Fat Prophets

[pboyles]

There was then the matter of Fat Prophets staff members being linked to previous companies such as Wills and Co, Blue Index and a few others. Again a question was raised, what links do your staff have to such and such a company, 'none whatsoever' came the reply, again he was warned and said put up or shut up, so I put up the proof of the links.

In this case the word scam may have been used when referring to the other companies.

 

[pboyles]

Sorry Peter, I meant this as a general point rather than connected to FP as the discussion had widened. I have said previously that I can't comment on FP specifically as it is still ongoing but I will one there is a conclusion.

Oh I see, disregard then.

 

[pboyles]

What FSA warning? Give me the detail please.

There was one about Traders University that was removed and one about a boiler room scam (I forget the name), LMQ also recalls a land banking scam where something official was removed. This is all going back a couple of years.

 

[the hare]

There was one about Traders University that was removed and one about a boiler room scam (I forget the name), LMQ also recalls a land banking scam where something official was removed. This is all going back a couple of years.

The person running the scam (or an employee) posted in the guise of a punter asking if anyone had heard about this particular scheme. the same organisation then posted a response under another username, commenting favourable and promoting the scheme.

A member posted a link to the fsa website. no comment was made, no opinion was provided, other than a general comment along the lines that further information about the company was available at the link.

The link was deleted.

Various people where banned for even discussing the situation or questioning why this had happened. A moderator resigned over the issue.

The official line of course is it never happened, and even discussing the issue is enough to solicit a warning from staff and moderators. Steve knows all of this, he has access to the information, and he has access to the people who took those decisions. If he was interested (and I can see no reason why he should be, its water under the bridge) he could ask the parties concerned.

The situation was completely inexcusable, and personally I can't see the point in even trying to justify why that action was taken.

 

[Steve]

The person running the scam (or an employee) posted in the guise of a punter asking if anyone had heard about this particular scheme. the same organisation then posted a response under another username, commenting favourable and promoting the scheme.

A member posted a link to the fsa website. no comment was made, no opinion was provided, other than a general comment along the lines that further information about the company was available at the link.

The link was deleted.

Various people where banned for even discussing the situation or questioning why this had happened. A moderator resigned over the issue.

The official line of course is it never happened, and even discussing the issue is enough to solicit a warning from staff and moderators. Steve knows all of this, he has access to the information, and he has access to the people who took those decisions. If he was interested (and I can see no reason why he should be, its water under the bridge) he could ask the parties concerned.

The situation was completely inexcusable, and personally I can't see the point in even trying to justify why that action was taken.

(Hare, although I have used your post as a quote, this is a general reply).

Thanks for the clarification, I thought the various posts were referring to recent events which is why I did not understand the points being made. I completely agree that there is no point in trying to explain what happened a couple of years ago as I was not a part of that process or around during that time.

In any event I have said many times that I drew a line under past events some time ago and I made the point that we did some things badly. It is a pity that some members can't move on from that although I fully understand the anger and distress it must have caused at the time.

I can only be judged by actions I have taken since coming on board and so far I have tried to honour everything I have said I would do. If any of you have any specific examples where I have failed in this duty then bring them to my attention and i'll deal with them.

I really don't see the point of dragging up what happened in the past, to me it serves little purpose. Although if nothing else, I guess it is a handy pointer as to the dangers of acting in the wrong way, but please don't then say it is happening again now when that simply is not true.

 

[Lightning McQueen]

I doubt the mods would want to be directly involved LMQ, but they are certainly kept in the picture nowadays as details are posted in a legal action forum that they have access to. They are also very welcome to ask me at any time for explanations as to what is going on and why.

i don't believe i was suggesting they should be directly involved, that wouldn't make sense in any case, there would be far too many different people talking to the t2w lawyers, certainly makes sense to just have one person doing that i'd have thought.

but yes, back in the day we weren't kept in the picture, posts used to just disappear. it could be seen who'd deleted and so a guess could be formed as to the why. though latterly things picked up and explanations began to appear as to the reasons for the disappearing posts. glad to see things are still improving 🙂

 

[websie]

Please provide the specifics of the trade you are referring to.

Excuse my lateness replying to this thread, I had no idea it had got so far. The trade in question was signalled on Thursday 24/1/2013 GBPAUD Signal said Going long on the GBP/AUD at market around the 1.5068 level, stop 1.4949, target 1.5315.

Capital at risk 1%

On Monday 28/1/2013 this came through GBP/AUD - we advise taking profits at market around the 1.5131 level.

Which by my calculations gives an inital trade of 247 (sl 119) but the final trade was just 63 pips so hardly a decent RR

And this is a typical trade. I have them all on record. Of the trades I have recorded only 4 went to TP out of my 49 recorded trades. For the main part a mockery of RR ratio

 

[ryandj2222]

Excuse my lateness replying to this thread, I had no idea it had got so far. The trade in question was signalled on Thursday 24/1/2013 GBPAUD Signal said Going long on the GBP/AUD at market around the 1.5068 level, stop 1.4949, target 1.5315.

Capital at risk 1%

On Monday 28/1/2013 this came through GBP/AUD - we advise taking profits at market around the 1.5131 level.

Which by my calculations gives an inital trade of 247 (sl 119) but the final trade was just 63 pips so hardly a decent RR

And this is a typical trade. I have them all on record. Of the trades I have recorded only 4 went to TP out of my 49 recorded trades. For the main part a mockery of RR ratio

Yes I would agree with this. Trade "alerts" are sent out with reasonable but not amazing risk/reward parameters. All good to start with.

But then the losing trades are always left to run to the stop loss, never cut early, whilst winners are more frequently closed early than left to run to their target price.

