PDA

View Full Version : Brokers - the good, the bad, and the ugly



arco
12-03-2004, 08:36 AM
Noticed this recently, - may be of interest

www.forex-markets.com/NewswireFXCM.htm

arco
15-03-2004, 08:14 PM
COMMISSION ADVISORY BEWARE OF FOREIGN CURRENCY TRADING FRAUDS

Have you been solicited to trade foreign currency contracts (also known as "forex")?
If so, you need to know how to spot foreign currency trading frauds.
The United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the federal agency that regulates commodity futures and options markets in the United States, warns consumers to take special care to protect themselves from the various kinds of frauds being perpetrated in today's financial markets, including those involving so-called "foreign currency trading."

A new federal law, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, makes clear that the CFTC has the jurisdiction and authority to investigate and take legal action to close down a wide assortment of unregulated firms offering or selling foreign currency futures and options contracts to the general public. In addition, the CFTC has jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute foreign currency fraud occurring in its registered firms and their affiliates.

The CFTC has witnessed the increasing numbers and growing complexity of financial investment opportunities in recent years, including a sharp rise in foreign currency trading scams. While much foreign currency trading is legitimate, various forms of foreign currency trading have been touted in recent years to defraud members of the public.

Currency trading scams often attract customers through advertisements in local newspapers, radio promotions or attractive Internet sites. These advertisements may tout high-return, low-risk investment opportunities in foreign currency trading, or even highly-paid currency-trading employment opportunities. The CFTC urges you to be skeptical when promoters of foreign currency trading claim that their services or account management will earn high profits with minimal risks, or that employment as a currency trader will make you wealthy quickly.

Understanding Legitimate Foreign Currency Operations

Generally speaking, foreign currency futures and options contracts may be traded legally on an exchange or board of trade that has been approved by the CFTC.

Even where currency trading does not occur on a Commission-approved exchange or board of trade, the trading can be conducted legally where, generally speaking, one or both parties to the trading is (or is a regulated affiliate of) a bank, insurance company, registered securities broker-dealer, futures commission merchant or other financial institution, or is an individual or entity with a high net worth.

Where forex firms do not fall into the categories of regulated entities outlined above and engage in foreign currency futures and options transactions with or for retail customers who do not have high net worths, the CFTC has jurisdiction over those firms and their transactions.

Warning Signs of Fraud

If you are solicited by a company that claims to trade foreign currencies and asks you to commit funds for those purposes, you should be very careful. Watch for the warning signs listed below, and take the following precautions before placing your funds with any currency trading company.

1. Stay Away From Opportunities That Sound Too Good to Be True

Get-rich-quick schemes, including those involving foreign currency trading, tend to be frauds.

Always remember that there is no such thing as a "free lunch." Be especially cautious if you have acquired a large sum of cash recently and are looking for a safe investment vehicle. In particular, retirees with access to their retirement funds may be attractive targets for fraudulent operators. Getting your money back once it is gone can be difficult or impossible.

2. Avoid Any Company that Predicts or Guarantees Large Profits

Be extremely wary of companies that guarantee profits, or that tout extremely high performance. In many cases, those claims are false.

The following are examples of statements that either are or most likely are fraudulent:

"Whether the market moves up or down, in the currency market you will make

arco
05-05-2004, 09:52 PM
Noticed this on the ASIC website which may be of interest.....

04-132 Traders eligible for seminar refund under enforceable undertaking

Wednesday 5 May 2004

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has acted to protect the interests of participants who attended educational seminars conducted by Mr John Duggan of Ulmarra in New South Wales, under the business name Forex Pacific.

ASIC has accepted an enforceable undertaking from Mr Duggan following concerns that financial product advice was provided during the course of the Forex Pacific educational seminars, and that Mr Duggan was arranging for participants to deal in financial products.

As Mr Duggan does not hold an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL) and is not an authorised representative of an AFSL holder, he is not licensed to provide financial product advice or arrange for people to deal in financial products.

Under the enforceable undertaking, Mr Duggan has agreed to advise his clients of ASIC's concerns with an agreement with United States-based broker Forex Capital Markets LLC (US Capital), and refund all referral fees he has received under the agreement to clients who request a refund from him.

In addition, Mr Duggan has undertaken to:

terminate his agreement with US Capital;
advise his clients that under the agreement with US Capital, he received a referral fee for each transaction his clients effected through US Capital;
advise his clients of ASIC's concerns that Mr Duggan and his representatives may be giving financial advice without being licensed;
advise his representatives that ASIC is concerned they may be giving financial advice without being authorised by an AFSL holder; and
post a notice on the Forex Pacific website about ASIC's concerns for a period of 21 days.
Further, Mr Duggan has agreed to provide ASIC with all contact details of his clients and representatives to ensure he has complied with the terms of the undertaking.

'Individuals who provide educational services and do not hold an AFSL must not arrange for consumers to deal in financial products or give financial product advice', ASIC Deputy Executive Director of Enforcement, Mr Allen Turton said.

'Licensing requires people who provide financial product advice or arrange for consumers to deal in financial products to disclose the various risks associated with dealing with financial products or accepting financial advice.

'ASIC has taken action to stop the seminars in contravention of the Corporations Act to protect consumers who did not receive the benefit of these disclosures, and who may not have been aware of the potential risks in accepting the advice that was provided during the seminars', Mr Turton said.
Background

The Forex Pacific educational seminars were offered through workshops and over the Internet.

In the seminars, Mr Duggan trained participants to use the trading platform software of US Capital. He and his representatives also made recommendations about trading in the foreign exchange market during the seminars and subsequent chatroom discussions.

Mr Duggan had an agreement with US Capital under which he was obliged to refer clients to US Capital. In return, US Capital paid him a referral fee for every trade a client transacted through US Capital.

Clients were also able to open a trading account with US Capital by forwarding a completed application form to Mr Duggan or by following a link on the Forex Pacific website.

End of release

http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic_pub.nsf/byheadline/04-132+Traders+eligible+for+seminar+refund+under+enfo rceable+undertaking?openDocument

arco
09-05-2004, 05:06 PM
The CFTC's Division of Clearing and Intermediary Oversight regularly receives financial reports from futures commission merchants (FCMs). The data is taken from the most recent financial report received by the Division just before publication. The summary is available in both Adobe PDF and Microsoft Excel spreadsheet formats for viewing or downloading.

Therefore, iff you wish to know the net capital of each reguated brokerages you can find it in Selected Financial Data for Futures Commission Merchants

http://www.cftc.gov/tm/tmfcm.htm

arco
04-11-2004, 10:20 AM
FYI.

2 Nov 2004 12:53 ET DJ CFTC Charges Calif Forex Co With Fraud, Misappropriation

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is accusing a California foreign currency firm with fraud and misappropriation of funds.

The CFTC on Tuesday announced it filed a complaint against White Pine Trust Corp.

The San Diego firm is accused of fraudulently soliciting customers purportedly to invest in foreign currency and foreign currency options. The CFTC complaint alleges the company fraudulently misrepresented how customer funds would be held and falsely promoted its expertise in trading foreign currency.

The complaint alleges that since February 2003 the company fraudulently solicited at least $650,000 from customers.

The CFTC also alleges the company misappropriated funds to pay for personal and business expenses.

The regulator is seeking repayment to defrauded customers.

The company could not immediately be reached for comment.


- By Jeff Bater, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-6616;
Jeff.Bater@dowjones.com

(END) Dow Jones Newswires

arco
04-11-2004, 10:30 AM
Check out your broker...........


http://www.cftc.gov/files/tm/fcm/tmfcmdata0408.pdf

arco
19-11-2004, 11:47 AM
More scary stories from CFTC

GFT Forex

Pacific Trading Group, Inc., v. Global Futures & Forex, Ltd. and Gary Lee Tilkin. CFTC Docket No. 02-R080. Filed November 16, 2004. BFI Forex Fund, L.L.P., v. Global Futures & Forex, Ltd., and Gary Lee Tilkin. CFTC Docket No. 03-R030. Filed November 16, 2004. Complainants Pacific Trading Group, Inc., (PTG) and BFI Forex Fund, LLP (BFI) filed separate reparations complaints seeking to recover damages (including punitive damages) in excess of $1 million from respondents Global Futures & Forex, Ltd., and Gary Lee Tilkin due to various violations of the CEAct. Complainants alleged that Global and its owner Tilkin in participation with Donald C. O’Neill (O’Neill) improperly Traded complainants foreign currency (Forex) accounts, resulting in losses in excess of $700,000. After a careful review of the record it was concluded that respondents had churned complainant’s accounts in violation of section 4b of the CEAct. Further, it was found that the respondents’ violations of the CEAct had resulted in direct monetary damages to the complainants in the amount of $762,201.98. Accordingly, respondents were ordered to pay Pacific Trading Group, Inc., the sum of $468,781.69 within 30 days from the date this judgment becomes final, plus interest at the rate of 1.30 per annum from June 11, 2002, to the ate of payment, plus filing fees of $250.00. Accordingly, respondents were further ordered to pay BFI Forex Fund, LLP $293,420.49 with 30 days from the date this judgment becomes final, plus interest at the rate of 1.30 per annum from June 11, 2002, to the date of payment, plus the filing fee of $250.00. Administrative Law Judge, George H. Painter. CFTC Docket Nos. 02-R080 and 03-R030.

http://www.cftc.gov/opa/adv04/opawa47-04.htm

arco
24-10-2007, 10:38 AM
FOREXGEN.COM SCAM Alert! from forexbastards.

http://www.forexbastards.com/forex-forum/showthread.php?p=1354#post1354

blackcap
26-10-2007, 02:57 PM
im not implying its a scam or anything of the sort. Just curious really if anyone here has heard of currency concepts limited and have any opinions on the company?

arco
26-10-2007, 03:12 PM
Blackcap

I have heard of them, but I know little about them.

I think Xerof mentioned them awhile back....

Sorry I cant be more helpful

rgds - arco

Xerof
29-10-2007, 02:05 PM
Blackcap,

www.nzcurrencyconcepts.co.nz (http://www.nzcurrencyconcepts.co.nz) gives you quite a lot of info on what they are doing and some historic performance outcomes. I know the trader there, but haven't followed their fortunes for quite some time.

It is certainly not a scam, I can vouch for that.

Xerof

blackcap
29-10-2007, 08:58 PM
thanks to you 2. Will have a look. Have heard about it from a friend. Looks like a hands off approach

AMR
03-11-2007, 09:28 AM
Look what I saw in the paper today.

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/2453/forexgenes8.gif

arco
30-11-2007, 11:22 AM
I have just noticed that ABM-Amro are using Oanda charting, but in addition to currencies they also offer commodites, bonds, and idices. Interesting.

http://www.abnamromarketindex.com/uk/TradableMarkets.aspx

arco
30-11-2007, 11:42 AM
I found these reviews which seem positive, but not sure at the moment if NZ citizens can trade.

http://www.forexpeacearmy.com/public/review/www.abnamromarketindex.com


ABN AMRO is the largest bank in the Netherlands with over 3,000 branches in more than 60 countries and territories, over 96,000 full-time equivalents worldwide and a balance sheet total of 880.8 billion EUR (as per December 2005).
Within Europe, ABN AMRO plays an important role in the private banking sector.
Outside Europe, other key markets for ABN AMRO are the USA and Brazil. ABN AMRO is listed on numerous stock exchanges, including Euronext and the New York Stock Exchange.

arco
01-12-2007, 08:50 AM
Received an answer regarding residence...............

Currently it is however only possible to create a live-account if your main residence is in one of the following countries: Germany, Switzerland, Austria or your permanent residence in the United Kingdom. Creating a trial-account though is possible irrespectable of your residence.

peat
03-12-2007, 07:30 AM
a good thing about the abnamro market index demo system is that it runs simultaneously to FXtrade, unlike FXgame which wont.

patsy
04-12-2007, 01:45 PM
(Sorry if this the wrong thread....)

I'll be transferring a significant amount from NZD to AUD within the next month. I've never used a fx broker before so I'm not sure what the potential risks are but I'm nervous about that "fraction of a second between the money is taken from one account in NZD and deposited in another one in AUD"... if you know what I mean.

Would anyone recommend a reputable broker? I've heard of HiFX, any references on them?

Thanks in advance.

arco
04-12-2007, 09:21 PM
Hi Patsy

I havent used HiFX and know nothing about them.

If you feel they are safe then I think their transaction costs may
be lower than bank to bank, but also this will relate to the amount
of money being transferred.

I think Ozforex is another such vendor that you may wish to check out, (again I know nothing about them).

rgds - arco

FTG
04-12-2007, 10:02 PM
Hi Patsy,

Hifx has offices in UK, Aus & NZ. I and a few clients have used them a few times, with no problems that I'm aware of. Fast, efficient and very competitive. I couldn't see myself using a bank for this sort of thing. The rates etc that a bank offers are well out of the league, especially when the $'s are large!

patsy
06-12-2007, 12:45 PM
Thanks for your comments!

I'll give HiFX a go. I want to avoid banks at any cost.

arco
12-12-2007, 02:57 PM
http://www.trade2win.com/boards/forex-discussion/25680-nfa-dead-forex-firms-walking-11.html#post376552

arco
18-12-2007, 03:56 PM
It has been brought to my attention that forex scholar has just added an interesting post to the thread - NFA Dead Forex Firms Walking - in the Forex Discussion forum of T2W Trading Forums.

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/forex-discussion/25680-nfa-dead-forex-firms-walking-11.html#post377960 (http://www.trade2win.com/boards/forex-discussion/25680-nfa-dead-forex-firms-walking-new-post.html)


Here is the message that has just been posted:

This Friday is the NFA deadline for fx firms to meet the minimum $5 million capital requirement. Two updates to report:

GFS Futures & Forex has just made an announcement on their website that they have received a $6 million capital infusion to put them over $10 million thus ensuring a stay of execution from the NFA hangman.

Meanwhile, Velocity4x has thrown in the towel and is handing over their clients to Gain Capital.

The following firms have still not publically indicated they have met the requirement. Beware these firms until further notice:

*1) SNC Investments: $1,152,000*
They are well below the $5 million capital requirement. It is highly unlikely they will make the new requirement at this point. I advise customers to leave this firm and look for greener pastures.

*2) Wall Street Derivatives: $1,228,000*
This firm is based out of New Zealand and I'm not even sure they have any U.S. customers as their U.S. website is out of service.

*3) Advanced Markets: $1,322,000*
Amifx is already teetering on the brink as they are the subject of a business conduct committee case before the NFA in which they are cited for a whole host of financial violations including not meeting the old capital requirement. This firm does not have much of a future.

*4) AlpariFX $2,481,000*
Little known European firm. Well under the cap requirement.

*5) Solid Gold Financial: $2,040,000*
Solid Gold's future is now in serious doubt. Like many of the other firms on this list they have been charged by the NFA with failing to meet their existing capital requirement. When you can't meet the old requirement it stands to reason you won't be able to meet the new one either. Solid Gold is anything but a solid investment at this point.

*6) Bacera Corporation: $2,300,000*
Like a turd that won't flush Bacera Corporation just refuses to go down the drain. The Savior wrote Bacera off over the summer as sources knowledgeable about them stated they were going to close up shop. But no, they are still hustling the folks in LA for fresh deposits. In September Bacera settled a complaint with the NFA after it was discovered they were undercapitalized to the tune of $1.2 million. NFA reported Bacera only has about 200 customers as it is. But to those 200, do yourself a favor and get yourself another broker because sooner or later the pipes are gonna get cleaned and these guys are going to get flushed once and for all.

*7) ODL Securities: $2,566,000*
Ravaged by undercapitalization issues.

*8) Forex Club: $3,320,000*
They still have not hit the minimum $5 million mark. And don't forget since they are a market maker they have other financial requirements to meet as well. They still haven't publically done so.

*9) Easy Forex: $3,789,000*
Under siege for their sleazy sales tactics, it's hard to imagine the NFA isn't going to drop the hammer on them soon.

*10) Money Garden: $5,035,000*
While they have crept up over the $5 million mark MG is notorious for their 400:1 "flexi" accounts which will require MG put up a minimum $10 million in capital in addition to other financial requirements for being a market maker. They are not even close to doing this despite their CEO's insistence they could easily get the money last summer. It looks like this veteran of the industry is about to be forcibly retired.

arco
18-12-2007, 04:09 PM
You may have noticed in the previous post that I coloured a local broker mentioned in red. I have not personally heard of them so I am unable to comment, but here is their NZ website.

http://www.wsd-nz.com/wsdproj/Index.aspx

Professional looking site, but no mention of who's behind the set-up................

WSD Financial (NZ) Ltd. is a premier investment house, headquartered in Auckland and catering to a variety of investors around the world.

Today, more than anything clients need personal attention without prejudice of whether the client is high net worth or just investing his savings for a better tomorrow. WSD Financial understands this completely, providing each client with personalised attention and customised solutions. Being a "retail investment house", WSD is able to provide a varied range of financial products and personalised service to its clients offering global standard procedures and a 24/7 help desk.

