brokers compare normalised with their ability to meet the requirements.

COMPANY     | Net capital |  Required  | Excess    | Multiple
FX Solutions| 17,295,130  |  2,064,386 | 15,230,744  | 8.38
GFT         | 49,664,118  | 6,904,864  | 42,759,254  | 7.19x
OANDA       | 49,222,317  |  9,172,410 | 40,049,907  | 5.37
Gain Capital| 18,930,914  | 4,341,150  | 14,589,764  | 4.36x
I-TRADE-FX  | 3,957,357   |  1,000,000 | 2,957,357   |>3.96x
FCM         | 44,626,492  | 12,977,713 | 31,648,779  | 3.44x
Peregrine   | 13,758,638  |  5,000,000 |  8,758,638   | 2.75x
InterbankFX | 8,584,434   |  3,719,721 | 4,864,713   | 2.31x
1-World     | 2,308,460   |  1,000,000 | 1,308,460   |>2.31x
AMTC        | 2,159,273   |  1,000,000 | 1,159,273   | 2.16x

The pretext of this thread is dead firms walking … as I’ve posted before, if anything this is simply consolidation for those that can’t meet the requirements, and adjusting the books for most so that more of the companies capital is available for ‘net capital’.

Its also interesting to note Peregrines regulatory actions :

BASIC Details

BASIC Case Summary

BASIC Case Summary

BASIC Case Summary
(fined for not meeting net capital requirements in 2000)

from : OANDA FXMessage: NFA Forex Dealer Dead Pool

Originally posted by forexfigure:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by FXstreet:
[qb] Hi WhipSawFX

I was not aware that Forexfigure was the same guy than FXstreet’s forexscholar.

I do not approve such practices of replying threads in different web sites as it does not leave clear what is your real interest when creating a thread.

Forexfigure, can you please explain why you opened same thread at Oanda, FF, forexnews, FXstreet.com…?

As I said, I do not like nor approve such practices

Francesc [/qb]
It is important information. For too long a lot of this has been swept under the rug in the retail forex industry. A lot of traders have been burned as a result. Whistle blowing is often greeted with harsh responses from those who want to keep all this information secret. But I feel the more places I can blow the whistle at the better it is for the industry. [/qb][/QUOTE]I’ve asked you a number of times, what you meant by this statement. Are you sweeping your ineptitude under the rug ? And what and who are you whistle blowing for ?

Whistleblower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A whistleblower is an employee, former employee, or member of an organization, especially a business or government agency, who reports misconduct to people or entities that have the power and presumed willingness to take corrective action. Generally the misconduct is a violation of law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest � fraud, health, safety violations, and corruption are just a few examples. For instance, Jeffrey Wigand is well-known in the United States for exposing the Big Tobacco scandal, revealing that executives of the companies knew that cigarettes were addictive and that they added other carcinogenic ingredients to the cigarettes.

Which company do you work for ? and what are they doing wrong ?

from : EFX/MB Trading Going Under? - Page 3 - The NDD Forum - Savvy Traders Want to Know

Moderator: It’s appropriate this thread be ended with “badass’s” comment but it shouldn’t dissuade members from reading the rest of the thread because I think it has been highly instructive. It’s interesting that badass’s IP address is only 12 miles West of Forexscholar’s which is only 5.4 miles West of FXCM’s Manhattan offices. Like badass, I’m sure the inner circle at FXCM wishes this fear campaign (whoever started it) hadn’t gotten as much attention as it has.

Found the above graph interesting from FXCM’s Alexia page.

Related Info for: fxcm.com/

I would encourage everyone to read the thread over at Forex No Dealing Desk Trading | Forex Trading Instruction

EFX/MB Trading Going Under? - The NDD Forum - Savvy Traders Want to Know

Here’s the last post in it

I am closing additional posts to this thread because the ones that have been recently posted here distract from its central purpose. This thread is a must read for those who are visiting the forum for the first time. I suggest new visitors start reading it from the very beginning. It started almost immediately after I published a commentary on my blog related to FXCM’s offer of no dealing desk trading.

It’s interesting to note that neither Forexscholar and Basdass returned to the forum to refute their “outing” so there’s little doubt in my mind that they are, in fact, shills for FXCM whether employed by FXCM or not. It’s also been brought to my attention that identical posts suggesting that all FCMs with less than $5M in Adjusted Net Capital should be abandoned because the NFA is going to shut them done have been posted on a half dozen other forums. The poster, Forexsavior, obviously has little imagination otherwise he wouldn’t have come up with a name with such a striking similarity to the one he used here.

