Binary Options Con/Scam

wackypete2 said:
(y)(y)

Most people don't understand the "updated" forex/futures regs in the past few years does nothing to protect traders or fx only type brokers. They were done to stop money moving out of the US futures industry. Retail traders were bent over and given an enema.

Peter
Click to expand...

safvan said:
Slept half way through. Please construct a vanilla option model for the following scenario

1. WiseButtHair Options has 1000 customers.

2. On Monday a big market news is about to come.

3. The first 500 customers bet $100 each and the return for the correct direction would water their pockets with $1000 each.

4. The remaining 500 customers do not choose to bet and waste their time watching the lame episodes of "Two and Half Men" on their Ipads instead.

5. Bang! all 500 customers are right. Broker now owes $500,000 to the 500 customers while it managed to steal only $50,000 off of them.

6. How is the broker now going to pay up $450,000? Stewie Griffin wanted to extract money off of Brain!

7. Note this is just Monday and one fanatical news event.

Using your brilliant mathematical skills, please generate the magical formula that protects the bank accounts of the brokers.

Please also smooth out the exotic details of the party taking this risk on the other end with "Binary Options" gambling product.

If you cannot figure out the correct answer, watch the video below

Australian idiot talks about whale death FUNNY - YouTube
Click to expand...

Very simple: your damn MATH is wrong: OH SO WRONG IT HURTS
If 500 people Bet $100 then the payout (even with a stupid 100% option payout) is still 50,000!!! You think a broker gives a rat's ass about losing 50k in a minute? Haha - boy - you're in lala land
You are mistaken
 
So let me get this straight. Because you people are PRO regulation you're allowed to have bad arguments, incorrect math, judgmental tones, and a pure bias?
I don't get it. I never said I was PRO UNREGULATED. But I am 100% against the BS you people think is good or even fair regulation.

And if this is gambling - fine by me. That argument only strengthens what I am saying as it causes Forex itself to fall into the same category and while we're at it, vanilla options and why not stocks and the real estate market. They are all forms of gambles - some more so than others and ALWAYS the insiders win while the newbs and uninitiated pay for those winnings.
 
davidfielder said:
I don't get what you all are saying. Go back to the facts: Binary options can be made using vanilla options so by that logic Vaniall options are gambling. As such, vanilla options available via "exchanges" should be regulated by a gmaing comission. Um ok - if that's what you want. You still get the same damn result whereby 90% of retail traders lose.

None of you have ANY problem with market makers making their money off of YOUR losses. So the fact that they have a rubber stamp, ahem, excuse me, licesne to do so and even pay out IBs based on those losses directly and in writing and with the FSA's blessing is all cool. But these unregulated binary options companies - yes - they're the problem

My god ! You guys are seriously with your heads in the sand.
So let me straighten it out for you.
1. regulation is good. Unfortunately, it doesn't CURRENTLY do very much to protect customers from fraud. It creates an insurance plan ONLY if the broker goes bankrupt and files for chapter 11, or similar dissolution clauses in the country of incorporation+regulation. HOWEVER, this means jack #$%# to your cash when it comes to what the broker can and WILL do to your account if you start winning. Anyone to say different is either (1) trading with a bank/anonymous ECN or (2) is deceiving themselves because a market maker CAN NOT make money if you win (PERIOD). Please don't try to tell me otherwise, I am a little too well versed on the subject (have traded with for and against the banks with options, forex, unlisted stocks and others).

2. Binary options WILL be covered by all these niceties you people want to see in financial products (insurance and corporate oversight) and it's starting with CYSEC (and moving into all of MIFID countries thereafter including France, Germany, Italy, etc...). To label this a joke makes no sense to me as the same rules apply in CYSEC as they do in the FSA but with a lesser level of protection in terms of bankruptcy protection.All other marketing, sales, capital requirement and other restrictions are comparable.

3. The fact is, many people do not want regulation on products like BO because it's a pain in the **** to open an account, the company can hide behind more draconian terms and conditions as allowed by the regulators and actually don't need to return money all that fast if the customer was deemed to have "abused the system". Sound familiar - oh yeah, cause it's the same damn huey we hate about unregulated brokers. Yes, regulation mitigates a great deal of this but not by that wide a margin.

So for the last time - I am not against regulation. I am for it. But I want it there to protect ME and YOU. Not the damn tax authorities or the regulators themselves. What the NFA/CFTC in the US did for FINRA is a travesty . A damn abomination. I do agree that the FSA is far far far better for the trader. But, it comes with a massive and problematic caveat that only people who have actually dealt with the FSA know:
There are only very rough guidelines provided by the FSA. 95% of them are NOT abided by.
Ill give a quick example of one i love to hate:
It is required by the FSA that a risk warning appear at EYE level on every company's marketing documentation; digital or otherwise. In my time on the net, i have found 1-2 companies who abide by this fully. Show me a web site of a broker that has a risk warning above the fold (so that you DO NOT need to scroll to find it). Why don't the brokers abide by this? It's simple - there's stuff that's open for interpretation. Why is this, probably the most crucial and problematic aspect of the business, the fact that people can lose buttloads of cash, hidden from view at the bottom of the screen if it's required to be at EYE level?
I am just trying to open your eyes. Stop eating this doctrine of regulation being better than nothing. Cause even if it is, it's light years from being good for you directly. It's only via indirect means that you gain very much from this. So to shoot down binary options is preposterous -- at least as it pertains to the industry being regulated by MIFID. It simply makes no damn sense.
Click to expand...