WSD is an international company that specializes in Foreign Exchange, Precious Metal, Futures, Options, and CFD’s.
WSD is a customer focused financial services company for international clients who expect exceptional, personalized client service, unrivalled trading tools and state-of-the art trading software which is sophisticated, user-friendly and provides winning edge. WSD is the clear choice for the beginner or experienced individual investor, introducing broker, CTA, instructional investor, fund manager or corporate institution looking to safely and securely invest, hedge or speculate in Foreign Exchange, Precious Metals, Futures, Options, CFD’s and virtually every other financial instrument.

According to forex scholer they have not met their NFA requirement at present, so we will have to wait to see what transpires.

patsy
18-12-2007, 06:55 PM
You may have noticed in the previous post that I coloured a local broker mentioned in red. I have not personally heard of them so I am unable to comment, but here is their NZ website.

http://www.wsd-nz.com/wsdproj/Index.aspx

Professional looking site, but no mention of who's behind the set-up................

[I]WSD Financial (NZ) Ltd. is a premier investment house, headquartered in Auckland and catering to a variety of investors around the world.




Check the company's details (e.g., directors) in the Companies Office website www.companies.govt.nz and spot the MP.

arco
24-01-2008, 07:59 AM
Who Has What
With Congress set to increase capital requirements to $20 million and with the NFA having previously narrowed down the list of U.S. Brokers to 24 I thought it helpful to post the numbers for the remaining brokers in business so everyone knows where the industry is at in the here and now:

According to the latest CFTC Report:
Financial Data for FCMs (http://www.cftc.gov/marketreports/financialdataforfcms/index.htm)


Advanced Markets $1.3 million
Alpari $6.4 million
Bacera $3.1 million
CMC $2.7 million
CMS $11.4 million
Easy Forex $7 million
Forex Club $4.8 million
Friedberg Mercantile $7.9 million
FX Solutions $26.9 million
FXCM $75 million
Gain Capital $50 million
GFS Futures & Forex $3.6 million
GFT $57 million
Hotspot $6.1 million
I Trade FX $23.8 million
IFX $17.1 million
Ikon $9.1 million
Interbank FX $30 million
MB Trading $6.6 million
Money Garden $5.3 million
Oanda $159 million
ODL $13 million
PFG $12.8 million
RJ O'Brien $91 million

Source
http://www.trade2win.com/boards/forex-discussion/25680-nfa-dead-forex-firms-walking-12.html#post388041

roddy
24-01-2008, 12:21 PM
Hi Arco

very interesting theres not going to be many brokers left in the US,your broker has the most capital by far,which has to be reassuring

arco
02-02-2008, 04:10 PM
Five minutes to midnight

Tricom is now living on borrowed time – time borrowed from ANZ Bank on short-term loan.

In a statement yesterday Tricom said it “remains financially solid” and has been a net receiver of funds throughout this week, and there is no reason to doubt that statement.

However, it is understood Tricom has been “in margin call” for a week. That means ANZ has been asking Tricom, every day, to top up the loan to value ratio (LVR) on its wholesale facility of just under a billion dollars for that time.

But whereas a borrower usually has just 24 hours to do this, Tricom’s margin call has been extended every day for seven days. This is virtually unheard of, but there are good reasons for ANZ going easy on Tricom.

Apart from anything else, Tricom is believed to have an email from ANZ apologising for failing to settle a significant trade on Tuesday because stock had been lent and was not available.

The question of whether Tricom or ANZ was responsible for the failure to settle is likely to become a matter of great dispute between them, especially if the worst happens and Tricom does not make it through this crisis.

The wholesale debt margin call by ANZ is, however, a separate matter. ANZ, in effect, owns the shares against which the loan is secured and it could have started selling them to fix the LVR six days ago. The trouble is that most of the stocks concerned are illiquid, so that if and when ANZ started dumping them, the prices would have collapsed (especially in this market) and the value would evaporate. Tricom would almost certainly go under.

ANZ could do it today, but I understand the bank has told Tricom’s CEO Lance Rosenberg that it won’t – yet. Nevertheless, Rosenberg has only days to meet the demand to reduce his exposure.

Meanwhile Rosenberg is potentially caught in a trap.

Tricom’s contracts with its retail margin loan customers are quite different to the normal ones. Normally the broker has a first mortgage over the securities the customer has “bought” with borrowed money, usually on a 50 per cent LVR, and they go into a separate trust, with the broker as trustee.

In the event of a margin call, the cash is used to top up the individual’s LVR; if stock has to be sold instead, the broker does it as trustee for the client and the client owns any residual value.

It has now emerged – reported in The Australian yesterday morning and later confirmed by Business Spectator – that Tricom’s margin loan contracts confer beneficial ownership of the shares to Tricom. It is not acting as trustee and does not have a first mortgage, as usual.

The shares that are put up as security for these loans are actually pooled by Tricom and used as security for its own wholesale facility with ANZ Bank. If, or perhaps when, ANZ starts selling Tricom assets to protect its position, it will be selling shares that Tricom clients think they own.

I spoke to a Tricom client yesterday who had no idea, until yesterday, that this was his legal position. He had not read the contract, and had simply assumed that it was the normal trustee arrangement. It’s not.

The implication of this for Tricom clients is that even if they meet in full the margin call now being demanded of them by their broker, they could lose all of their shares anyway.

If insufficient clients pay Tricom the cash it is demanding, and needs, and ANZ takes possession of its assets to protect its own position – thus sending the firm into receivership – then the margin clients become nothing more than unsecured creditors of the company for the amount they have already paid.

And in this market a receivership fire sale of stocks like Allco Finance Group and various Babcock & Brown funds that have all been bought in large amounts by margined clients of Tricom would be guaranteed to leave nothing for unsecured creditors.

To be clear about this: if Tricom goes broke, tens of thousands of retail investors would almost certainly lose everything. ANZ would own their shares (or rather the shares they think they own) and sell them to recover its debt.

That’s why ANZ is treading so carefully, and not enforcing the week-long demand to reduce Tricom’s facility: it would cause a nightmare for all concerned.

Indeed, banking sources believe ANZ is terrified at its position, and would much rather not put Tricom out of business.

So, another question must be added to the many surrounding the Tricom situation: how on earth was it allowed to pool its clients’ shares as security for its own wholesale debts, instead of acting as trustee for its clients, and how is it that at least some of its clients did not know about this?

Meanwhile, beneath the surface there is argument about whether Tuesday’s failure by Tricom to settle trades on time was not due to a problem with stock that had been lent and then short-sold by ANZ itself as custodian, or whether it was caused by a back-office problem at Tricom.

Sources close to Tricom have confirmed that the stock in question could not be delivered on time because ANZ Nominees had lent it and was unable to recover it.

However, ANZ is understood to have told other alarmed broking clients who have inundated the bank with queries, that when the instruction to settle first arrived at the bank, it didn’t have an account number that could be used and that Tricom’s back office was in a “shambles”.

ANZ refused to comment on this to Business Spectator, but has told other clients that if clear instructions had been received in time on Tuesday, it would have executed the trades. When the proper instruction was received on Wednesday, the trade was settled.

Indeed, Tricom has confirmed that it has had back-office problems in a statement today: “The extraordinarily large number of trades executed since Tuesday last week, placed strain on Tricom’s newly implemented internal systems.”

In such a highly-charged situation, with minimal disclosure going on, it is difficult to be certain about very much, but it seems the failure to settle on Tuesday, whatever it was caused by, and ANZ’s margin call on Tricom are quite separate events.

And while the first failure to settle since Patrick Partners went broke in 1974 was a massive drama that got Lance Rosenberg’s wife, Julie, on page one of The Australian yesterday, along with a picture of the family cottage in Rose Bay, it is the quietly simmering ANZ margin call and the damage to its reputation that will sink Tricom – if it is sunk.

The settlement problem is over, but ANZ’s demand for a margin top-up is very definitely ongoing.

And if more retail clients of Tricom become aware that paying their own margin calls won’t protect them, then they may not do it in sufficient numbers, and Tricom may have difficulty getting the cash needed to meet that margin call.


http://www.businessspectator.com.au/

Steve
02-02-2008, 06:45 PM
I wonder how many here did not read the fineprint when they signed up for their trading accounts?

peat
03-02-2008, 09:34 AM
yeh that is an ugly situation
customers will have much less incentive to pay their margin calls.

Its raises the notion of a kind of symbiosis between customers and their vendor where if they (customers) could all work as a collective they may achieve a better result for all. Good luck tho.

arco
01-03-2008, 12:13 PM
T took only seven hours early on Wednesday for a trader at MF Global to make bad bets on the direction of wheat prices that cascaded into $US141.5 million ($149 million) in losses at the brokerage firm and exposed another breakdown in Wall Street's risk management. (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/02/28/MF.rogue.trader.ap/index.html)The announcement of the ill-fated trades was an embarrassment for the Bermuda-based futures and derivatives firm, which suffered a 28 per cent drop in its share price. It was the steepest decline since MF Global was spun off last year from hedge fund giant Man Group, and the blow-up raised questions about how one of the largest customers on several futures exchanges could have left itself so exposed to a single trader's bets.
MF Global identified the trader as Evan Dooley, who worked in the firm's Memphis office until he was fired for having "substantially exceeded his authorised trading limit".
In an interview, the 40-year-old Mr Dooley, who goes by his middle name, Brent, blamed the trading loss on the computer systems he was using. That system "failed on a lot of things", he said, including problems in "setting limits". He declined to be more specific.
MF Global insisted that the breakdowns resulting in the steep loss were isolated and have been fixed. But Kevin Davis, the brokerage's chief executive, acknowledged that existing internal controls could have stopped Mr Dooley's trades from being processed - but were turned off in certain cases to allow for speedier transactions by brokers at the firm who traded for themselves.
"This is an absolutely awful event but we believe it was an aberration in our risk controls and we have fixed it," Mr Davis said.
Mr Dooley, who has spent more than 15 years in the rough-and-tumble business of commodities trading, was betting that wheat prices would fall from their record levels, according to a person familiar with the situation. Wheat and other commodities have surged in recent weeks because of strong demand, tight supply and a cash infusion from investors.
MF Global's risk management procedures include "buying power controls" that are supposed to flag big or risky trades that might expose the firm to potential losses. But those internal controls had been turned off at the Memphis office and possibly other locations in order to speed up trades. The surge in commodities trading volume has created pressure on brokerage firms to keep up.
The Chicago Board of Trade handled Mr Dooley's orders. By Wednesday morning, though, wheat prices were moving sharply higher, meaning that Mr Dooley was suffering losses that far exceeded the balance in his own trading account. Since his account was depleted, MF Global was forced to step in and fund the trader's losing position. "It happened very quickly," Mr Davis said. Mr Dooley did not have the capital "to support even a fraction of his positions".
Traders in Chicago said MF Global's buying binge pushed wheat prices higher and fuelled heavy trading on Wednesday. It took several hours to undo Mr Dooley's trades.
The MF Global mess was "certainly the main thing" that caused the market to gyrate on Wednesday, said Vic Lespinasse, an analyst at Illinois Grain and a veteran CBOT floor trader. The most actively traded May wheat contract surged to the CBOT-imposed limit of $US1.35 a bushel.
Covering Mr Dooley's short positions cost MF Global $US141.5 million in cash, or about $US80 million on an after-tax basis. That is equal to 6 per cent of the brokerage firm's capital - and exceeds the company's net income in the fiscal third quarter.
Some of the loss may be recovered from insurers, but Mr Dooley is unlikely to make much of a contribution. The trader "does not appear to be terribly long of assets", Mr Davis said.



http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23299089-36375,00.html?from=public_rss

Xerof
01-03-2008, 02:30 PM
Tsk Tsk - hang down your head Tom Dooley

Once again, internal controls fail

regards to you all

Xerof

roddy
01-03-2008, 09:30 PM
Hi Xerof
i imagine people could loose big time back in 1906 but these days everybody gets to hear about the likes of Tom Dooley, not good for self esteem,poor boy your bound to .....

Inside a Chicago bucket shop, 1906. Reprinted from the Chicago Daily News negatives collection, Chicago History Museum, DN-0002971. Reproduced courtesy of the Chicago History Museum.

http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/3881/levyfig03axa7.th.jpg (http://img129.imageshack.us/my.php?image=levyfig03axa7.jpg)

peat
02-03-2008, 08:05 AM
pfft a mere 170mill hahah

love the way they say that 'the trader does not appear to be terribly long of assets"

cool picture roddy but where are the buckets?

roddy
03-03-2008, 08:02 PM
PEAT

here are the buckets one for you one for Arco and DB
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/473/bucketofmoneyty7.th.jpg (http://img408.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bucketofmoneyty7.jpg)http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/473/bucketofmoneyty7.th.jpg (http://img408.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bucketofmoneyty7.jpg)
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/473/bucketofmoneyty7.th.jpg (http://img408.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bucketofmoneyty7.jpg)

arco
13-03-2008, 02:47 PM
ING shuts out investors as CDO losses mount

ING bowed to the inevitable yesterday by halting redemptions on two of its funds hit harshly by the sub-prime credit crisis, leaving approximately 8,000 investors stranded indefinitely.

Thursday, 13 March 2008

By David Chaplin
The move comes in the wake of similar bad news from the Absolute Capital, Macquarie, Basis Capital and Forsyth Barr and New Zealand Funds Management, which have all faced serious losses in collateralised debt obligation (CDO) products.
However, the two ING CDO-related funds dwarfed these comparable products having collectively raised about $850 million from New Zealand investors.
Together the ING Diversified Yield Fund (DYF) and the Regular Income Fund (RIF) have dropped in value by almost $320 million since last June.
According to the funds' financial statements as at June 30, 2007, the DYF was valued at $592 million, with the RIF priced at almost $250 million.
Steve Giannoulis, ING head of marketing, said yesterday the DYF was worth $353 million and the RIF $167 million.
Giannoulis said after a run on redemptions over the last few months the funds could no longer pay out investors without jeopardising the remaining unit holders as it no longer had enough cash to meet requests.
In the June 2007 financial statements the DYF was reported as holding $80 million in cash and the RIF $23 million.
With cash running dry ING would now be forced to start selling the funds' assets to meet redemptions.
In a letter to investors sent yesterday, ING said it would be hard to find buyers for the funds' underlying CDO assets "in the current illiquid market".
"Second, as a 'forced seller', if the better quality assets were sold at uncertain or 'quick sale prices' below their true value, the overall quality of the Funds' assets would suffer, penalising investors who remained," the letter says.
"Third, the extreme lack of liquidity and sentiment in credit markets is making it increasingly difficult to reliably value the assets."
According to the ING website, the DYF unit price had sunk to 0.81 with the RIF hitting a low of 0.7. The halt on redemptions in both funds was made effective from March 13, the ING letter says.
"Pending withdrawal requests that were due to be paid on 15 March will not be processed; there can be no exceptions to this," the letter says.
Giannoulis said the DYF and RIF trust deeds allowed the trustees to halt withdrawals as long as the economic and financial conditions prevailed with no time period when the funds must be wound up.
The DYF closed to new investors in January 2006, but the RIF was still receiving funds as late as last week, but is now no longer accepting investments.
"The RIF will continue to distribute income on a quarterly basis as normal, but reinvestment to buy additional units will not be accepted. Distributions will be paid to investors as cash," the ING letter says. "To the extent that income is available to be paid from DYF at 30 June, the current intention is to pay this out to investors as cash, rather than for it to be reinvested as bonus units."
ING said it would "defer" the management and trustee fees while the two funds remained in limbo.
"Fees will be accounted for in the unit price but not deducted, leaving the money invested in the Funds," its letter to investors says. "Advisers will, however, continue to receive monthly trail commission."
In the year to June 30, 2007, ING collected just over $8.3 million in fees for managing the DYF and a further $2.6 million from the RIF.



http://www.goodreturns.co.nz/article/976493853.html

lakedaemonian
13-03-2008, 04:57 PM
ING shuts out investors as CDO losses mount

ING bowed to the inevitable yesterday by halting redemptions on two of its funds hit harshly by the sub-prime credit crisis, leaving approximately 8,000 investors stranded indefinitely.