From the very beginning of this forum, I have tried to get brokers to openly discuss the dealing vs non-dealing desk issue and [apart from Justin at EFX and Steve at MBtrading who obviously speak for non-dealing desk trading] no broker or broker representative has come forward to defend dealing desk brokerage. Had Forexscholar [and for that matter Badass] clearly identified themselves, stating the nature of their affiliation with FXCM, their comments would have been very instructive. Unfortunately, they chose to hide their real identities behind manufactured personas. I can only conclude that this is the case because there isn’t a broker out there who can defend the indefensible. Members, of course, are intelligent enough to draw their own conclusions.

Personally, I dont think he’s a shill for FXCM, or anyone else. But its funny as hell, and some coincidence. If FXCM or another company were doing anything like this, they would have employed someone way smarter than this cutnpaster. But why would anyone post the exact same thread on every forum he can find :

  [Proposed NFA Capital Requirement - Forex Trading](http://www.forex-tsd.com/general-discussion/8320-proposed-nfa-capital-requirement.html)         
     [Forexnews.com](http://www.forexnews.com/fxforum/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1693&PN=1&TPN=3)         
     [Proposed NFA Capital Requirement - Page 17](http://www.forexfactory.com/showthread.php?t=35930&page=17)         
     [Proposed NFA capital requirements](http://www.talkgold.com//forum/showthread.php?t=177822)         
   [NFA Forex Dealer Dead Pool - The NDD Forum - Savvy Traders Want to Know](http://nondealingdesk.com/showthread.php?t=1849)       
   [NFA Forex Dealer Dead Pool - Forex Trading | MetaTrader Indicators and Expert Advisors](http://www.fxfisherman.com/forums/forex-metatrader/brokers-platforms/1926-nfa-forex-dealer-dead-pool.html)       
  [Forums - Proposed NFA Capital Requirement](http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=97890)      
 [PiP Trader Forum: NFA Forex Dealer Dead Pool](http://www.piptrader.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1051&PN=1)     
http://forums.babypips.com/rate-my-broker/3900-your-funds-safe-nfa-shut-down-small-forex-fcms.html

Proposed NFA Capital Requirement - Forex Trading
MoneyTec Traders Community Forum

98

The NFA rule proposal says nothing about a firm’s ratio of capital to excess net capital. It is very simple, they want firms to have over $5 million due to the higher risk associated with being poorly capitalized (see the CFG case). It’s that simple. Everything else you have posted is irrelevant.

101

Good for FXCM. I’m glad to see them taking this issue a lot more seriously than you are Tess.

103

Well it’s clear that the NFA proposal is having an impact in the industry already. For the second time in a week a smaller firm in the Dead Pool has announced merger plans. They wouldn’t be doing this if they had the capital to stay in business on their own. This shows you how serious an issue this is. The pressure is being wratched up and the time is fast approaching when those firms below $5 million will have to either join the borg, or die.

Royal Forex Trading LLC. Future Plans

Dear Valued Client,

I am pleased to announce that there has been a very big development for Royal Forex Trading. Before that, I wish to bring to your attention the minimum adjusted net capital requirement proposed by the National Futures Association (NFA). The NFA recently circulated a proposal calling all the FCM’s to adjust their minimum net capital requirement from $1 million to $5 million to avoid risks to the customers.

Royal Forex Trading fielded many inquiries for several days and we addressed the issue in our last corporate newsletter. We believe the NFA is taking appropriate measures if they decide to increase the net capital limit for FCMs. Bottom line; this eliminates many inexperienced brokers.

RFXT�s management has been in the industry for many years and we believe we have adequate resources as well as a full fledged backup plan.

In the midst of all this, we have been approached by several companies inviting us to form a partnership. After further due diligence, we are very close to striking a deal with a company whose name cannot be mentioned at this juncture. This entity has an 8 year track record and does not hold a single complaint with the NFA. Their net capital is well over $5 million and they are licensed to do business in many continents.

In the past few weeks, we have been holding several conferences and meetings to finalize the deal. Upon completion of the deal, the following will occur:

� Royal Forex Trading will join as a division of a much larger entity.