1a/ Largest actual FSCS compensation payouts:
The biggest 10 FSCS investment intermediation payouts | News | Money Marketing
http://www.fscs.org.uk/news/

1b/ Well known CFTC FXCM fine:
Forex Capital Markets LLC Ordered to Pay More Than $14.2 Million to Settle CFTC Charges Relating to Its Failure to Supervise Customer Accounts

1c/ NFA Business Conduct Committee fine example:
NFA fines N.Y. forex firm $300,000

1d/ CFTC fine example
CFTC Fines Fraudulent Commodity Pool Operator for $1.4 Million | Forex Magnates

Hardly points to regulation being barely better than nothing...
Plenty more examples of regulation being far from ineffective.
******************************************************************************************
2/ An example of CySEC, the pinnacle of regulation,
basically tell claimants to do the regulators work:
CySEC tells investors to prove they were cheated - Cyprus Mail

Simple fact is unregulated Binary options are a red flag:
FMA: Warning against unauthorised websites offering binary options trading
 
Liquid validity said:
1a/ Largest actual FSCS compensation payouts:
The biggest 10 FSCS investment intermediation payouts | News | Money Marketing
FSCS > News

1b/ Well known CFTC FXCM fine:
Forex Capital Markets LLC Ordered to Pay More Than $14.2 Million to Settle CFTC Charges Relating to Its Failure to Supervise Customer Accounts

1c/ NFA Business Conduct Committee fine example:
NFA fines N.Y. forex firm $300,000

1d/ CFTC fine example
CFTC Fines Fraudulent Commodity Pool Operator for $1.4 Million | Forex Magnates

Hardly points to regulation being barely better than nothing...
Plenty more examples of regulation being far from ineffective.
******************************************************************************************
2/ An example of CySEC, the pinnacle of regulation,
basically tell claimants to do the regulators work:
CySEC tells investors to prove they were cheated - Cyprus Mail

Simple fact is unregulated Binary options are a red flag:
FMA: Warning against unauthorised websites offering binary options trading
Click to expand...


OK - CYSEC sucks. MIFID Sucks. Fine - I can't argue that cause it's true. But the problem is your comaprisons: a 300k fine. Hmmmm did you see the earnings reports for Gain or FXCM?
What in god's green earth are you babbling about 300k? That's today's marketing budget for these guys.
 
davidfielder said:
OK - CYSEC sucks. MIFID Sucks. Fine - I can't argue that cause it's true. But the problem is your comaprisons: a 300k fine. Hmmmm did you see the earnings reports for Gain or FXCM?
What in god's green earth are you babbling about 300k? That's today's marketing budget for these guys.
Click to expand...

Ok yeah you are right, much much better to hand over cash to some unregulated
shark with ZERO PROTECTION :rolleyes:

I noticed you sidestepped the issue of the AMF red flagging a number of unregulated binary options brokers:
http://www.fma.gv.at/de/verbraucher...websites-offering-binary-options-trading.html

Maybe the FSA can be urged to issue a cautionary warning about unregulated binary options brokers,
they already do so with other unregulated products:
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/consumerinformation/firmnews/2012/connaught.shtml

It could be said that a recent binary options broker who was posting here could be misleading clients
by having a UK primary contact address, when in fact they are registered as an offshore company.
Particularly as the address in question is highly likely to be a remote admin management address (glorified P.O. box).
Thoughts?
 
Last edited:

Attachments

  • goptions.jpg
    goptions.jpg
    537.9 KB · Views: 351
pboyles said:
"In recent weeks, the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) has observed at upsurge in aggressive internet advertising campaigns for binary options trading, claiming very high yields over very short periods of time".

What on earth gave them that idea?
Click to expand...

I mean it's hardly been heard of here on T2W.
 

Attachments

  • options.jpg
    options.jpg
    477.7 KB · Views: 672
davidfielder said:
OK - CYSEC sucks. MIFID Sucks. Fine - I can't argue that cause it's true. But the problem is your comaprisons: a 300k fine. Hmmmm did you see the earnings reports for Gain or FXCM?
What in god's green earth are you babbling about 300k? That's today's marketing budget for these guys.
Click to expand...

I think this goes to the heart of the real issue here. You and your likes don't care if a company rips people off because they will only get a small fine equivalent to their marketing budget.