Thursday, 13 March 2008

By David Chaplin
The move comes in the wake of similar bad news from the Absolute Capital, Macquarie, Basis Capital and Forsyth Barr and New Zealand Funds Management, which have all faced serious losses in collateralised debt obligation (CDO) products.
However, the two ING CDO-related funds dwarfed these comparable products having collectively raised about $850 million from New Zealand investors.
Together the ING Diversified Yield Fund (DYF) and the Regular Income Fund (RIF) have dropped in value by almost $320 million since last June.
According to the funds' financial statements as at June 30, 2007, the DYF was valued at $592 million, with the RIF priced at almost $250 million.
Steve Giannoulis, ING head of marketing, said yesterday the DYF was worth $353 million and the RIF $167 million.
Giannoulis said after a run on redemptions over the last few months the funds could no longer pay out investors without jeopardising the remaining unit holders as it no longer had enough cash to meet requests.
In the June 2007 financial statements the DYF was reported as holding $80 million in cash and the RIF $23 million.
With cash running dry ING would now be forced to start selling the funds' assets to meet redemptions.
In a letter to investors sent yesterday, ING said it would be hard to find buyers for the funds' underlying CDO assets "in the current illiquid market".
"Second, as a 'forced seller', if the better quality assets were sold at uncertain or 'quick sale prices' below their true value, the overall quality of the Funds' assets would suffer, penalising investors who remained," the letter says.
"Third, the extreme lack of liquidity and sentiment in credit markets is making it increasingly difficult to reliably value the assets."
According to the ING website, the DYF unit price had sunk to 0.81 with the RIF hitting a low of 0.7. The halt on redemptions in both funds was made effective from March 13, the ING letter says.
"Pending withdrawal requests that were due to be paid on 15 March will not be processed; there can be no exceptions to this," the letter says.
Giannoulis said the DYF and RIF trust deeds allowed the trustees to halt withdrawals as long as the economic and financial conditions prevailed with no time period when the funds must be wound up.
The DYF closed to new investors in January 2006, but the RIF was still receiving funds as late as last week, but is now no longer accepting investments.
"The RIF will continue to distribute income on a quarterly basis as normal, but reinvestment to buy additional units will not be accepted. Distributions will be paid to investors as cash," the ING letter says. "To the extent that income is available to be paid from DYF at 30 June, the current intention is to pay this out to investors as cash, rather than for it to be reinvested as bonus units."
ING said it would "defer" the management and trustee fees while the two funds remained in limbo.
"Fees will be accounted for in the unit price but not deducted, leaving the money invested in the Funds," its letter to investors says. "Advisers will, however, continue to receive monthly trail commission."
In the year to June 30, 2007, ING collected just over $8.3 million in fees for managing the DYF and a further $2.6 million from the RIF.



http://www.goodreturns.co.nz/article/976493853.html

Was just reading that.......

Appears the CDO/sub-prime debt eagle has landed(in NZ)

GeorgeW
13-03-2008, 07:47 PM
Notice to Members I-08-13
March 12, 2008
Attention: Futures Commission Merchants and Introducing Brokers

Regulatory Reminder Regarding Assets Held Outside the United States

NFA has received inquiries from Members regarding the treatment of deposits at foreign banks for purposes of meeting segregation, secured amount, liabilities owed to retail forex customers, and net capital requirements. The purpose of this reminder is to briefly summarize the current regulatory treatment of such deposits.1

Customer Segregated Funds and Secured Amount

CFTC Rules 1.49(d)(3) and 30.7 establish the requirements for the denomination and location of customer segregated funds and the secured amount, respectively.

Rules 1.49 and 30.7 provide, in pertinent part, that customer funds may be held at: (1) a bank or trust company located outside the U.S. if the institution has in excess of $1 billion of regulatory capital or its commercial paper or long-term debt or, if part of a holding company system, its holding company's commercial paper or long-term debt, is rated in one of the two highest rating categories by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization; (2) a futures commission merchant registered with the CFTC; or (3) a derivatives clearing organization. For the secured amount, Rule 30.7 also permits funds to be held at a member of a foreign board of trade or its designated depositories or the designated depositories of a derivatives clearing organization. Rule 1.49 further requires that, unless a customer instructs otherwise, segregated customer funds must be held in the U.S., a money center country (i.e., Canada, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, and the U.K.), or the country of origin of the currency, provided that the firm continues to meet the segregation requirements set forth in Rule 1.49(e).

Liabilities Owed to Retail Forex Customers

NFA Financial Requirements Section 14 provides that a Forex Dealer Member may hold assets outside the United States for meeting its liabilities to U.S. customers only if those assets are in a money center country, as defined in CFTC Rule 1.49. Further, the institution at which the assets are held must be: (1) a bank or trust company regulated in the money center country in which it is located that has in excess of $1 billion of regulatory capital or its commercial paper or long-term debt or, if part of a holding company system, its holding company's commercial paper or long-term debt, is rated in one of the two highest rating categories by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization; (2) an entity located in a money center country, regulated there as the equivalent of a broker-dealer or futures commission merchant, and either has in excess of $100 million of regulatory capital or have its commercial paper or long-term debt rated in one of the two highest rating categories by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization; or (3) a futures commission merchant registered with the CFTC and a Member of NFA. If assets are being held in a money center country, the Forex Dealer Member must also file with NFA a signed agreement with the qualifying institution authorizing that institution to directly provide to NFA and the CFTC information regarding the Forex Dealer Member's accounts.

Net Capital

The instructions to the Form 1-FR-FCM provide that in order to be considered as current assets for capital purposes, offshore deposits of proprietary funds must be held in a major money market country2 at a bank or trust company that has net assets in excess of $100 million and is subject to regulatory supervision by an authority of a sovereign national government. These requirements are not the same as those for segregation and the secured amount, and a foreign depository may be permissible for one purpose but not the other.

Questions concerning this notice should be directed to Sharon Pendleton, Director Compliance (spendleton@nfa.futures.org or 312-781-1401) or Michael A. Piracci, Senior Attorney (mpiracci@nfa.futures.org or 312-781-1419).

1 This notice addresses only those requirements pertaining to foreign depositories and is not intended to address all requirements regarding the acceptance and holding of customer funds or the Member's capital. As always, Members are reminded to review all pertinent rules and regulations.

2 For purposes of the net capital rule, those countries considered to be major money markets are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong-Kong, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, United States and United Kingdom.

GeorgeW
13-03-2008, 07:48 PM
Notice to Members I-08-12
March 10, 2008
Attention: Forex Dealer Members

Alternative Language for Customer Disclosure

As of June 1, 2008, forex dealer members ("FDMs") must provide, and customers must acknowledge, prescribed disclosure language prior to the time a customer first engages in a forex transaction. In adopting this requirement, NFA's Board of Directors provided that NFA staff may approve alternative language where appropriate based upon an FDM's business model.

In response to individual requests, NFA has approved alternative language to be used in lieu of the prescribed disclosure where the FDM's business model, unlike the typical counterparty relationship, has the following characteristics: (1) when a retail customer enters an order on the FDM's platform, the FDM automatically (without human intervention and without exception) enters into the same transaction with another counterparty, creating an offsetting position in its own name; (2) the FDM confirms to the retail customer the price at which the order has been executed, which is the same price at which the FDM entered into the offsetting position; (3) the FDM does not profit from any resulting market movement as its offsetting transaction will result in the same profit or loss as the retail customer's transaction; and (4) the FDM's sole manner of compensation is a commission charge on each trade.

Any FDM whose business model is the same as that described above may use the alternative language set forth below. An FDM must provide NFA with written notice of its intention to use this alternative language and include in such notice a representation that it's business model is the same as that described above. Such written notice must be signed by a principal of the FDM that is also an NFA Associate.

The alternative language that may be substituted is as follows:

THE FOREIGN CURRENCY TRADING YOU ARE ENTERING INTO IS NOT CONDUCTED ON AN EXCHANGE. [MEMBER] IS ACTING AS A COUNTERPARTY IN THESE TRANSACTIONS AND, THEREFORE, ACTS AS THE BUYER WHEN YOU SELL AND THE SELLER WHEN YOU BUY. THE PRICES [MEMBER] OFFERS MIGHT NOT BE THE BEST PRICES AVAILABLE.

ALTHOUGH [MEMBER] IS THE COUNTERPARTY TO EACH OF YOUR TRADES, [MEMBER] LIMITS RISK TO ITSELF BY INSTANTANEOUSLY OFFSETTING THE TRADES AND POSITIONS IT ENTERS INTO WITH YOU WITH A BANK OR INSTITUTIONAL MARKET MAKER. AS A RESULT, [MEMBER] DOES NOT PROFIT WHEN YOU LOSE MONEY ON A TRADE. RATHER, [MEMBER] EARNS COMMISSIONS ON EACH TRADE IT ENTERS INTO WITH YOU. THE AMOUNT OF COMMISSIONS CHARGED IS DISCLOSED ON PAGE [x] OF THE CUSTOMER AGREEMENT.

Questions concerning this notice should be directed to Michael A. Piracci, Senior Attorney (mpiracci@nfa.futures.org or 312-781-1419) or Sharon Pendleton, Director Compliance (spendleton@nfa.futures.org or 312-781-1401).

arco
14-03-2008, 07:12 AM
Investors irate at advice from ANZ

http://media.apn.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/anz1.jpg
ANZ says it is confident it recommended the funds to clients in the appropriate manner and for the right reasons. Photo / Herald on Sunday

Angry investors are questioning why their ANZ financial advisers put them into funds now paralysed by the credit crisis.
On Wednesday investment manager ING announced it was indefinitely suspending withdrawals from its Diversified Yield and Regular Income funds "due to the recent extreme deterioration in liquidity in credit markets".
Around 8000 clients have $521 million invested in the funds.
The funds were based largely on CDOs (Collaterised Debt Obligations) and CLOs (Collaterised Loan Obligations), complex financial products which bundle various types of debt into a security.
ING New Zealand is 49 per cent-owned by ANZ National Bank.
Investors who have lost tens of thousands of dollars on the value of their investments in the funds have been left wondering why ANZ steered them towards these products.
One retired Taranaki farming couple put their life savings of $110,000 into the ING Regular Income Fund last March on the advice of their ANZ adviser. They have since lost $34,000 on the value of that investment.
Their son says his father has had a nervous breakdown over the stress of the losses, and he has had to take over power of attorney.
The son said his parents had been in an ANZ superannuation fund which wasn't providing a high return, so they asked the bank for advice on a better investment.
He said a financial adviser was sent round who put them on to the Regular Income Fund, "in their words saying, 'it's as safe as being in the bank but you get 1 per cent higher'."
"That's basically how it was sold," the son said.
Retired investor Eddie Graham and his wife invested $490,000 in a portfolio devised by their ANZ adviser. The money was put into four ING-managed funds, including more than 30 per cent into the Diversified Yield Fund, and into UDC Finance - owned by ANZ National Bank.
The Grahams have lost around $23,000 on the value of their Diversified Yield Fund investment.
They have since sought independent financial advice, and have been told their investment portfolio did not match their request for a conservative risk profile - the adviser categorised the portfolio as medium risk.
In addition the adviser told them no more than 10 per cent of their funds should have gone into the Diversified Yield Fund.
"Research by investment advisers would have raised warnings about the significance of this risk, even before the credit crunch occurred," the independent adviser wrote.
An Auckland woman in her 50s, who has lost around $20,000 on the value of her investment in the Regular Income Fund, said the politest way to describe her sentiments was "very angry".
She had come into a large amount of money and invested in the fund after seeking the help of her ANZ adviser.
"I needed somebody that I felt I could trust and put my faith into that they were going to do the right thing by me, and I made that quite clear to him actually."
ING confirmed all financial advisers who sold the funds were paid a 0.5 per cent annual trail commission on the lifetime of the investment, to assist with the costs of servicing the client. However ANZ said its advisers were salaried and fees or commissions went to the bank.
ANZ said it was confident it had recommended the ING Regular Income Fund and Diversified Yield Fund to clients in the appropriate manner and for the right reasons.
The ING funds were available to bank clients only through ANZ's qualified financial advisory team, and could not be accessed through the branches.
"All client situations are different and we will be working with clients on an individual basis to establish the best course of action based on in their own personal circumstances," it said.
* FROZEN FUNDS
ING has suspended withdrawals from two funds hit by the credit crisis.
The funds' $1 units were this week worth 81.05c and 70.5c.
The funds invested in 'CDOs' and 'CLOs' - complex securities based on a basket of different types of debt.
Advisers with ANZ National Bank, which half-owns ING, put a lot of investors into the products.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/3/story.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10498069&pnum=0

arco
14-03-2008, 08:02 AM
Rivkin trustees recoup $2.7m


Susannah Moran | March 14, 2008

THE trustees of Rene Rivkin's estate are to recoup almost $3million from Jersey authorities, as well as financial records that could uncover new details of his Swiss bank accounts.
The Royal Court of Jersey recently approved a claim on a company called Thameslink made by Rivkin's trustee, CRS Warner Kugel's Anthony Warner and Steve Kugel.
Thameslink, incorporated in the British Virgin Islands tax haven, has $2.7 million in its bank account in Jersey. Its main asset was the luxury boat DaJoShaDiTa, named after the first letters of Rivkin's five children and used as his office.
The boat, sold in 2005, was refurbished at a cost of $2.3million in 2002. It was bought in the mid-1990s, not long after Australian authorities released the $27 million sale proceeds of a secret parcel of Offset Alpine shares. The shares soared in value after a mysterious fire in the Offset printing plant.
It was later reported that Mr Rivkin told Swiss authorities that he, businessman Trevor Kennedy and former Labor politician Graham Richardson were the owners of the shares. Mr Kennedy and Mr Richardson deny owning the shares.
Mr Warner confirmed yesterday that Jersey authorities would be releasing the $2.7 million Thameslink funds to the estate after declaring that Rivkin was the beneficial owner of the company - something Rivkin had previously denied.
"We are about to take delivery of $2.7 million from Jersey authorities in the next week," Mr Warner said.
The process of getting the money out of Jersey involved a number of court appearances in London and Jersey and public examinations in Australia.
Last year, a number of people appeared in the Federal Court, including Mr Rivkin's former accountant, bookkeeper and lawyer.
"With the admissions we got from the examinees in the Australian public examinations, we were able to use that evidence to get a declaration that Rene Rivkin was the beneficial owner of Thameslink and other companies," Mr Warner said.
As well as the $2.7 million, part of the sale proceeds of DaJoShaDiTa, Mr Warner said he would also be given access to financial records.
"We have reached agreement for the books and records of Thameslink to be released and we will be going through those with a fine tooth comb," he said.
"That could lead to other business dealings or transactions and could lead back to Switzerland." Mr Warner said other investigations were continuing in the bid to uncover further assets of Rivkin.



http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23372019-643,00.html

arco
30-03-2008, 02:08 PM
Australia's Opes Prime goes into receivership

Saturday, 29 March 2008, 7:45pm
Source: TV3 An Australian stock broking firm has collapsed, owing more than a billion dollars. Opes Prime was put into receivership after regulators discovered what they say were irregularities in its accounts.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/multimedia/tv/international/6273.html

_________________________________________

ANZ 28/03/2008 GENERAL REL: 1334 HRS Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited GENERAL: ANZ: ANZ and Opes Prime Group Following the appointment of a Voluntary Administrator by the Directors of Opes Prime Group Limited and the subsequent appointment by ANZ of Receivers, ANZ today advised its lending exposure to Opes Prime was supported by security in a portfolio of Australian equities. The portfolio is diversified and at current market prices is sufficient to cover the amount outstanding from Opes Prime. ANZ believes that based on an orderly realisation of the security portfolio, it is unlikely to incur a material loss on this exposure. For media enquiries, contact: Paul Edwards Head of Corporate Communications Tel: +61 3-9273 6955 or +61 409-655 550 Email: paul.edwards@anz.com A copy of the full announcement has been lodged with the New Zealand Stock Exchange. End CA:00162425 For:ANZ Type:GENERAL Time:2008-03-28:13:34:56

arco
01-04-2008, 09:40 AM
Opes chief led fraud


Leonie Wood
April 1, 2008 THE head of the collapsed stockbroking firm Opes Prime, Lirim "Laurie" Emini, told his staff to falsify the accounts of six rich clients, covering them for personal losses of up to $200 million as the value of their share portfolios plunged, a court has been told.
One of the six clients, who the Herald believes is the Sydney criminal lawyer Chris Murphy, was shielded from sharemarket losses amounting to $145 million. There is no suggestion that Mr Murphy was aware of the alleged manipulation.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has told the Federal Court that preliminary investigations indicate that the Opes share shuffle amounted to a "round-robin" - shares were borrowed from other clients' portfolios to ensure the six wealthy ones did not lose.
ASIC has also told the court that a company controlled by Opes directors, which is registered in the British Virgin Islands tax haven but which operates in Singapore, may be involved.
Opes's main financier, ANZ Bank, appointed receivers on Thursday to recover $650 million owed to the bank about the same time Opes directors appointed administrators from Ferrier Hodgson to protect the interest of all unsecured creditors, including staff and broking clients.
In a late hearing on Friday, a senior ASIC investigator, Richard Vandeloo, told Justice Ray Finkelstein that after talking to Opes employees on Thursday the company's receivers, Sal Algeri and Chris Campbell of Deloitte, told ASIC about allegations of fraud and manipulation of Opes clients' broking records.
Mr Vandeloo told the judge: "I'm advised that Mr Emini, over a three-month period between December last year and February this year, instructed various staff to make entries in clients [sic] of high net worth to avoid margin calls being made at the end of the close of trade of a day," Mr Vandeloo said.
"I suspect that the [financial] institution did make the calls on the stockbroking company, but the stockbroking company has not made those calls on its clients … It's one day into an investigation, but there's also allegations that there may be a round-robin of stock to make that cover, that position."
He said the clients had margin-lending accounts at Opes: they borrowed from Opes's financiers to buy shares, but when the value of the shares fell, they were asked to add cash or risk having their shares sold. The court heard that it appeared that instead of adding cash or selling the shares, Mr Emini told his staff to transfer other clients' shares to the six clients' portfolios to make it appear they had enough collateral.
Mr Vandeloo told the judge that one of the six had business links to Mr Emini. He also said that either the receivers or Opes staff had suggested to ASIC that one of the six clients was involved in the alleged fraud.
Justice Finkelstein granted ASIC an order barring Mr Emini from leaving the country.
http://business.smh.com.au/opes-chief-led-fraud/20080331-22r5.html

GeorgeW
02-04-2008, 09:04 AM
Recently I was thinking about trading some futures, mini corn, wheat, etc, so I started checking some brokers.
The good point is that at least most of them will put my money into separate account, which seems fair.
Bad point: sometimes large commissions and trade size usually available to account over 10-20k at least (from MM point of view). For example: EUR mini-futures' tick size is USD6.50.