� Royal Forex Trading will officially re-locate to Wall Street, the Hub of major financial institutions.

� Royal Forex Trading will retain its Service Desk.

� Royal Forex Trading will in the very near future be providing various other products like including Crude, Gold and Silver CFD�s, Currency Options as well as many other new and exciting products.

� Royal Forex Trading will be opening branches around the world.

� Royal Forex Trading will continue to provide superior execution and excellent customer support.

� Royal Forex Trading will be developing an Institutional Desk.

In the end, you as a client will benefit immensely from this merger and that is what we have always wanted; world class service for our clients.

I thank you from the bottom of my heart for all the trust you have put in us and I appreciate the excellent feedbacks we received during this “critical” phase. As we promised, our main goal and mission is and will always be to satisfy our clients beyond expectation.

Thank you

Rayan Elannan

President & Co-founder

Royal Forex Trading LLC

104

Booooooooooooorrrrrrrrr…ing

:mad: :stuck_out_tongue: :mad: :stuck_out_tongue:

Regards, Tymen Wortel, Perth, Western Australia.

105

On the contrary I find this whole thread very illuminating &
would like to thank all the posters so far.

I also look forward to further posts.

107

To Tess :

If it was not for you, Tess, I would never have known that these forex brokers are criminals.

Thank you for posting on this forum.

I think the brokers all have the same boss - his name is Osama Bin Laden.

Meanwhile, that coffee…(yum)

To Daydreamer65 : I like your little end caption (“best wishes” - lovely!)

Kind regards, Tymen Wortel, Perth, Western Australia.

108

I certainly hope you were making that statement in jest, otherwise that might very well be the most inflamatory statement I think I have ever seen on any forum of this kind.

While I certainly agree with Tess that the business model for the dealing desk brokers presents opportunities for abuse, let’s not start labeling them all crooks and fronts for organized crime and/or terrorists. I’d be willing to bet that most folks in the business are honest types. As ever, it just takes a couple of less than honest ones to create an industry-wide bad impression.

I can’t help but laugh at all of these charges of impropriety. I’m not talking about people walking away with customer funds or anything like that. I’m referring to stop running and other price manipulation type complaints.

First of all, most cries of foul come from folks who did stupid things in the market, lost money, and want someone other than themselves to blame. Secondly, people act like forex brokers are the first to be accused of such things. The guys in the trading futures pits (a highly regulated market) have been accused of running stops and the like for years. Ever heard of “fast market” conditions?

My point is you need to understand the structure underlying your trading, and obviously do your due diligence in terms of the folks with which you are dealing. If you do that, you can avoid getting caught out.

109

Its interesting that [B]tymen1 [/B] joked as he/she did about some brokerages being run by criminals. Although, Im sure it was posted in jest, here’s a couple of snipets I stumbled upon whilst doing my due dilligence which are interesting in light of his/her posts.

In January 2006, the NFA did a follow up audit after FXCM was fined $110,000 for violation of [B]Rule C.R.2-36(b)(1) which is defined as “Cheat, defraud, deceive forex customers” [/B]. FCM in no way admitted or denied the charge, and made the settlement with the NFA. You can find the details here :

BASIC Case Summary

The follow on audit revealled that FXCM had not abided by the agreement which had the resolved the previous regulatory action. Thus the NFA initiated another complaint against FXCM, which is as yet unresolved ([I]I believe[/I]) for violation of [B]Rule C.R.2-36(b)(1) which is defined as “Cheat, defraud, deceive forex customers” [/B]

The audit also identified potential failings of "FXCM’s anti-money laundering program (AML) “as evidenced by the high number of accounts FXCM opened for Nigerian nationals, without identifying those accounts as high risk for potential money laundering.” [quote from http://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/CaseDocument.aspx?seqnum=1023 ]

You can find the details here :
BASIC Case Summary

The particular concern about Forex companies opening accounts for Nigerian nationals is that Nigeria is the origin of a number of internet scams commonly called the “Nigerian 419 Scam” If you dont know what the Nigerian 419 scam check out the the following very entertainment link :

Ebola Monkey Man: Nigerian 419 Scam

disclaimer : I in no way qualified to say that fxcm is Cheating, defrauding, or deceiving forex customers, or that they ever have. However, our regulatory body the NFA have made complaints that they have.