By the way FXCM were fined $20 million, that's quite a large marketing budget I would have thought.
 
davidfielder said:
OK - CYSEC sucks. MIFID Sucks. Fine - I can't argue that cause it's true. But the problem is your comaprisons: a 300k fine. Hmmmm did you see the earnings reports for Gain or FXCM?
What in god's green earth are you babbling about 300k? That's today's marketing budget for these guys.
Click to expand...

Ok:LOL: ok now CYSEC sucks is it Mr Fielder...

How about Nauru or Zanzibar

Mate you are soundly defeated here
SO Mr Fielder any facts to counter argue what pboyles and Liquid Validity has mentioned!
Or are we going to get another diatribe about regulators for large corp. etc etc
Wake up
 
Funny that they provided a warning about these brokers:


Yes you chose to provide a screen shot of a different broker. Why?
I am not sidestepping anything. Read the warning. What does it actually say?

As for the address issue. I think that one was resolved to be a bogus claim by one of the readers. In the end, the office does exist. It's just a small time office on the outskirts of London. Not sure that being in a high rise constitutes better or worse business practice or a better gauge of the ability to receive funds

For the last time though as this argument is boring: there is no argument that unregulated markets are a problem. But the alternatives just aren't that great. I've seen enough in thist very forum, with claims that regulated FSA broker X, Y, and Z are just bucket shops etc... to know that it makes no difference in the end. Sure, it helps that you can complain to the FSA. And the FSA can choose to act or not. But in the end, you are a slave to your own desires. If you choose to trade OTC products, you are going to hit a wall. Maybe it's the platform suddenly slipping you or a binary broker not paying you. I see those 2 as one and the same.

Bashing binary options as a product makes no sense at all
You want to bash the fact that it's unregulated? Fine, but CYSEC at least went out and did so (the FSA has NOT).
You want to claim that a regulated binary options broker still sucks - well then you're just a hater.

And by the way, I'd estimate that 90% of the binary brokers out there WILL get regulated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You are really an idiot Moka. From the very first post, I never defended CYSEC. I think they are a low end regulator. Not sure what points those other guys made as I explained my side. It's not the regulation that's going to solve the problem and no amount of fines has stopped it. So not sure what the "heart of the matter" is in your argument??!???!?

It's not the point. They at least have taken a step to regulating the market. And by the way if I leave, what the hell will you guys talk about here?
 
davidfielder said:
Funny that they provided a warning about these brokers:
[/url]

Yes you chose to provide a screen shot of a different broker. Why?
I am not sidestepping anything. Read the warning. What does it actually say?

As for the address issue. I think that one was resolved to be a bogus claim by one of the readers. In the end, the office does exist. It's just a small time office on the outskirts of London. Not sure that being in a high rise constitutes better or worse business practice or a better gauge of the ability to receive funds

For the last time though as this argument is boring: there is no argument that unregulated markets are a problem. But the alternatives just aren't that great. I've seen enough in thist very forum, with claims that regulated FSA broker X, Y, and Z are just bucket shops etc... to know that it makes no difference in the end. Sure, it helps that you can complain to the FSA. And the FSA can choose to act or not. But in the end, you are a slave to your own desires. If you choose to trade OTC products, you are going to hit a wall. Maybe it's the platform suddenly slipping you or a binary broker not paying you. I see those 2 as one and the same.

Bashing binary options as a product makes no sense at all
You want to bash the fact that it's unregulated? Fine, but CYSEC at least went out and did so (the FSA has NOT).
You want to claim that a regulated binary options broker still sucks - well then you're just a hater.

And by the way, I'd estimate that 90% of the binary brokers out there WILL get regulated.
Click to expand...

Yeah and you've been helping promote some of them including 24option.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:
davidfielder said:
Maybe it's the platform suddenly slipping you or a binary broker not paying you. I see those 2 as one and the same.

Slippage and not being paid are the same...:LOL:

Bashing binary options as a product makes no sense at all
You want to bash the fact that it's unregulated? Fine, but CYSEC at least went out and did so (the FSA has NOT).
You want to claim that a regulated binary options broker still sucks - well then you're just a hater.

CySEC are a joke, might as well not be regulated.
Examples have already been given.
Click to expand...

Anyway, please don't let me distract you from explaining why you have
been endorsing some of the brokers on that AMF list :)
 
Just in case you were wondering about the link between David and whyoptions.com here you are...
 

Attachments

  • fielder.jpg
    fielder.jpg
    343.6 KB · Views: 706
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
my horrible story with goptions.com with proof
4 5 6
Replies
103
Views
42K
Woundedogre
W
J
Goption Fraud/Scam revealled
2 3
Replies
41
Views
20K
progix
P
S
Binary Options Bots and providers - Just stay away
Replies
6
Views
5K
aahnasupari
A
P
realize A SCAM BINARY OPTIONS BROKER
Replies
19
Views
6K
lloydbee
lloydbee
S
Binary Options - OptionBit
2
Replies
29
Views
19K
davidfielder
D
Top