I was wondering if anyone here trades or has traded futures and through what brokers?

Since I don't have any signals subsription nor trading software besides MT4 and AccuCharts I also wonder if future brokers provide at least basic charts, where I can draw fibs, trendlines, moving averages, etc. I saw some charts - so useless, not even fibs available, which would make analysis next to impossible in my case.

So far I've found these:
http://www.saxobank.ch/en/products/futures/accessible_contracts

http://www.pfgbest.com/contact/

http://mbtrading.com/

All 3 offer forex as well.

Next one - I'm not sure if they're bucket shop or brokers.:confused:
http://www.orionbrokers.com/

arco
02-04-2008, 04:01 PM
Clients of Opes take desperate measures



Colin Kruger and Jacob Saulwick THE FALLOUT from the collapse of Opes Prime continues to widen, with another embattled broker, Tricom, caught short as it tried to buy back a share portfolio from its failed rival.
Tricom claimed the deal went through late last night, but other sources disputed the transaction. It was not known what the implications were for the survival of Tricom if the deal failed.
Meanwhile, a group of Opes clients has begun legal action in the Federal Court to prevent the sale of their shares by ANZ. The group claimed they did not agree to hand over legal title of their shares to Opes's bankers.
It could be the only chance at a return for the Opes clients. A letter from Opes receivers yesterday appears to confirm that the broker's financing agreement transferred title to $1.15 billion worth of clients' shares to its banks, potentially leaving clients with next to nothing.
But as a series of counter-claims intensified last night, question marks remained over Opes's ties with Tricom, which also ran into trouble due to its aggressive margin loan financing services, and was also financed by ANZ Bank. After running into trouble earlier this year, Tricom handed over part of its securities loan book to Opes.
Tricom attempted to get the portfolio back soon after administrators and receivers were called in at Opes last week.
But the Australian Securities Exchange announced yesterday it had cancelled an "off-market special crossings" at Tricom's request. Tricom said it cancelled the transaction because it was unlikely the receiver would allow the trade to go through.
Late yesterday, Tricom claimed to have acquired the stock directly from Merrill Lynch and ANZ Bank.
Opes's receivers, Chris Campbell and Salvatore Algeri of Deloitte - appointed by ANZ - meanwhile informed Opes clients the situation regarding their accounts was "still unclear" and would take "some time to reconcile". The receivers were not in a position to advise on the likely return to creditors, they said.
The main purpose of this circular appears to be to explain to customers why they would never see their stock again.
"The net effect of these agreements appears to be as follows. Generally speaking, all securities lent to Opes are owned by the [banks] by virtue of Opes defaulting on its agreement with the banks," the statement said.
The two banks expect little will be left of the $1.15 billion share portfolio once their loans are recovered. ANZ will rank as a priority creditor for a $100 million loan made to Opes just before Easter.
Mr Algeri said he had told the two banks selling the stock they should be doing all they could to maximise the price received.
He said one of the companies in the Opes Group, Hawkswood Investments, held commercial and residential property assets, plus investments in listed companies.
But a group of Opes clients were taking a more direct route to ensure they got a return. In an affidavit lodged with the Federal Courts in Victoria yesterday, CMG Equity claims that, under the agreements between its clients and Opes subsidiary Opes Prime Securities, they did not hand over legal title to their shares.
The affidavit says the agreements with customers meant they "retain beneficial and economic ownership of the lent stock".
The affidavit cites email correspondence from Opes Prime as late as January this year saying: "All client holdings offered as collateral are held by our custodian ANZ Nominees Ltd."



http://business.smh.com.au/clients-of-opes-take-desperate-measures/20080401-2301.html#

arco
04-04-2008, 01:07 PM
The Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) has advised shareholders who engage in margin lending to check the fine print of their agreement in the wake of the collapse of Tricom and Opes Prime.
"It is always sensible to be informed. Ensuring investors make informed decisions is highly desirable," ASX spokesman Matthew Gibbs told Business Spectator.
Mr Gibbs said he was unaware whether any other broker currently has an arrangement with clients similar to that used by Opes and Tricom, involving the full transfer of share ownership to the broker.
"The ASX does not supervise margin lender or stock lending activities. Margin stock lending agreements are between brokers, financiers and the client."
"These deals are not part of ASX's jurisdiction – this is a largely commercial agreement."
He added that ASX only supervises brokers "in relation to the market", in accordance with legislation governing its operations.
Although margin lending agreements may have some indirect effects on trading, this did not apply to the agreement's terms, Mr Gibbs said.


http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/ASX-warns-shareholders-to-check-fine-print-DC8KZ?OpenDocument

arco
15-04-2008, 10:22 AM
A THIRD stock broking and margin lending group, Chimaera, is sailing close to collapse, having entered rescue talks with its financial backers about loans worth at least $500 million.
The Melbourne-based group is understood to be working with its main banker ANZ in an effort to stave off administration.
One banking source said yesterday he believed Chimaera could have "difficulty settling some of their trades over the next few days".
ANZ last month took a $500million guarantee over assets when it provided Chimaera with additional funding.
Chimaera managing director Ian Pattison did not return calls from The Australian yesterday.
Chimaera operates a similar model to those used by collapsed groups Opes Prime and Lift Capital as well as troubled Sydney broker Tricom, in which clients pledge their share portfolios as collateral for a margin loan.
Under the model, the shares are pooled by the lender as collateral for a bigger loan from banks.
In the case of an inability by the lending house to pay the bank back, the bank takes the entire share portfolio. In the case of Opes and Lift, this has led to a swift sell-down of the shares to pay back the loan, leaving margin lending clients with limited recourse as unsecured creditors.
Opes Prime administrators Ferrier Hodgson will issue a report to the company's creditors at the end of the week.
They are targeting an April 29 meeting to tip the group into liquidation.
Administrator John Lindholm said there had been no change on the view that creditors would get "up to" 30c in the dollar return.
"The sooner we can get Opes into liquidation the better, as we have stronger powers," Mr Lindholm said.
These powers include exploring preferential deals, such as those allegedly given to a number of favoured clients including Sydney lawyer Chris Murphy.
Opes finance chief Tony Iremonger did not return calls but Mr Lindholm said he was co-operating with the administrators and receivers and was not suspected of any wrongdoing.
The ANZ continued its Opes share sell-down yesterday and is now understood to have sold about 60 per cent of its $650million share portfolio.
ANZ has said it does not expect any material losses from its dealings with Opes or any other clients in the sector but has quadrupled its bad debt provision to almost $1 billion to weather the growing financial meltdown.
ANZ chief executive Mike Smith said yesterday he was spearheading an internal review into the bank's securities lending business, and its involvement in the collapse of Opes Prime.



http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23541035-643,00.html

peat
22-04-2008, 03:07 PM
Talk about a squeeze

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=213&objectid=10469724

Two investors spoken to by the Herald on Sunday said company accounts also showed he had an $18,000 fish tank, spent $12,000 on eye surgery and paid for breast implants for his former girlfriend

court date looming

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/3/story.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10505487

test edit

arco
07-05-2008, 09:32 AM
ANOTHER stockbroker has been caught breaching capital liquidity requirements, because of increased market volatility.

http://business.smh.com.au/volatile-market-catches-tolhurst/20080505-2b4m.html

Steve
07-05-2008, 06:59 PM
Does there need to be a more public liquidity reporting process?

arco
17-05-2008, 11:04 AM
ANZ Bank's claim over a portfolio of $650 million shares seized from the collapsed Opes Prime Stockbroking could be threatened by revelations from archived websites that clients were the beneficial owner of shares in Opes Prime and that ANZ was merely the custodian.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23710979-643,00.html

arco
20-05-2008, 03:39 PM
-The following firms are no longer functioning as independent registered forex dealers.

1. United Global Markets (Died May 2007. Cause: Undercapitalization)
2. Forward Forex (Died June 2007. Cause: Busted for Fraud)
3. Worldwide Forex (Died June 2007. Cause: Busted for Fraud)
4. Cal Financial Corporation (Died March 2007. Cause: Undercapitalization)
5. Nations LLC (Died July 2007. Cause: Undercapitalization)
6. FX Option1 Inc (Died June 2007. Cause: Busted for Fraud)
7. Trend Commodities (Died June 2007. Cause: Undercapitalization)
8. Performance Capital (Died June 2007. Cause: Buyout)
9. FiniFX (Died July 2007. Cause: Undercapitalization)
10. CFG Forex (Died February 2007. Cause: Undercapitalization)
11. Tradex Swiss AG (Died August 2007. Cause: Busted for Fraud)
12. Spencer Financial (Died June 2007. Cause: Undercapitalization)
13. One World Capital (Died November 2007. Cause: Undercapitalization)
14. ANTC (Died August 2007. Cause: Buyout)
15. Royal Forex (Died August 2007. Cause: Buyout)
16. Northfinance (Died May 2008. Cause: Buyout)
17. VelocityFX (Died December 2007. Cause: Undercapitalization)
18. Direct Forex (Died December 2007. Cause: Buyout)
19. E-FX (Died November 2007. Cause: Undercapitalization)
20. Solid Gold (Died December 2007. Cause: Undercapitalization)
21. FXLQ (Died December 2007. Cause: Busted for Fraud)
22. SNC Investments (Died December 2007. Cause: Undercapitalization)
23. WestCap FX (Died April 2008. Cause: Autopsy not Complete)
24. AleccohFX (Died February 2008. Cause: Busted for Fraud)
25. Finex (Died sometime in 2007. Cause: Busted for Fraud)

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/forex-discussion/25680-nfa-dead-forex-firms-walking-19.html

AMR
25-05-2008, 04:16 PM
Has anyone been with Latitude FX? They are based in New Zealand, so I'm wondering if they're safer than an overseas broker. And their spreads are dam good.

arco
19-08-2008, 04:10 PM
Leonie Wood
August 19, 2008


FIVE months after Opes Prime Stockbroking collapsed owing share investors about $520 million, the vast majority of its clients appear to be worse off.
Calculations handed to the Federal Court yesterday show that of 464 client portfolios analysed by Opes Prime's administrators in recent days, about 70% have dropped in value since March 27, when the company sank into administration.
The clients' positions have deteriorated because shares they deposited with Opes Prime — in most cases, as collateral for loans to buy more shares — have continued to slide.
The clients remain exposed to share price fluctuations even though most of the shares, valued at $1.6 billion, were seized and sold by Opes Prime's financiers, ANZ and Merrill Lynch, which exercised their rights under share-lending contracts with Opes.
One client who was owed $24.7 million at March is entitled to claim only $2.4 million, based on share prices measured on August 16, because the shares underpinning that person's portfolio had plunged.
Another client owed $1 million in March has been flipped into the role of debtor and now owes Opes $174,546.
Others have swung from being net debtors to net creditors and back to debtors, while about 100 are entitled to claim more from Opes Prime than when the debacle began.
Only a few dozen Opes Prime clients have issued the firm with a notice of default, an event that freezes the value of their debt.
Opes Prime's administrators, John Lindholm and Adrian Brown of Ferrier Hodgson, yesterday asked Justice Ray Finkelstein to determine exactly which day they should draw a line through Opes' books to determine how much is owed.
It is a crucial question because the value of a creditor's vote at a meeting is directly proportional to the amount he or she is owed. When creditors meet again, most likely late next month, the administrators are expected to ask for the company to be liquidated.
Under the Corporations Act, the value of debts is determined the minute an administrator is appointed, but the Payments Systems and Netting Act of 1998, which covers the settlement of transactions in financial markets, appears to override the Corporations Act.
The Netting Act refers creditors and debtors back to their contracts to identify certain issues such as events of default or rule-off dates. In an earlier judgement this year, Justice Finkelstein ruled that, for the purposes of interpreting Opes' contracts, the appointment of an administrator was not the same as appointing a liquidator.
But counsel representing the administrators, ANZ and two sets of Opes creditors all argued yesterday that Opes' date of administration, March 27, should be the rule-off date — not a future date when a liquidator takes over.
They are concerned that if the default date is when Opes goes into liquidation, there is a big risk that investors might try to manipulate share prices to boost their vote in a creditors meeting.



http://business.theage.com.au/business/most-opes-clients-continue-to-go-backwards-20080818-3xpj.html

AMR
28-08-2008, 03:00 PM
How do these spreads look? My broker upped the spreads today.

usd/jpy 1
eur/usd 2
aud/gbp 3
aud/usd 3
eur/chf 3
eur/gbp 3
eur/jpy 3
nzd/usd 3
aud/eur 4
gbp/usd 4
usd/cad 4
usd/chf 4
aud/jpy 5
cad/jpy 5
nzd/eur 5
nzd/gbp 5
aud/chf 6
chf/jpy 6
nzd/jpy 6
aud/cad 7
nzd/cad 7
nzd/chf 7
gbp/jpy 8
zar/jpy 8
aud/nzd 9
eur/cad 9
gbp/chf 9
gbp/cad 10
usd/hkd 10
cad/hkd 25
chf/hkd 25
nzd/hkd 30
gbp/hkd 70
nzd/zar 200
usd/zar 250
gbp/zar 400

peat
28-08-2008, 07:09 PM
thats quite good for the USDJPY @1 pip but the others are average to poor. EurGbp and EurChf are a bit high at 3. Eur$ is ok at 2 but Oanda is only 1 during main mkt times. Oanda's spreads fluctuate tho and will be larger than those you quoted in off peak times.

arco
20-09-2008, 05:56 PM
Lot of news in retail forex the past few weeks. In the U.S. both CMC and Bacera are closing their doors. And in Europe mega forex broker Saxo Bank has run into some serious trouble.

Saxo is one of the largest firms in the currency trading world. Over the summer they spent millions of dollars sponsoring the eventual winner of the Tour De France. It now appears in hindsight that this money was woefully squandered. News reports out of Denmark are saying that Saxo has had to make hundreds of employees redundant amidst the global financial meltdown. Saxo has not come forward with details but it appears the situation is quite serious: Saxo Bank foran stor fyringsrunde (http://borsen.dk/finans/nyhed/140626/)

To make matters worse they have had to suspend a senior manager who was the prior head of Swiss broker Synthesis Bank.

The Copenhagen Post (http://www.cphpost.dk/get/109073.html)

arco
03-10-2008, 09:40 AM
Some info from Forex Scholar....................

Last week Bacera officially closed their U.S. office and are no longer servicing U.S. customers. It was always a long shot that they would be able to meet the increased capital requirement to $20 million so this closure comes as no surprise.

But they still plan on doing business outside the NFA’s purview and are accepting customers from outside the United States. Bacera has several offices in China and most of their customers are Chinese. Will this become a trend with firms that can’t meet the upcoming adjusted net capital increase?

Here are the remaining firms that are still reporting Adjusted Net Capital below $10 million. If these firms are unable to increase their adjusted net capital to $10 million by the end of the month they too will have to close up shop in the U.S. Most of them should be able to do so as some, like HotSpot, have huge parent companies with ample financial reserves. But others like MG and Forex Club are in a very tough position.

Financial Data for FCMs (http://www.cftc.gov/marketreports/financialdataforfcms/index.htm)

MG Financial $5,545,000
Forex Club $6,709,000
Advanced Markets $6,874,000
Hotspot $7,573,000
Ikon $8,088,000
Friedberg Mercantile $8,176,000
ACM $8,395,000
Easy Forex $9,630,000

http://www.cftc.gov/stellent/groups/public/@financialdataforfcms/documents/file/fcmdata0708.pdf

arco
13-10-2008, 08:34 AM
As an interesting diversion, the greatest mystery in modern-day Australian banking remains unsolved. That is the relationship between stockbroker Tricom, Babcock & Brown and ANZ.