 

[Steve]

i don't believe i was suggesting they should be directly involved, that wouldn't make sense in any case, there would be far too many different people talking to the t2w lawyers, certainly makes sense to just have one person doing that i'd have thought.

but yes, back in the day we weren't kept in the picture, posts used to just disappear. it could be seen who'd deleted and so a guess could be formed as to the why. though latterly things picked up and explanations began to appear as to the reasons for the disappearing posts. glad to see things are still improving 🙂

Thanks LMcQ, appreciate that, still much to do though!

 

[Lightning McQueen]

Thanks LMcQ, appreciate that, still much to do though!

yes, but first we'll have to see if their lawyer team can create enough spin to get rid of the 2 previous posts to yours. and spin it they surely will, it's what they're good at 🙂

 

[websie]

Here's another classic FP trade, couldn't resist posting this EURUSD inital buy trade was for 104 pips, SL 52, extended +52 yesterday with stop to trail to BE, now told to shut at 1.3060 (which its not dropped down to yet - bizarre!) for a mere 25 pips!

 

[pboyles]

Here's another classic FP trade, couldn't resist posting this EURUSD inital buy trade was for 104 pips, SL 52, extended +52 yesterday with stop to trail to BE, now told to shut at 1.3060 (which its not dropped down to yet - bizarre!) for a mere 25 pips!

So how will they report that in their results?

 

[ryandj2222]

I will let you know once they've updated it! They usually report it accurately but most trades seem to run the losers and cut the winners early.

 

[ryandj2222]

I will let you know once they've updated it! They usually report it accurately but most trades seem to run the losers and cut the winners early.

Results are posted in a table more or less like this:

Entry price: 1.3035
Exit price: 1.3060
Abs return: +0.0025
BRO: 0.00 (not too sure what this column is for)
Profit/loss: +220.30 (this is based on their proposed risk for the trade of 1% of capital but I am not sure how much capital is in their pot).

This is how the trade was proposed:

1.3035 level, protective stop placed at 1.2983 (five pips below the previous low of 1.2988 on figure 2) and target to 1.3139. This trade has a risk to reward profile of 1: 2. Thus, for every US$1 at risk, we seek to gain US$2 should our target level be met.

Then updated the same day:

Shortly after our long entry, EUR/USD continued to march on north, reaching our 1: 1 risk to reward ratio of 1.3087. For this reason, we sent an SMS to members, advising to trail stops to breakeven from 1.2983 to 1.3035, and extend the upside target from 1.3139 to 1.3191.

Then today...

Prices reached an intraday high on Wednesday of 1.3122 (+87 pips).

With the US FOMC meeting rescheduled to commence earlier than expected at 2pm (BST) rather than the scheduled 7pm (BST), we witnessed USD strength come through across the board. Moreover, the failure to decisively break above the psychological 1.31 level suggested weakness at hand in the near term.

Though we had our stop trailed to our stop to breakeven (1.3035), the probability of lower prices outweighed that of higher prices. We decided that it was prudent to simply take our profits off the table due to the short term risk of further downside. Hence, we sent an SMS to members, advising to take profits at market around the 1.3060 level (prices continued to drift north printing 1.3069, which would have allowed members to exit at a better price than we did).

One point to note, indeed our preferred take profit level on our trades is at a minimum of 1: 1 risk to reward being 1.3087 (which was triggered on Tuesday), it is also wise to take profits when the landscape changes, especially if it poses risk towards our position.

Trade closed.

What are peoples thoughts? It did hit their first target but they then missed it with the extension.

 

[ryandj2222]

I probably should not post this as there is some term or condition about stuff in the members area being confidential so I will leave the above there for a bit then remove it before I get a telling off from FP or T2W.

 

[websie]

Results are posted in a table more or less like this:

Entry price: 1.3035
Exit price: 1.3060
Abs return: +0.0025
BRO: 0.00 (not too sure what this column is for)
Profit/loss: +220.30 (this is based on their proposed risk for the trade of 1% of capital but I am not sure how much capital is in their pot).

This is how the trade was proposed:



Then updated the same day:



Then today...



What are peoples thoughts? It did hit their first target but they then missed it with the extension.

The trouble is it may have hit their original target but they didn't shut it, as is quite often the case they extended the target and ended up almost back where they started making a mockery of the RR

 

[ryandj2222]

The trouble is it may have hit their original target but they didn't shut it, as is quite often the case they extended the target and ended up almost back where they started making a mockery of the RR

They do a lot of these kind of things, seem like silly mistakes a newbie trader would make not a pro. It is chasing more profits - greed - when the initial plan worked well.

 

[ryandj2222]

They do a lot of these kind of things, seem like silly mistakes a newbie trader would make not a pro. It is chasing more profits - greed - when the initial plan worked well.

The head trader David Thang has apparently resigned from Fat Prophets recently. Apparently he was overworked, stressed and didn't have enough time to focus on trades.

 

[websie]

The head trader David Thang has apparently resigned from Fat Prophets recently. Apparently he was overworked, stressed and didn't have enough time to focus on trades.

I am not surprised, he was a nice guy but I do not think he was allowed to trade the way he wanted to (I've no idea if that was the case but that was the feeling I got)

 

[ryandj2222]

I am not surprised, he was a nice guy but I do not think he was allowed to trade the way he wanted to (I've no idea if that was the case but that was the feeling I got)

I am a subscriber to FP and joined their virtual trading room today for a bit of entertainment really. They kept making excuses about where David was then one of the other members said he had resigned and there was a lot of bluster before the stand-in trader confirmed this. The feeling in the trading room was pretty sour with talk of him leaving for x number of losses in a row and lots of attendees desperately calling for more trades to recoup their losses (seems a bit mad to me but there you go).