You have to hand it to Tricom chief Lance Rosenberg, whose survival efforts make Lazarus look like a quitter. But why is it that - and ANZ still had nothing to say on this matter yesterday, having claimed to have cleaned up its stock lending mess last month - Tricom is still alive?

Tricom had assisted B&B in numerous ways during the halcyon days, including providing B&B executives and staff margin loans against their various B&B stable holdings.

It also provided substantial assistance to B&B in its takeover of Alinta by offering clients margin loans (believed to be non-recourse) on their Alinta stock provided they accepted the B&B terms.

These terms are part of the reason that Tricom margin lending ended up with so much of the B&B satellites in the margin lending account

While B&B flirts with death, ANZ has apparently funded former executive and head of B&B Capital, Rob Topfer, into a recapitalisation of Tricom. The irony is that B&B had closed down its corporate finance business as part of its recent restructuring but now appears to have set up Tricom as a corporate finance shop, thanks to Topfer and ANZ.

It seems B&B, Babcock Communities and Babcock Capital may pay Tricom to unwind the Babcock deals for which Topfer was originally responsible. Why didn't they just keep him on?

Will there be a fee rebate for savaged shareholders of B&B, BCM and BBC for unwinding these deals?

Nice work by Rosenberg and Topfer. There is still $80 million in the Tricom margin lending book that needs to be unwound.

But the big question remains, what is ANZ hiding? Does it relate to the failure to deliver Allco stock in January when Tricom blew up? The claw-back of stock from the dying Opes Prime perhaps? A deal arising from the shift of part of Tricom's loan book to Opes in February?

Who knows, apart from Rosenberg and ANZ? Still, Lehman might be gone but Tricom still lives!

http://business.smh.com.au/business/crunch-time-for-australias-banks-20080917-4ijg.html

arco
16-10-2008, 06:30 PM
Former Refco CEO gets 16-year prison term


Reuters — Phillip Bennett, the former chief executive of Refco Inc. (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/relatedStories.pl?type=company&id=1865), was sentenced to 16 years in prison on Thursday for fleecing investors of more than $2.4 billion in a fraud that destroyed the world's largest independent commodities broker.
The sentence marks the latest chapter in the decline and fall of Phillip Bennett, 59, who built Refco into a global commodities trading empire only to see it unravel in 2005 after the company disclosed an accounting deception.


http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=30078&seenIt=1

arco
17-10-2008, 11:35 AM
Quote.

With the world financial system in chaos it’s never been more important to trade with a well capitalized firm. The CFTC has just released their latest net capital figures. Not a lot of changes from the last one. Only difference is that U.S. forex dealers have 30 fewer days to make it to the coming $20 million capital requirement deadline.

Financial Data for FCMs (http://www.cftc.gov/marketreports/financialdataforfcms/index.htm)

The following firms have net capital below $10 million

MG Financial $5,393,000
Advanced Markets $6,786,000
Forex Club $7,558,000
Friedberg Mercantile $8,147,000
ACM $8,372,000
Ikon $9,544,000
Easy Forex $9,824,000
Hotspot $9,942,000

Not much change in capital for Advanced Markets, Forex Club and ACM. Swiss broker ACM still appears to be charging the proverbial machine gun nest with a butter knife. Is this firm really going to be able to put up $20 million in the coming months? Did they even know about this capital increase before they parachuted into the U.S. market? We’ll find out soon enough.

The following firms have net capital below $20 million

GFS Forex $11,451,000
MB Trading $12,767,000
ODL $14,870,000
I Trade FX $14,952,000
Alpari $15,786,000
IFX $18,623,000
FX Solutions $19,574,000

The following firms have net capital above $20 million

CMS Forex $20,199,000
PFG $21,345,000
Interbank FX $36,505,000
Gain Capital $67,906,000
GFT Forex $73,219,000
FXCM $91,840,000
Oanda $165,458,000

As always conduct your due diligence and make sure the firm you are trading with will be able to comply with the new law going into effect in the weeks and months ahead.

arco
22-10-2008, 01:06 PM
In another blow to Kiwi investors, Macquarie Fortress Investments said today it estimated that the net asset value of its New Zealand Fortress Notes for October 17 2008 was zero cents per share.
Director Peter Lucas said the deterioration in global financial markets has continued to affect the traded prices of US Senior Secured Loans (Senior Loans) in the Fortress portfolio.
Senior loans are syndicated loans to corporate borrowers. They are used primarily to finance capital acquisition programmes, mergers and acquisitions, stock repurchases and internal growth.
"The cumulative market value of Senior Loans in the Fortress portfolio is below the total debt facility balance," Lucas said.
Lucas reassured investors that they would not be required to fund any ultimate shortfall between the total debt facility balance and the cumulative realized value of the Senior loans in the Fortress portfolio.
Macquarie New Zealand Fortress Notes were issued and quoted on the debt exchange (NZDX) in May 2005 at 100c each in New Zealand and the minimum investment was $1000. The notes are listed on the NZ debt exchange and on the Australian exchange.
Macquarie Fortress represents less than 0.5 percent of the assets the Macquarie Group manages.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/4734902a13.html

arco
22-10-2008, 01:12 PM
SEVEN months after Opes Prime collapsed, obliterating the highly geared share portfolios of 600 clients and triggering multibillion-dollar pandemonium in the small-cap end of the market, a big group of aggrieved clients have filed a $150 million damages claim against the broker and ANZ.
The case, filed on Monday in the Federal Court in Perth, comes as Opes Prime's liquidators are in the last stages of trying to extract hefty compensation from ANZ and Merrill Lynch for creditors of the failed stockbroking company.
Liquidator John Lindholm of Ferrier Hodgson had hoped to achieve a settlement with the banks before October 20. But Mr Lindholm last week told creditors that he was not wedded to that date, and he would persevere for as long as there was a real prospect of a deal.
Mr Lindholm could not be contacted yesterday. ANZ declined to comment on the new court case, saying it had just received the documents.
Still, it is far from clear that any deal Mr Lindholm might strike would necessarily satisfy creditors who are furious that shares they had deposited with Opes were seized by the broker's financiers when the company collapsed on March 27. The banks took control of about $1.6 billion of shares under share-lending agreements it struck with Opes Prime.
Mr Lindholm claims the banks entered into uncommercial financial deals with Opes Prime in the days before it collapsed: ANZ extended a loan of $95 million when Opes was clearly insolvent, it restructured its share-lending documentation in favour of the bank, and Merrill Lynch re-dated a fixed and floating charge that had been in place for more than a year but was never registered.
The 67 clients in the latest court case have been corralled by litigation funder IMF. They accuse Opes of misleading and deceptive conduct, and they claim ANZ was an accessory.
Among other things, the 99-page statement of claim names four ANZ senior employees who had accounts with Opes Prime — two of whom received margin calls from Opes — and argues that because these employees used Opes Prime accounts, the bank also knew Opes' general methods of dealing with clients.
The clients also contend ANZ broke the law because it failed to submit substantial shareholding notices in various companies until more than a week after Opes failed. They argue that if they had known that ANZ had a relevant interest in their shares, they would not have entered into the arrangements with Opes.


http://business.theage.com.au/business/opes-clients-sue-broker-and-bank-20081021-55iu.html#

arco
27-10-2008, 08:45 AM
From an Aussie forum - very interesting

Quote:
Hey

Guys hows it going - Sorry about another broker related posting. I know i'm actually getting sick of them too.

But I wanted to post something productive, and might deter some myths about brokers - especially the marketmakers.

I use to work at a Large Australian Investment Bank here is Sydney - I'll give you a hint, the bank recently tried to take over the London Stock exchange. I worked on the FX cash dealing desk in 2003 and 2004 - which most of the guys who know dealing desks well....it is the lowest ranked dealer you can be. But I was only 18 years old at the time, and I was on a cadetship program with the bank, through university.

I was working along side some of the best salesmen and traders in the country. These guys are literally on millions or in some instances tens of millions of dollars a year in bonuses and salaries. Anyways, my dream was always to be on the otherside of the phones as a private trader, hence me being one now - cause working at banks is quite stressfull and i enjoy a laid back lifestyle, but i also have a massive passion for finance.

Anyways, enough lifestories - Basically we were the interbank market. The bank I worked for is among the top 15 investment banks in the world. So we were the end of the line so to speak, we only dealt with other major banks. (Rule of thumb was to deal with Citigroup as little as possible...lol)

However, believe it or not - We also were a marketmaker with our clients. Infact most major Investment Banks are. Contrary, to people's beliefs that banks are straight through processing, which they are - but also dealt clients prices and matched them with other clients.

We would take positions against our clients, quite frequently - as our division was not only a broker to our clients, but a trading house too. You don't understand the amount of losing volume that came from clients everyday.....millions! Through our dealing desk we had a volume on average of over US60 billion dollars. (sometimes it racked over 100-150 billion) - This was in 2003, 2004 by the way, I would imagine today the volume would be much, much larger. So, the trader's who liase with the executing dealers on the desks everyday would try to scalp off your position - so that they can take a commission, plus a greater spread.

For example - If you were long 100,000 euro's at 1.20. Our bank would take a position for 30,000 short euro's at 1.20 against you. Would wait till the market hit 1.1990 and then scalp 10 pips, with a prescribed stop loss. They would not do this all the time, but they would do this when the traders felt the time was right. Sure enough, the amount of losing trades from clients outweigh the winners, and the bank would be in profit.

We would also play clients positions against each other. Not in a bad way....but it was to offer the clients a better level of service - I'll explain why.

Part of the reason why the bank was so heavily focused on being a marketmaker - was not only to make profits. But to ensure better service for their clients. The real truth is, that we wanted our clients to do well - but the reality was that most didn't, no matter how much advise or consultancy we gave them. Some of biggest losing clients were actually large corporate accounts.

How we would ensure better service for our clients, was by trying to fill most orders (we couldnt do all of them, cause the volume through from some clients was to the tune of tens of billions - including leverage that is.) - and we could only fill orders sometimes, by playing clients up against each other.
However we didnt guarentee fills.

The dealing desk also provided 24 hour support to clients, including advisory from a trader you dealt with especially. (Most of our trades were executed over the phone by the way, we did have a web based platform - but we wanted to encourage traders to ring us up - so we can give them a better level of service through supporting them with their trading - including giving advice, and market information - so a trader could ring us up anytime and ask us for marketdepth or major buyers of certain pairs. etc)

We would often favour clients who held their positions - we liked day trading accounts for their volume.

Although we were a large investment bank, we hated scalpers and often tried to deter them from using us. Most retail marketmakers, I would imagine also -would have a hate towards scalpers, cause they would not be able to feed prices through to the client fast enough (since they are level 2 brokers - and receive the prices from interbanks then must pass them on to the client - making them a middle, middle man so to speak). This is probably why brokers like FXCM. etc place scalpers on manual execution - cause scalpers would take arbitrage opportunites from the real marketplace and play them against the price the broker is giving them.

The best place for scalpers is with ECN's perhaps. People who guarentee straight through processing. The only problem is most ECN's dont have dealing desks.

The myths of brokers, feeding through clients the incorrect market prices in order to trigger stops - is quite proposterous. To be able to do that, would not only put the whole firm in disarae, because regulatory authorities not only from Australia (whom are extremely tough), but from all around the world in exchanges we dealt in, would be on your case for fraud, misleading disception, and also theft agains the client. ASIC in Australia, who is the main regualtory body, considers it a criminal act of theft, to decieve clients in terms of pricing. And rightly so.

This would damage the banks name - and i imagine it would be all over the media in a flash. One of the strictest rules in the firm, was to have integrity, especially towards clients.

The foreign exchange market is not regualted to an extent - but if pricing can not be confirmed as being executed at market prices for that time (market prices means that there must be a record of prices from anywhere in the world being at that quote at that time), it cannot be done, legally.

I dont know if brokers elsewhere can toy with that idea - set up phony exchange houses and deal incorrect prices with them for example. But I know we didnt do it. I doubt most large sensible, even the larger retail brokers would do it either.

To the idea of chasing stops - Yes, this did occur, quite often. During news times mostly. We would see where stops were with our clients, we also had a good idea where market depth was, and we would send through volumes of trades to take them out, in order to make money for the bank.

See the bank always came first...profitability for the bank the most important thing overall. Clients would leave eventually, successfull or not....but the bank was always there, so it was our main priority.

The idea at the end of the day is that its every man for themselves in the market. Brokers, traders, hedgefunds. etc are all in it for themselves to make a buck and they will do it whatever way they can.

If you are a good trader - and know the ins and outs of the market (not placing in house stop losses. etc), you will not need to worry, cause you can play the game - then your sweet!

My advice is - pick a respectable and PROFITABLE (profitability in a broker is so important, cause the more clients a broker has, the better level of service they can offer you - and the less chance the broker has of falling to the ground), who has impeccable client service. Aim for the bigger retail brokers (if your retail)....who have great relationships with interbanks.

When questioning a broker, ask them how many interbanks they deal with. If they have a figure less than 5....than stay well away, cause the flexibility of price they will offer you as a client will be completely crap!

Also, just dont go for brokers just cause they have tighter spreads. etc. Of course you want the best deal at the end of the day...but you also want your orders filled and a dealer you can talk to - this is why I'm not really a fan of broker houses without a dealing desk.

For everyone who deals with American brokers go to www.cftc.gov (http://www.cftc.gov/) - and then go to 'financial reports for FCM's'. Here you can check out the Capital of all the brokerage houses, try to stick to the retail brokerage houses with the highest amount of capital - cause this ultimately means more clients, a better relationship with more banks in the interbank market, cause they can guarentee volumes, and also a better level of service.

Most importantly....make sure your broker is licensed and registered with regulatory authorities in major financial countries around the world. For example - dont be signing up with no brokers who offer you tight spreads and guarenteed fills from Nigeria.

Brokers arent bad, they arent there to be against you. But they may not, in terms of co operation in the market itself, work with you. Most brokers who are large and service respectible numbers of clients will tend to try to help their clients become profitbale as much as they can.

But once your order is placed, its every man for themselves...

I hope I've helped some people who are just starting out create an idea of how the major brokers and institutions work.

Cheers

Rusty

arco
30-10-2008, 08:19 AM
The deadline to meet the new capital requirement is this Friday. The most up to date CFTC net capital statement shows the following firms with capital below the $10,000,000 requirement.

Financial Data for FCMs (http://www.cftc.gov/marketreports/financialdataforfcms/index.htm)

MG Financial $5,393,000
Advanced Markets $6,786,000
Forex Club $7,558,000
Friedberg Mercantile $8,147,000
ACM $8,372,000
Ikon $9,544,000
Easy Forex $9,824,000
Hotspot $9,942,000

If you have an account with any of these firms contact them immediately to ensure that they will be able to comply with the new capital requirement this week. Some such as MG Financial and Hotspot have larger parent companies. But most do not. In this day and age safety of funds should be every trader’s top priority. Make sure your funds are safe.

The NFA has come out with a statement that reads as follows:
National Futures Association | News Center (http://www.nfa.futures.org/news/newsNotice.asp?ArticleID=2198)

arco
01-11-2008, 08:57 AM
Scandal at SNC

Last year forex dealer SNC Investments sold off its forex business because they were unable to meet the NFA’s $5 million capital requirement. But it appears that they stayed in business as a Futures Commission Merchant and Money Manager. They are in business no more. Let’s roll the tape from the NFA complaint…

National Futures Association | News Center (http://www.nfa.futures.org/news/newsRel.asp?ArticleID=2201)

Quote:
On October 29, 2008, the CFTC contacted NFA. The CFTC advised NFA that it had received a telephone call from attorney David Serepca of San Carlos California, who said that he represented an individual by the name of Chris Lee. Serepca told the CFTC that, in April 2008, Chris Lee had written a check for $500,000 to SNC Asset Management and Kenneth Lee for the purpose of investing in a fund which would trade forex. Serepca said that he and his client had met with Kenneth Lee on October 29, 2008 and were told by Kenneth Lee that Peter Son (SNC CEO) had disappeared, and that customer money was missing.
Gotta love these CEO’s who just cut and run the moment everything goes pear shaped. I can picture Peter Son now, dressed up in drag like Jefferson Davis trying to escape the Union Army after the surrender of the Confederacy. Another forex fugitive gallops off in the dead of night…

Quote:
On October 29, 2008, another principal of SNC, Young Choi – who worked at SNC’s main office in New York City – advised NFA that SNC was out of business and wished to withdraw its NFA membership. In addition, NFA became aware of a newspaper article that appeared in The Korea Daily on October 29, 2008, which reported that SNC – a Korean investment firm located in California – was “closing its operations due to the global financial meltdown” and that “the partners of the firm have no power to revive the business.” The article also stated that the firm had been managing over $70 million and that “it appears many Korean investors may lose their investments in the firm.” The article reported that the main office of SNC had been closed since October 28 and that employees had been notified to no longer come to work. In addition the article reported that the “president of the firm, Peter Son, has not been reachable by many investors and that his cell phone has been off.”
Well if you mismanaged $70 million you’d probably turn your cell phone off too. Better yet you’d probably have hurled it into the East River on your way to Macy’s to get fitted for that wig and frock…

Quote:
Based on the telephone call from SNC’s Young Choi advising NFA that SNC was out of business, as well as the information received attorney David Serepca, and which appeared in the Korea Daily newspaper article, on October 30, 2008, NFA auditors went to SNC’s main office at 40 Wall Street in New York City to inquire about Peter Son and his whereabouts and to determine if customer funds were missing. However, when NFA auditors arrived at SNC’s main office they found that it was closed and its doors locked. The auditors left a note on the door requesting that a representative of SNC contact NFA.
Left a note on the door? Oh brother talk about closing the barn door after the horses have bolted… What could the note have possibly said? “Uh, Hello? You think you could let us regulators know what happened to that $70 million you had under management? Hope to hear from you. Warmest Regards, NFA.”

Quote:
Subsequently, NFA’s auditors were contacted by Young Choi, who agreed to meet with NFA’s auditors at SNC’s main offices at 40 Wall Street. Thereafter, NFA’s auditors did meet with Young Choi, who again indicated that SNC was out of business and that he had terminated the lease for SNC’s main office effective October 31, 2008. Young Choi also told NFA’s auditors that he first became aware of SNC Asset a few weeks ago, that he was unaware that it was involved in forex trading, and that it was this understanding that SNC Asset only invested in real estate. Young Choi further indicated that he did not know Peter Son’s whereabouts.
There is always someone that gets left holding the bag in a stick-up. And Young Choi appears to be said bagman. Left behind to clean up Peter Son’s mess poor Young Choi must be ruing the day he ever joined SNC Investments.

The implosion of SNC is yet another lesson in the perils of sending money to poorly capitalized firms. There is no way of telling how many small firms are tottering on the brink of financial ruin in the wake of the global credit crisis that has wiped out billions of dollars in wealth. As always, conduct your due diligence and beware poorly capitalized firms like the late SNC Investments.

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/forex-discussion/25680-nfa-dead-forex-firms-walking-35.html#post552490

arco
03-11-2008, 09:11 PM
Trying out DBFX (Deutsche Bank AG London )

Quite a nice easy platform to trade on..............


arco

arco
03-11-2008, 09:14 PM
Theres a new boy on the block...........................

Go Markets also have MT4, Saxo platform, trading forex/CFDs/Shares

http://www.gomarketsaus.com/home

AMR
04-11-2008, 02:45 PM
LatitudeFX have just given me MT4 as well. They have also upgraded their online platform.

arco
06-11-2008, 05:30 PM
http://www.compareshares.com.au/case32.php

CFD specialist CMC Markets is holding an all-staff meeting at the Intercontinental Hotel in Sydney today at 2.30pm to put the rumours to rest once and for all. What is happening to CMC Markets?

CMC Market's normally thundering public relations machine has suddenly gone quiet, and in its place is FD Third Person, a media agency "specialising in financial transaction support and issues and crisis management”, according to their website.

CompareShares did its best to get clarification for traders with existing accounts with CMC Markets. We put in numerous calls to internal public relations, Sydney reception, the New Zealand office and even the 1300 303 888 number and couldn't get anyone to comment. Phone calls rang out. According to FD Third Person, key staff were in meetings until late last night and again early this morning.


CMC Markets does not want to make an official announcement to the market until staff have been notified of the changes at 2.30pm today, was the official response.

An email to CompareShares from a CMC source noted that more staff cuts are on the cards including high management and top sales positions. CMC Market shut its Perth office in August this year, and cut back its Sydney staff by 8 per cent.

Two months ago, CompareShares reported on a series of events that had unfolded at CMC Markets, “An AVO, staff cuts and a trophy mansion – it’s all happening at CMC Markets.”

Back then, managing director David Trew denied the suggestion that staff cuts were a result of problems at CMC Markets. He insisted that further staff cuts were not anticipated.

Trew also refuted the rumour that the Brisbane office was about to close. “We’ve got a long-term lease on the Brisbane office, which we took out over a year ago, and we don’t have any plans to change that,” he said.

By 2.30pm today, at least staff will know what is happening at CMC Markets.

CompareShares will endeavour to keep investors and traders informed as soon as the lines of communication open again.
http://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/images_asf/statusicon/user_online.gif http://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/images_asf/buttons/report.gif (http://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/report.php?p=358504) http://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/images_asf/buttons/quote.gif (http://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=358504)

AMR
06-11-2008, 10:19 PM
Phew! Not too keen on the sound of the centralising of support and back office to London though.


Online trading firm CMC Capital Markets has announced a restructure which will result in a change of leadership in its profitable Australian division and an unspecified number of redundancies among its support staff.
CMC, whose Australian division posted a profit of $20.6 million in its last fiscal year, largely on the success of its CFD (contracts for difference) products, has decided to centralise support and back-office functions in its London headquarters.
David Trew, who helped found the Australian business in 2002, is stepping down as head of CMC Asia Pacific, while recently appointed Asia Pacific chief operating officer Barry Odes will become head of Australia and New Zealand in a restructure that will see individual country heads report straight back to head office.
Staff were told of the changes and the redundancies were flagged at meetings in Sydney today. The company has not confirmed how many of the 240 staff in Australia will be made redundant.
Odes joined the company in June from Goldman Sachs JBWere, where he worked as the chief operating officer of its private wealth management division. Goldman Sachs has a 10 per cent stake in CMC. The Australian division – which posted record trading volumes of $US41 billion in October, compared to an average of $US28 billion over the previous six months – contributes nearly one third of the group’s revenues and profits and is considered to be the most successful of its overseas operations.

arco
10-11-2008, 02:19 PM
http://www.alpari.org/files/pic/docs/5/8_4945.jpghttp://www.alpari.org/files/pic/docs/5/8_4951.jpghttp://www.alpari.org/files/pic/docs/5/8_4947.jpg

arco
10-11-2008, 06:46 PM
.
I saw her first..................:(

http://www.alpari.org/files/pic/docs/5/8_4948.jpg

peat
10-11-2008, 07:53 PM
are you guys wanting to go long on Russia?
I hear they let you in and then close the market.

arco
10-11-2008, 08:18 PM
No we just want to go long on that blonde.......:)

arco
13-11-2008, 07:34 PM
The CFTC has just released their latest net capital figures. The big news is that everyone is doing well. Firms are seeing big jumps in net capital as forex brokers appear to be raking in the cash in this volatile market. It doesn’t appear that anyone has had difficulty clearing the $10 million hurdle judging by the fact the NFA has not closed down anyone since Halloween (although AMIFX continues to report way below the $10 million requirement although keep in mind CFTC reports lag a full month behind the current date.) The only other change appears to be that IFX and FX Solutions have formally merged as IFX is no longer listed on the CFTC Report.

Financial Data for FCMs (http://www.cftc.gov/marketreports/financialdataforfcms/index.htm)

The following firms have net capital below $10 million

Advanced Markets $6,743,000
Friedberg Mercantile $8,164,000
ACM $8,891,000
Forex Club $9,615,000
Easy Forex $9,943,000

The following firms have net capital below $20 million

Hotspot $10,021,000
Ikon $10,424,000
GFS Forex $11,908,000
MB Trading $14,245,000
ODL $15,180,000
I Trade FX $17,258,000
Alpari $17,437,000

The following firms have net capital above $20 million

FX Solutions $21,197,000
CMS Forex $22,018,000
PFG $22,038,000
Interbank FX $37,596,000
GFT Forex $67,073,000
Gain Capital $77,580,000
FXCM (http://www.trade2win.com/boards/autolink.php?id=16&forumid=54&script=showthread) $114,299,000
Oanda $168,344,000

As always conduct your due diligence and make sure the firm you are trading with will be able to comply with the new $20 million capital requirement going into effect in the months ahead.

arco
21-11-2008, 09:05 AM
Last month the S.S. Saxo Bank forced hundreds of employees to walk the plank in a furious effort to keep their Danish Longship from taking on any more water amidst the financial tsunami that has engulfed CFD brokers around the world. But it is another former shipmate of Saxo that has now taken to his Somalia-like pirate ship to fire pot shots at this listing to port Viking Broker. Ahoy it’s Charles-Henri Sabet! With parrot perched on shoulder and a black eye patch in place Sabet has Saxo in his sights…

According to Euromoney Magazine in an article titled “Charles Henri Sabet Bites Back in Saxo Saga” Sabet says that he was exiled to Davey Jones locker because of a shareholder dispute, not because of an SFBC investigation of alleged insider trading.

Charles-Henri Sabet bites back in Saxo saga /Euromoney magazine (http://www.euromoney.com/Article/2039037/ChannelPage/0/AssetCategory/16/Charles-Henri-Sabet-bites-back-in-Saxo-saga.html)

Quote:
“This is really about an argument between shareholders,” says Sabet. “I still own around 5% of Saxo and I was not happy with what I saw as the bank’s domestic focus. I offered to leave, but I wanted Saxo to buy my shares as was agreed when it took over Synthesis,” he adds. Sabet says that Saxo is now focused on becoming a well-known name in Denmark, including giving backing to the small, centrist Liberal Alliance political party.
So how did this investigation come about? Euromoney states:

Quote:
Saxo has declined to comment on whether or not the investigation came about because it informed the regulator of an irregularity, rather than the SFBC acting because it suspected suspicious activity. But a letter from the commission makes it clear it was informed by Saxo of the issue.
So instead of paying Sabet his share of Saxo’s booty the scallywags in Denmark simply ratted him out to regulators? Shiver me timbers that’s a low thing to do to a mate. But Sabet wasn’t the only one sent to the brig.

Quote:
Sabet says he is also particularly upset that his dismissal was followed by a purge of his former employees, including his chauffeur. He believes that he will be fully exonerated when the SFBC reports its findings. In the meantime he is preparing to take legal action to clear his name and to complete the deal that was agreed when he sold Synthesis Bank to Saxo in September 2007; this included the verbal agreement to purchase his remaining shares in the bank.
Yarrrgh matey, Saxo ain’t likely to depart from its treasure anytime soon. This Sabet fellow could be waiting a long time before he sees one gold doubloon from the cash strapped folks in Denmark. I reckon Sabet would have a better chance demanding ransoms from oil tanker owning Saudi princes than from a forex and cfd broker that had been spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave prior to the financial panic.

Arrgh, Sabet best crack open a bottle of Rum and batten down the hatches cause Saxo will fight him to the last cannon ball over that 5% share. To be continued I’m sure.

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/forex-discussion/25680-nfa-dead-forex-firms-walking-37.html#post573208

AMR
26-11-2008, 06:48 PM
Findata now has technical charting...finally we can plot OBV in EoD time on the NZX instead of waiting 2 days for yahoo data!

AMR
28-11-2008, 12:11 AM
Hi has anyone tried KVB Kunlun here in Auckland? How are their fills and order placements? I'm interested in them solely for Index CFDs and commodity CFDs as they have Metatrader 4. Prices seem slightly higher than CMC though but after working with MT4 I can't go back to marketmaker. Not to mention they also have the Yuan.

peat
28-11-2008, 07:13 AM
Findata now has technical charting...finally we can plot OBV in EoD time on the NZX instead of waiting 2 days for yahoo data!

yeh I checked this out but couldnt get their html link cut and paste option to work , you tried it?

long term data too and they do currencies.

arco
28-11-2008, 08:50 AM
Hi has anyone tried KVB Kunlun here in Auckland? How are their fills and order placements? I'm interested in them solely for Index CFDs and commodity CFDs as they have Metatrader 4. Prices seem slightly higher than CMC though but after working with MT4 I can't go back to marketmaker. Not to mention they also have the Yuan.

I have no personal knowledge of KVB but they were mentioned by Xerof here...............


The only Company I am aware of that offers a managed FX product that is based here in New Zealand is NZ Currency Concepts http://www.nzcurrencyconcepts.co.nz/

Of course there are any number of sites that allow you to 'do it yourself' but it seems that is not what you are looking for.

I haven't heard of Aaron Brett, or the Companies you mentioned, so can't assist any further. Sounds like they may have "gone to ground" or been closed down (by the Securities Commission?). I have noticed the flurry of advertisements that used to be on talkback radio stations on FX trading have disappeared.

Please be aware that before investing in any 'managed FX fund', you should ask for a prospectus and investment statement, or ask to see evidence that they are an 'authorised futures dealer' gazetted by the Securities Commission (Authorised dealers are not required to issue prospectus/investment statements)

The regulations surrounding margin trading in FX contracts on behalf of clients is currently under review by the Securities Commission, as its a relatively new product and the current legislation is somewhat unclear and inappropriate in respect of FX margin trading. I do know, (from asking) that they currently consider FX margin trades to be 'futures contracts' (basically because there is no other category to put them under), and that the Securities Markets Act 1988, the Securities Act (Authorised Future Contract) Exemption Notice 2002, and the Futures Industry (Client Funds) Regulation 1990 are relevant and must be adhered to by authorised dealers.

'Unauthorised' dealers would be required to issue prospectus' and investment statements I would imagine, but I am not aware of any out there in the market at this stage. It would be extremely difficult to get a prospectus approved IMO, as this area of the investment market is extremely high risk/high return with excellent potential to be a complete disaster if not handled properly.

There are two recent additions to the list of 'authorised futures dealers' - KVB Kunlun NZ Ltd, and Intercontinental Financial Services Corp Ltd, but I don't know what products they are offering and would imagine its probably not FX

I am currently applying for authorised futures dealer status, but, at least for the immediate future, will be operating a 'closed fund' for a small group of habitual investors personally known to me.

Anyway, hope this assists you Alpine


Xerof

arco
28-11-2008, 10:31 AM
STOCKBROKING houses peddling rumours to boost sales volumes will face increased scrutiny.
The corporate watchdog's markets crackdown is entering its second year.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission commissioner Belinda Gibson said the watchdog would question numerous broking houses in coming months about the way they handled potentially market-sensitive information.
"Brokers may not create rumours but they certainly play a part in spreading them," Ms Gibson said.
Speaking at the annual conference of the Australian Investor Relations Association in Sydney yesterday, Ms Gibson said the regulator would seek to ban those brokers engaging in "rumourtrage" to boost sales volumes.
"There are sales desks which make their money out of transactions and making sales and maybe we need to look at their sales processes," she said.
"The objectionable element is the way inferences are drawn from a relatively minor fact and the way they are portrayed to the market."
In reviewing the first year of ASIC's Capital Markets Taskforce, created to tackle excessive stock market turbulence, Ms Gibson said the timely disclosure of company results, guidance and insider trading remained key areas of investigation.
She said the recent surge in stock market volatility meant listed companies were obliged to be more diligent in publicly reporting information expected to affect share prices.
Ms Gibson also called on companies to be diligent when dealing with market-sensitive information. She said that to stop the flow of information, "companies should provide information only to those people who need to know. They must be alert to leaks and disclose (any leaks) to the market immediately."
Ms Gibson said ASIC had substantially bolstered its action in fighting insider trading during the past 12 months.
Five insider trading charges had been laid this year, with seven more cases expected to be redirected to the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions by February.
Ms Gibson said ASIC had attended 29 analyst and media briefings undertaken by ASX200 companies in recent months under its broader review of insider trading.
She said the meetings attended by ASIC "did not raise concerns", but conceded that the regulator had forewarned those companies that its representatives would be attending.
The Australian Investor Relations Association has heavily lobbied ASIC against ending closed analysts briefings, and that line was repeated by the association's chief executive, Ian Mathieson, yesterday.


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,24717332-5017996,00.html

AMR
29-11-2008, 11:10 AM
yeh I checked this out but couldnt get their html link cut and paste option to work , you tried it?

long term data too and they do currencies.

Nah I'm no good with HTML, although perhaps you could draw up the chart with your parameters and establish a link through to the image?

AMR
01-12-2008, 09:53 AM
What time should an FX broker open in NZ time? I always thought it was 10am along with the NZX, what time does the forex market start trading? Just got off the chat with my broker and they open at 11am.

arco
01-12-2008, 09:59 AM
What time should an FX broker open in NZ time? I always thought it was 10am along with the NZX, what time does the forex market start trading? Just got off the chat with my broker and they open at 11am.

I dont presently deal with anyone in NZ, but if you want a comparison give Tricom a call in Auckland to see what time they open

arco
01-12-2008, 10:01 AM
News

print (javascript:void(0))http://www.tricom.com.au/images/Content/printer.gif (javascript:void(0))
email (javascript:void(0))http://www.tricom.com.au/images/Content/email.gif (javascript:void(0))


Wednesday, 12th November 2008

Tricom Recapitalised
As you may be aware, the recapitalisation of Tricom has been completed. The recapitalisation results in a number of important changes for our clients.

• A strong financial position
• A renewed focus on core businesses
• A new shareholder and management team committed to our objectives
• A continued commitment to client service

Tricom has been recapitalised by isolating all legacy assets and legacy liabilities. As a result, Tricom’s new balance sheet has no debt and sufficient regulatory capital to give it a capital ratio far exceeding the minimum requirements. A committed A$20m working capital facility and the isolating of all legacy issues will allow Tricom’s management and staff to focus on building the future.

Tricom has a new major shareholder, Taemas Bridge and a new Managing Director, Rob Topfer. Robert’s focus will be to deliver an operations and compliance regime that will match our front office capability. Our CEO, Lance Rosenberg, will work closely with Robert and continue to provide leadership to the equity capital markets business.

Clients will benefit from our renewed focus on operations with a new team including enhanced legal, risk and compliance. Their goal is to provide a seamless, timely and accurate service to clients across each product area. In the near term, we propose to develop a client relationship group who will ensure that client needs are satisfied.

Notwithstanding the turmoil that has overtaken other participants in our industry, Tricom and its staff take substantial pride in the fact that no client has lost funds held with Tricom. With the support of our financiers and the constructive approach of the regulators, we have been able to move forward with our client responsibilities and reputation intact.

Tricom would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your continued support over what has been a difficult period. With the financial crisis now touching all firms, it has become clear that the clients and staff of Tricom have a relationship that will ensure that Tricom is one business that will continue to prosper.

http://www.tricom.com.au/news.aspx?nid=13

arco
01-12-2008, 10:26 AM
Hanover Finance owners Mark Hotchin and Eric Watson have withdrawn more than $200 million in cash from the company since they acquired it, accounts show.
The bulk of the $204.6m in cash dividend payments and share redemptions occurred in the past two years, with $55.2m extracted in the year to June, and $41.5m the previous year. In those years the shareholders invested $800,000 in Hanover's preference shares.
Investor advocate Bruce Sheppard, of the Shareholders Association, said the withdrawals showed scant regard for the finance company's debenture investors.
"So, they've nearly pulled out half of what they owe to debenture holders. Aren't they generous," he said.
The payments also showed little regard for prudent cash management in a tightening property market, he said.
Hanover chief executive Peter Fredricson said the dividend payments were entirely appropriate at the time.
"When I joined [in April] the business had $80m in the bank," he said. "We had significant reinvestment rates and the business was operating quite properly with all the governance arrangements required."
Watson and Hotchin bought Hanover, then known as Elders Finance, in December 1999 for an undisclosed sum. The business they took over was much smaller than now, with net equity of about $4.3m and total assets of $104m. The Sunday Star-Times understands the purchase price was less than $10m.
The sellers were Eric Spencer, Mel Stewart and David Bryan, of rural services group Elders New Zealand.
Since then accounts show Watson and Hotchin have invested cash of $46.8m in the company.
In addition to the cash withdrawals, other companies owned by Watson and Hotchin borrowed huge sums from Hanover Finance to fund various property ventures. In the latest financial year, disclosed related party borrowings totalled $83m, down from $141m the previous year.
A great deal of that related party borrowing was by Axis Property Group, the Watson/Hotchin property development vehicle whose assets are to be transferred to Hanover Finance as part of a restructuring deal to repay investors owed $553m.
In return, Hotchin and Watson want $40m, but not until Hanover and United have repaid small investors the money they owe them.
Hanover claims to have spent $3.35m preparing its restructuring proposal, yet it gives very little detail about the properties involved in the Axis deal, in spite of its central role in the plan.
No independent valuation of the properties has been commissioned, nor is there an itemised list of the individual properties themselves nor a summary of the debt they carry.
In its review of the Axis deal, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) said it "cannot endorse the $40m element of the proposed transfer value as necessarily indicative of the current fair market value".
If a "fire sale" of the assets was carried out, said PWC, it "would almost certainly mean there was no equity in the Axis Group".
In other words there would be no money left over once the mortgages were repaid.
The main properties are completed sections or bare land in subdivision developments at Jacks Point near Queenstown and Matarangi on the Coromandel Peninsula. There is also a half share in some sections and units at the Clearwater Resort near Christchurch and three units in the Sebel Hotel in Auckland.
The first mortgagees on these properties are the BNZ, HSBC, ANZ National and Fortress Credit Corp. Collectively, these financiers hold security for up to $179m on the properties.
On top of that, Hanover and United Finance hold second mortgages securing up to $81.8m.
So that could be up to $260.8m of debt.
Neither Hotchin or Muir responded to requests from the Star-Times to discuss the Axis proposal and there is nothing in the information sent to investors which details how much debt the properties carry.
The amount of debt is a critical issue because the underlying assets are mainly development properties, intended to be sold down over time. Most of them do not produce any income.
Sources close to Hanover say interest on the loans is being capitalised, which means the interest portion is to be repaid with the principal at the end of the loan term or when the underlying assets are sold.
In the meantime, the interest keeps accumulating.
The banks may have been happy with this arrangement during the boom, when property sales were brisk and prices kept going up.
But with the market now in a slump and prices going backward, reducing the value of the banks' security in the process, they are likely to be wanting to be paid at least the interest due on their loans.
There is also the possibility, especially with development properties in the current market, that the banks as first mortgagees could force a sale of any of the properties if interest payments or other terms were not met.
That is the fire sale scenario mentioned in the PWC report, suggesting the prices achieved may not cover the amounts owed on the mortgages.
Inquiries by the Star-Times suggest sales are slow in the areas where the Axis properties are located.
At Matarangi and Jacks Point, the Axis-owned properties are facing competition from people who have previously purchased sections but have changed their minds about building on them and have put the sections back on the market.
In both places, the number of sections being advertised for sale exceeds the number of sales being made in a year, suggesting a considerable oversupply.
Fredricson said despite the questionable value of the property assets, it was better than receivership. "So long as the package exists there is likely to be more available to debenture holders than not," he said.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/4777654a13.html

arco
02-12-2008, 02:51 PM
According to Simon Trader This is what stop hunting looks like (http://simonsupertrader.blogspot.com/2008/01/this-is-what-stop-hunting-looks-like.html)

GBP/USD Action Forex 4H chart compared to the 4H chart of "another broker" - (Not Interbank by the way)...Mind you in my experience ringing them up or getting on their help line is no use when you spot this. You say "Your price was 60 pips different to the rest of the finanical world!" -- They reply "Our feed was correct, there are no errors..."


http://bp3.blogger.com/_OJOnaWyidL0/R4IAUqwhZwI/AAAAAAAAAno/fwY6qtrLXyg/s400/bastards.gif

AMR
08-12-2008, 12:12 AM
CFD providers battle it out for top spot
CS - November 20, 2008http://compareshares.com.au/images/home_content/pie_chart.jpg

A snapshot of the CFD industry has just been released and there is movement in the ranks as the top players battle it out for the top spots.

The Investment Trends’ 2008 Contracts for Difference Report – which is based on an online survey of 8,000 investors, including 2,000 CFD traders - reveals some telling insights into the state of the CFD industry in Australia.

Most interesting is who owns what in market share.

Ranking of CFD providers in terms of market share

http://compareshares.com.au/images/home_content/cfd_rankings.jpg

According to Investment Trends, CMC Markets continues to take out the top spot with a 32 per cent market share, followed by IG Markets (27%), MF Global (18%) and MQ Prime (7%). MF Global’s market share includes its white labelled offerings.

Interestingly, the much-vaunted ASX CFDs only accounts for about 1% of the total volume of CFD trades.

Below is a list of the 2008 rankings.

2008 Rank – Top CFD providers based on market share

1. CMC Markets
2. IG Markets
3. MF Global
4. MQ Prime
5. First Prudential Markets
6. ANZ/E*Trade
7. CommSec
8. City Index
9. Sonray
10. Tricom
11. Marketech
12. GET Financial

Today, IG Markets is hot on the heels of market leader CMC Markets, whose market share has headed south since 2005 when it owned a massive 60 per cent share of the CFD market. Since then its share has tumbled to 32%, according to the report.

Other providers losing market share over the past year include E*TRADE tumbling from 3rd place in the 2007 rankings to 6th place today. Sonray & GET Financial have also lost ground.

For comparison purposes, here is a list of the 2007 rankings.

2007 Rank – Top CFD providers based on market share

1. CMC Markets
2. IG Markets
3. E*TRADE
4. MF Global
5. MQ Prime
6. First Prudential Markets
7. City Index
8. Sonray
9. CommSec
10. Tricom
11. GET Financial
12. Marketech

Clearly, the biggest gainers in market share over the past few years are IG Markets, MQ Prime, MF Global, CommSec and First Prudential Markets.

The report also noted that the number of CFD traders in Australia has fallen from 31,000 in April 2007 to 26,000 in August 2008 – largely due to high levels of market volatility.

However the good news for CFD providers is that the report shows that a further 33,000 investors intend to trade CFDs within the next 12 months.

arco
11-12-2008, 09:09 AM
ANZ Bank and Merrill Lynch are inflicting the most appalling legalised cruelty upon the unfortunate souls who chose Opes Prime as their stockbroker.

They are, in effect, issuing a $258 million retrospective margin call on stocks that were sold more than six months ago.

The Opes receivers, Chris Campbell and Sal Algeri of Deloitte, are pursuing 223 clients for $258 million. That’s more than $1 million each. The money is due and payable by this Friday, and interest is accruing at 6.25 per cent. Happy Christmas.

ANZ and its receivers are within their rights, and in fact they are supported by a Federal Court ruling from Justice Ray Finkelstein.

Nevertheless the question many will be asking is: why are the receivers dong this? ANZ and Merrill apparently got all their money back when the shares were sold after March.

They might be legally entitled to gouge more from the hapless Opes clients, but in the light of the PR nightmare that Opes has caused ANZ already, it seems a pretty greedy and heartless thing to do.

I spoke today to one of the receivers, Sal Algeri of Deloitte. He told me: "We just have a job to do. Under the Corporations Act every receiver is required to realise a company’s assets to pay creditors. Accounts receivable are an asset and they must be realised.”

I asked him whether he and Chris Campbell would pursue the Opes clients to bankruptcy if necessary, and he said they would talk to clients individually. “If they don’t have the money, I suppose there’s nothing we can do.”

Would you send them bankrupt? “That is one of our options, and I suppose we’ll have to consider that on a case by case basis. What we have sent this week is clearly a statement, not a demand for payment or legal letter. We just wanted to explain the situation.”

But, boy oh boy, what an absolute shocker it is. Never mind ASIC – this is a job for the armed robbery squad.

The share portfolios of Opes Prime Stockbroking were seized by Deloitte on behalf of ANZ and Merrill Lynch on March 27 this year, after Opes was placed first in administration and then receivership, and were dumped on the market as fast as possible.

In most cases the clients had no idea that this was even remotely possible: they thought they had a margin loan arrangement with Opes, when in fact they had securities loan agreements that gave Opes, and then its receivers, full title to their share portfolios.

Investors who had a positive net worth in March were wiped out in April, even though the market went up. They were doomed to queue up as unsecured creditors of Opes, behind ANZ, which had taken out a fixed charge over the Opes assets just a few weeks before.

That security is in some doubt because it looks like Opes was insolvent for some time before that – possibly years.

But now the situation has become far, far worse even than what happened in March. Not only have these people had their assets seized and sold from under them, they are now in debt to the tune of a $1 million each because of a retrospective margin call.

On October 15, futile settlement mediation between the administrator, John Lindholm of Ferrier Hodgson, and ANZ and Merrill Lynch, finally broke down and Opes went into liquidation. That was an event of default.

A month earlier Justice Finkelstein had ruled that the “performance date” for determining its debts would be the date of the liquidation.

That means the value of each client’s portfolio would be calculated according to the market price of the relevant shares at October 15, even though they were all sold in April and May and the proceeds snaffled by ANZ and Merrill Lynch at the time.

So when the company did go into liquidation on October 15, the receivers were able to examine each client’s account and come to a new calculation of how much was due to be paid back to the client, and how much was due to Opes.

Between March 27 and October 15 the Australian ASX 200 index fell 22 per cent.

So just taking the average market decline, the amount owed by those Opes clients blew out by $47 million while ANZ, Merrill Lynch and John Lindholm were wasting time pretending to seriously discuss a settlement. Lindholm might have been serious, but ANZ and Merrill never were.

But Opes clients did not invest in many ASX 200 stocks; they went for high return, high risk speccies.

Between March 27 and October 15, the Small Ordinaries index fell 33 per cent – half as much again as the ASX 200.

And many small stocks have dropped much, much more during that time. For example, Kagara Zinc and Timbercorp are down 94 per cent, FKP Property 90 per cent, Straits Resources and Mirabela Nickel 87 per cent, and so on. I don’t know whether these specific stocks are part of the ex-portfolios, but it’s a demonstration of what could have happened.

And remember – this is after the shares were actually sold. But thanks to Justice Finkelstein’s ruling, the receivers can use the liquidation date of October 15 to determine whether each client’s “assets” (that were sold six months ago) are such that a top-up is required.

Needless to say, after the six months we have just been through, top ups are needed. The theoretical accounts are now even deeper underwater – $1 million under each – and this week’s letters amount to retrospective margin calls.

A tsunami of litigation will now be launched against ANZ, including an expected challenge from Ferrier Hodgson against the bank’s security. Class actions will claim that ANZ knew that Opes was not informing clients of the nature of their contracts.

If successful, these actions would result in the money finding its way back to the clients – minus legal and insolvency fees of course.

But that could take years. In the meantime, Opes clients have already lost their houses, declared bankruptcy and generally had their lives ruined.

And now they are being hit with a brutal retrospective margin call – a demand for a million dollars a week before Christmas, with interest mounting up for every day the money is not paid.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Opes-clients-held-up-and-robbed-$pd20081210-M75ET?OpenDocument&src=sph

Yossarian
11-12-2008, 02:49 PM
that is truly f'ed up. end of.

AMR
11-12-2008, 03:04 PM
Oh God. Makes blue chip and bridgecorp look like honest buggers.

arco
11-12-2008, 03:12 PM
BrisConnections in an unguarded moment

Mark Hawthorne

November 27, 2008
(http://www.businessday.com.au/business/brisconnections-in-an-unguarded-moment-20081126-6iv0.html?page=-1)

IT WAS another dog-day afternoon for the board of BrisConnections, which had to mull over news that the company's biggest shareholder is a 26-year-old owner of an IT company operating from a block of flats in St Kilda.
Nicholas Bolton of Australian Style Investments bought 47,643,166 BrisConnections unit trusts for about $47,600. Except that he owes the company a further two instalments of $1 each, under the deal devised by Macquarie Bank.
BrisConnections company secretary Tamira Herbst has been desperately seeking Bolton, without any luck. "If you speak with him again, ask him to please get in touch with Tamira," said a spokesman.
After visiting Australian Style Investments' HQ in Fitzroy Street, where the office number is written in marker pen on masking tape at the front gate, Full Disclosure has concerns that Bolton may not be able to pay the $95,286,332 he will owe the toll-road company for his shares.
It certainly doesn't have enough cash to employ top-notch security, given the age of the tired and unthreatening mutt selected to guard the company's front door.
But behind that door is the biggest shareholder of BrisConnections, which was floated in July after winning a $3.5 billion contract to build an airport toll road in Brisbane. Shares were issued at $3 each, to be paid in three instalments of $1.
With 12.2% of the company, Bolton now controls more than Queensland Investment Corporation. One wonders if he will use his stock and potential voting power to challenge the position of Trevor Rowe — the chairman of QIC, which invests the superannuation of Queensland public servants, and of BrisConnections.
Fang He, the Melbourne housewife who bought 8% of the company — with a potential $65 million debt to the company — has sold her shares. BrisConnections is desperate for her to file a substantial shareholder notice to discover who now owns the shares
For a second day, staff at BrisConnections ducked questions from BusinessDay, instead choosing to refer them to a PR flack. "It's an unfortunate situation, but we can't say much until we have been in contact with Mr Bolton," said spokesman Mark Gold. "The company has written to him, and tried to call him."
It appears that Bolton, like many small investors, bought the stock using an online account. BrisConnections is adamant that it will collect what it is owed, even if it means employing debt collection services. Bolton may need a bigger dog.
Of course, BrisConnections could send a bill to Macquarie Bank, which put together this dog's breakfast of a deal. It pocketed $100 million in fees.

http://www.businessday.com.au/business/brisconnections-in-an-unguarded-moment-20081126-6iv0.html

AMR
18-12-2008, 11:38 PM
Has anyone use GFT Australia before?

arco
19-12-2008, 01:12 PM
Has anyone use GFT Australia before?

No, havent tried them. Maybe do a Google search.

I usually search something like "GFT bad"......and see what comes up.

arco
19-12-2008, 01:13 PM
Friday December 12, 2008, 1:28 am EST



I still can't quite get my head around the enormity of the numbers in the Madoff case (http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/reuters/2008/12/11/bernard-madoff-arrested-over-alleged-50-billion-fraud?TID=yhoopartner). For one thing,
Madoff's investment advisory business served between 11 and 25 clients and had a total of about $17.1 billion in assets under management.
Now that's what I call high net worth individuals! And then you read the indictment (http://clusterstock.alleyinsider.com/2008/12/bernie-madoff-the-indictment), and you think you know what to expect, until (http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/12-11-2008/0004940939&EDATE=):
On Dec. 10, 2008, Madoff informed the Senior Employees, in substance, that his investment advisory business was a fraud. Madoff stated that he was "finished," that he had "absolutely nothing," that "it's all just one big lie," and that it was "basically, a giant Ponzi scheme. Madoff stated that the business was insolvent, and that it had been for years. Madoff also stated that he estimated the losses from this fraud to be at least approximately $50 billion.
Yep, $50 billion. In other words, that $17.1 billion is only the beginning: presumably Madoff's clients had invested much more than that, and Madoff was sending statements to them, on the one hand, while reporting different numbers to the SEC, on the other -- none of which were true.
If the total losses are really $50 billion, that means that the average loss to Madoff's clients is a minimum of $2 billion, and perhaps as much as $4.5 billion. After all, in a Ponzi scheme, everybody comes out fine, except the last people out: the 11 to 25 clients still with Madoff to this day.
The one thing this does do is get me a little bit more comfortable with Jeffrey Epstein's business plan (http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2008/07/02/jeffrey-epstein-and-the-private-banking-industry?TID=yhoopartner) of managing billionaires' money. Clearly there are actually quite a lot of people with a few billion dollars to invest and who feel perfectly comfortable entrusting it to individuals like Madoff and Epstein. Who knew?
Right now, there are a handful people whose world has suddenly been turned upside-down: who have, overnight, suddenly lost billions of dollars of dynastic wealth to a Wall Street con man. I'm sure that their names will appear sooner or later. But there really is no precedent that I can think of: when has one man ever managed to steal $50 billion dollars? If the $100 million Harry Winston heist (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/06/armed-robbery-winston-jewellery-paris) in Paris was the "steal of the century", what's this?.


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/The-Worlds-Biggest-Ever-portfolioblog-13817029.html

arco
08-01-2009, 12:38 PM
ACM is officially closing their U.S. office and retreating back to Switzerland after failing to make any headway in the U.S. Of course the Scholar has long suspected this Swiss broker wouldn’t last very long on this side of the pond in light of the increased capital requirements. Here is the official statement from ACM which you can find on the front page of their website: Forex - Currency Trading - Forex Broker - ACM (USA) LLC (http://www.acmusa.com/)

More here

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/forex-discussion/25680-nfa-dead-forex-firms-walking-40.html#post619392

arco
14-01-2009, 03:38 PM
By James P. Miller
Tribune reporter
4:27 PM CST, January 7, 2009
Federal agents arrested two top executives of a Winnetka foreign-exchange futures dealer that collapsed over a year ago on federal fraud charges, the Justice Department disclosed Wednesday.

Both men were principals with One World Capital Group, which was effectively shut down in December of 2007 when the Commodity Futures Trading Commission – responding to a growing chorus of complaints from customers who said they'd been unable to withdraw funds from their accounts -- obtained a court order that froze One World's assets and barred the troubled foreign-currency trader from further trading activity.

.....and theres more
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-winnetka-forex-fraud-arrest-jan07,0,405109.story

arco
14-01-2009, 03:40 PM
The NFA’s next scheduled capital requirement is set to kick in on January 17th at $15 million. Firms offering leverage of over 100 to 1 therefore must have over $20 million set aside. Alpari was showing $18 million in their last net capital filing but still appear to be about $5 million short of the amount required to offer leverage greater than 100 to 1. Therefore, Alpari has just announced they are raising their margin requirement:
Change to Customer Agreement and Terms of Business (http://www.alpari-us.com/en/company-news/234.html)

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/forex-discussion/25680-nfa-dead-forex-firms-walking-41.html

GeorgeW
15-01-2009, 09:17 PM
I thought I relieve Arco from his another regular post.

The CFTC has just released their latest net capital figures.
15 million dollar deadline is just days away.

http://www.cftc.gov/marketreports/financialdataforfcms/index.htm

The following firms have net capital below $15 million

Advanced Markets $10,195,000
Hotspot $10,527,000
Easy Forex $10,606,000
GFS Forex $12,861,000
MB Trading $14,664,000

The following firms have net capital below $20 million

IKon Royal $15,013,000
Forex Club $15,823,000
I Trade FX $17,098,000
Alpari $18,158,000
ODL $18,982,000

The following firms have net capital above $20 million

CMS Forex $26,540,000
PFG $27,704,000
Interbank FX $42,954,000
FX Solutions $45,125,000
GFT Forex $73,808,000
Gain Capital $102,959,000
FXCM $131,416,000
Oanda $170,799,000

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/forex-discussion/25680-nfa-dead-forex-firms-walking-41.html

arco
19-01-2009, 09:17 AM
An angry saver who followed an ANZ Bank financial adviser's advice to put half his savings into ING's failed Diversified Yield Fund, and saw over 70 percent of it go up in smoke, has turned to YouTube.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4822469a13.html

arco
21-01-2009, 01:29 PM
Thu, Jan 15 2009, 15:17 GMT
http://www.fxstreet.com (http://www.fxstreet.com/)
ODL Securities, the leading independent FOREX, derivatives, equity, spread betting and commodity trading house has sold the US division of its profit making US Forex business to Forex Capital Markets LLC (FXCM).

http://www.fxstreet.com/news/forex-news/article.aspx?StoryId=10f6f438-1c7a-4584-b8ec-cb706e07fb77

arco
21-01-2009, 04:25 PM
An angry saver who followed an ANZ Bank financial adviser's advice to put half his savings into ING's failed Diversified Yield Fund, and saw over 70 percent of it go up in smoke, has turned to YouTube.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4822469a13.html

Wednesday Jan 21, 2009
By Maria Slade (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/maria-slade/news/headlines.cfm?a_id=358)


The ANZ bank and fund manager ING are being investigated over potential breaches of the Fair Trading Act in their marketing of a troubled investment fund.


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10552791

arco
30-01-2009, 07:13 AM
Trouble Ahead for MG Forex? Last year Rosenthal Collins bought MG Forex just as the first capital requirement was set to kick in. RCG then announced that MG Forex was a subsidiary of Rosenthal Collins Securities, which is regulated by FINRA, not the NFA. Thus MG Forex was able to avoid the $20 million capital requirement since FINRA members need only $250,000 in capital.

more......................

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/forex-discussion/25680-nfa-dead-forex-firms-walking-42.html#post641594

arco
10-02-2009, 09:28 AM
Dominion Finance Holdings (DFH) has been placed into liquidation in line with a recommendation from the administrators appointed to the company.
The decision was made at a watershed meeting of creditors held yesterday in Auckland.
DFH is a holding company that no longer trades. Its main subsidiaries are property finance companies Dominion Finance Group (DFG) and North South Finance (NSF).


Full Article (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10554944)

arco
11-02-2009, 02:04 PM
ING has delayed a unitholder meeting originally scheduled to be held before March 31 to determine the fate of its two major collateralised debt obligation (CDO) funds.

by David Chaplin

The news comes at the same time as the group has decided to close another fund managed on behalf of a group of advisers – the $6.5 million Private Portfolio Service (PPS) Diversified Trading Fund.


Goodreturns.co.nz (http://www.goodreturns.co.nz/article/976494829/ing-closes-another-fund-and-delays-cdo-fund-meeting.html)

arco
03-03-2009, 03:20 PM
Monday 2nd March 2009

The government's deposit guarantee scheme is set to have its first test-run, as of today.
Mascot Finance will be the first company to test the scheme since its inception in October last year, after the company was placed into liquidation today, owing $70 million to 2,558 investors.


All eligible Mascot investors will get 100% of the money they are entitled to under the crown's scheme, Treasury secretary John Whitehead says.


More here................................



http://www.sharechat.co.nz/news/scnews/article.php/c986abb6

peat
03-03-2009, 05:14 PM
yes thats a serious worry that the guarantee is getting tapped so quickly. it was always just going to be an easy way out for lesser-rated finance institutions. Seems their loan portfolio wasnt too well diversified and when the major customer defaults its all over goodnight nurse. except its not coz they are indeed A Lucky Mascot

2558 people with 70mill all up. u tell me - are they idiots? or are they actually pretty clever? i believe that they still get all their interest payments. so they are losing time but not really money and they'd possibly already given time.
and its safe as houses ah no , a lot safer than houses

arco
04-03-2009, 02:03 PM
Tax payers money being using to pay these defaults.
.

The Government says it had no reason to believe that Mascot Finance would fail when it granted it a taxpayer-funded deposit guarantee in January. Questions over whether the Crown should have given Mascot Finance a guarantee arose after if it went into receivership seven weeks after getting a guarantee.



A total of 72 deposit takers have been granted the Crown guarantee.


More here on Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/1995394/Govt-had-no-reason-to-think-Mascot-would-fail)

arco
05-03-2009, 02:24 PM
.


A former Blue Chip managing director has bought a South Island finance company and wants to raise $50 million in term deposits.
Nick Wevers and his associates bought Priority Finance, a Christchurch business founded by Noel and Kent Gillman, which has since had its name changed to Viaduct Capital. A new prospectus has been registered for the term deposit issue.
The money would be backed by the Government's deposit guarantee scheme, Wevers said.


The full ariticle from NZ Herald (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10560041)

minimoke
30-06-2009, 10:22 AM
Friday December 12, 2008, 1:28 am EST

I still can't quite get my head around the enormity of the numbers in the Madoff case (http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/reuters/2008/12/11/bernard-madoff-arrested-over-alleged-50-billion-fraud?TID=yhoopartner).
l (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/The-Worlds-Biggest-Ever-portfolioblog-13817029.html)
Heres another one - he's just been sent to the Big House for 150 years. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/world/2548665/Bernard-Madoff-sentenced-to-150-years

arco
25-08-2009, 01:11 PM
http://www.incrediblecharts.com/images/cfd/cfd_comparison_page5_costs.png

arco
23-09-2009, 08:16 AM
I spotted this new? broker advertising - "Xforex arrives in New Zealand'.

Not sure who they are just yet, but may be US based.

arco
24-09-2009, 03:08 PM
CFTC Charges James Ossie and CRE Capital Corporation with Operating a $25 Million Foreign Currency Ponzi Scheme

Georgia Man and Corporation Allegedly Ripped Off 120 Investors

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced today that it charged James Ossie of Atlanta, Georgia, and his company CRE Capital Corporation (CRE) of Alpharetta, Georgia with operating a Ponzi scheme involving more than 100 people and approximately $25 million in connection with foreign currency transactions (forex). Ossie resides in Dawsonville, Georgia and is president and sole owner of CRE; neither has ever been registered with the CFTC.
According to the CFTC’s complaint, Ossie and CRE promised pool participants that they would earn a 10 percent return on their money within 30 days by trading United States and Japanese currency pairs. The complaint further alleges that since June 18, 2008, rather than making money for pool participants, Ossie and CRE lost approximately $4.4 million trading forex. Finally, the complaint alleges that Ossie and CRE operated a Ponzi scheme, in which forex trading “profits” were actually paid from the principal of subsequent pool participants.
“Investors must run the other way when approached by anyone claiming to guarantee exorbitant monthly returns, like those promised by CRE and Ossie. Such representations should raise an immediate red flag that such investment is too good to be true,” said CFTC Acting Director of Enforcement Stephen J. Obie. “We are seeing an uptick in Ponzi scheme cases because, in this economic climate, new investors cannot be found to perpetuate the scheme. As these schemes collapse, the CFTC will move swiftly to prosecute those who harm innocent investors.”



http://www.cftc.gov/newsroom/enforcementpressreleases/2009/pr5598-09.html

peat
13-10-2009, 07:05 AM
IG Markets opening in NZ
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10602829

"
He thought IG's competitive advantages included the ability to provide New Zealand-dollar denominated products which removed foreign exchange risk from positions in overseas indices and commodities.
IG runs a "hybrid" model where positions taken by clients may be "synthetic" - established by matching transactions within its global client base - or where positions result in the actual purchase of securities on relevant markets."

arco
18-10-2009, 01:48 PM
Wall Street wake-up call: Hedge fund boss, 5 others charged in $25M-plus insider trading case




By Larry Neumeister and Candice Choi, Associated Press Writers
On 7:35 pm EDT, Friday October 16, 2009

NEW YORK (AP) -- One of America's wealthiest men was among six hedge fund managers and corporate executives arrested Friday in a hedge fund insider trading case that authorities say generated more than $25 million in illegal profits and was a wake-up call for Wall Street.

More
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Billionaire-among-6-nabbed-in-apf-2808194948.html?x=0

JBmurc
18-10-2009, 09:51 PM
http://www.incrediblecharts.com/images/cfd/cfd_comparison_page5_costs.png

I used E*Trade for my CFD trading in the past was shocked how much commissions they made from my trading added up over $10,000 from memory and as I lost money CFD trading,warrants,futures it was yet another reason why I trade only ord's an opts now for many $$$$$$

arco
25-10-2009, 01:17 PM
Unbelievable.

..................... the infamous John Meriwether, after driving his 2nd hedge fund into the ground early last year, [Mar 28, 2008: Founder of Long Term Capital Failing Again (http://www.fundmymutualfund.com/2008/03/founder-of-long-term-capital-failing.html)] has found a new round of suckers to invest with him again. For someone in my position this story is the type that creates the propensity to bang a head into a sturdy wall. Somehow a man whose "ability" required the Federal Reserve to make the first move that really set the entire precedent of "too big to fail" in 1998 by "rescuing" his hedge fund (along with the bankers!), and concurrently re-opened (and failed) a 2nd time, can walk on water and raise money with his magic wand. Details on the "original bailout" of Long Term Capital here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Term_Capital_Management) - the amount, $3.5 Billion, that was considered "too big to fail" back then, is amusing in retrospect to what we've just done the past 18 months.

More info

http://finance.boston.com/boston/?GUID=10502280&Page=MediaViewer&ChannelID=5895

CFO
25-10-2009, 03:24 PM
So much for track record huh... When funds fail, there is always an external unforseen problem though, aint there? When they do well, the manager is the hero...

arco
20-01-2010, 04:34 PM
Jan. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Joseph Collins (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Joseph+Collins&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), Refco Inc. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=RFXCQ%3AUS)’s former outside lawyer, was sentenced to seven years in prison for helping Chief Executive Officer Phillip Bennett (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Phillip+Bennett&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) and other executives defraud investors of $2.4 billion.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a3gTuiHWluwc

CFO
17-02-2010, 12:38 PM
Arco,

do you mind sharing which broker you are using? Man, the stop loss hunting I have seen on forex.com's demo is just insane...

arco
17-02-2010, 07:38 PM
Arco,

do you mind sharing which broker you are using? Man, the stop loss hunting I have seen on forex.com's demo is just insane...

Hi CFO

Oanda in the main, and we also have a small account with GO for the more exotic pairs.

Stylerz
16-07-2016, 08:07 PM
Hi,

I'm just starting out in FX trading, and been reading through these threads especially ones with broker reviews.
A lot of the threads/reviews are many years old now, and wondering if anyone could provide any updates.

Would be interested in knowing of brokers where you can set your account in N.Z dollars.

I have been using CMC for the last couple of months and all is going well. Although reading all the reviews regarding them are terrible.
Wondering if they have improved there service the last few years?

Would be great to know of other brokers to get a comparison.

Thanks in advance.


P.S - Would also be interested to know why the FX part of this site has gone so quiet, looks like it used to very active, and still plenty of traffic on the other parts of the site. Are less people getting involved in FX trading
or are they just posting elsewhere?

Grunter
18-07-2016, 11:29 AM
P.S - Would also be interested to know why the FX part of this site has gone so quiet, looks like it used to very active, and still plenty of traffic on the other parts of the site. Are less people getting involved in FX trading
or are they just posting elsewhere?

Death by a thousand cuts.

Forex trading is a fool's game - you are highly leveraged (100-200x) in a market that is moved by institutions. I have met a guy that used to be a forex trader for a global bank, who then went in to set up his own forex brokerage. He told me that bank forex traders are there to process orders, not primarily to speculate. Thus they don't care about taking positions hoping the market will move one way or another. They just want to get their order executed at the best price. He then set up a Forex brokerage (like Oanda/CMC) and his business model is to clip the client every time they make a trade through commissions that mean the client has to take a fair amount of risk to cover just to become profitable on a trade.

I've also spent time at a dealing desk here in NZ at a major bank, watching what the traders do, so this corroborates his story.

I also have a contact who is a professional forex trader and has his own forex company. His advice to me was:

- Use Interactive Brokers (even though he runs his own brokerage, he trades with IB)
- Never leverage more than 5-10 times your account - if you can't make money at 10 times leverage, you don't have enough money to trade. Keep saving
- The trend is your friend, follow long term trends, not minute/hour/day trends
- Economic fundamentals drive currencies. TA is noise

kiora
18-07-2016, 12:57 PM
"TA is noise" Wry smile