Mike Baghdady - should I take a course or not?

[the hare]

perhaps it disappeared before you saw it....

surely not

 

[WhichWayNow]

No, it is not very important.

What is important is the truth. Motive does not affect fact.

Now you are finally getting it

Truth is the most imporant.

Claims based on heresay etc are nothing without proof and verfibale evidence.
Without verifiable evidence motive plays a very important part.

If I wanted to start a new training company or indeed I was a rival company I might be tempted to anonomously make a load of claims about Baghdady. The way to differenciate is with evidence. If people making the claims get very defensive or vicious then its a good sign they have something to hide, especially if they avoid questions.

 

[WhichWayNow]

Anal.
The Oxford English Dictionary description.

" fussily concerned about minor details and orderliness"

Or the perfect case to show Baghdady is a fraud or con artist if he took your money and you didnt get what you paid for.

Perhaps you are in a hole now because you can not answer without contradicting some of your claims. Lets face it if you got what you paid for or got your money back it does not support your case much does it.

 

[scose-no-doubt]

The way to differenciate is with evidence

What so bankruptcy, fraud cases and an hilarious narrative on his famed "price behaviour" isn't enough to smash his the veneer or façade of the world trading champion character? If that's not enough then I don't know what the f*** is going on here!

 

[scose-no-doubt]

Sorry to detract from the tone of the thread but I just wanted to once more congratulate all those who took part in the FXStreet webinar fiasco. Good work fellas and I really mean it. I wish I was on the outside and viewing without knowing what to expect. That will surely go down as T2W moment of the year.

 

[pboyles]

The court document (linked above) states:

11. One of the questions on the application [to open an account with Robbins] asked if Baghdady had ever left a debit balance at a brokerage firm.

13. Baghdady checked the box marked "no" to this question.

14. Baghdady had previously left a debit balance at the brokerage firm of Lind Waldock and Co.

15. Baghdady's bankruptcy records show a "trade losses" claim of $5,500,000.

17. Baghdady's bankruptcy records also show a "Judgement against Debtor and Bakara Trade Losses in 1989" claim of $100,000.

19. Before his account was opened [which occurred before the middle of September 1997], Baghdady stated to the Robbins parties that he had not borrowed funds to open the account.

20. On August 1, 1997 [just over a month before the account was opened], Baghdady had signed a promisory note in the sum of $750,000 to his mother.

21. If the Robbins parties had known about Baghdady's prior bankruptcy or the debit balances contained therein, his debit at Lind Waldock, or his promisory note of August 1, 1997, they would not have opened his trading account.

What is a person conducting "due dliligence", as you recommend, to make of that, WhichWayNow?

More to follow shortly.

Leopard,

The important point here is that this document is from October 2009 and mentions a previous bankruptcy. That is much more significant that his Chapter 11 filing recently.

 

[the hare]

If I wanted to start a new training company or indeed I was a rival company I might be tempted to anonomously make a load of claims about Baghdady. The way to differenciate is with evidence..

In light of MB's appalling history, thats what I'd do if I where a competitor (which in case you think I am one of the many vendors without a badge operating here, I am not)

The issue is, all of the evidence that was ever needed to substantiate attacks on MB's character had been historically posted.

We are told that the evidence was removed due to threats of legal action. It was MB himself who denied others the means to undertake due dilligence.

 

[The Leopard]

Now, on to the circumstances of the margin call.

There is a long section on this that I can't really be bothered to type out - if you wish to read it is points 23 to 40.

In brief, on the 16th of October (less than one month after the account opened) Baghdady got a margin call. He said he would send additional margin and liquidate his positions. He did not do so.

"Several telephone conversations" ensued, in which Baghdady was asked for additional margin - the amount needed being in the region of $400,000. Baghdady offered to send $25,000, Robbins said a total of $125,000 would be needed to keep the positions open. Baghdady didn't send this, instead sending just $40,000.

Robbins liquidated, resulting in a large loss. Less the 40 grand and another 50 held as a security deposit, plus a treasury bill in the account, he ended up owing $91,000.

The court found that Robbins were entitled to liquidate and entitled to recover the loss. The court also found that they were entitled to interest, which by the time the case rolled round was two hundred and forty-four grand.

What is the due diligence performer to make of this episode, WhichWayNow?

 

[the hare]

"Several telephone conversations" ensued, in which Baghdady was asked for additional margin - the amount needed being in the region of $400,000.

Lets put this into perspective, he was required to provide an additional 400K in margin on a 50K account that he'd opened only one month previously in order to participate in a trading competition.

 

[pboyles]

Lets put this into perspective, he was required to provide an additional 400K in margin on a 50K account that he'd opened only one month previously in order to participate in a trading competition.

But I bet he still won it, at least according to him.

 

[alphadude]

Lets put this into perspective, he was required to provide an additional 400K in margin on a 50K account that he'd opened only one month previously in order to participate in a trading competition.

he surely wasn't behaving like price behaves

off topic: i am on holiday right now; and am surely enjoying this lulz. Thanks to Baghdady for coming to this forum. Keep using multinics; we don't care; we like the lulz. :clap::clap::clap:

 

[pboyles]

Was anyone inside TT aware of the previous bankruptcy?

 

[alphadude]

Was anyone inside TT aware of the previous bankruptcy?

it's news to me

 

[pboyles]

I think it's the most significant information that has come to light in some time.

 

[The Leopard]

I think it's the most significant information that has come to light in some time.

I seem to recall him stating somewhere (possibly in the infamous webinar del lulz, also known as the What The F uck Broadcast) that he was not and has never been bankrupt. Is that right or does my memory play me false?

 

[pboyles]

I unfortunately, to my loss it seems, parted with my hard earned money in December 2011 with a course booked for February 2012.
Days before the course start date it was cancelled. Now i know why!!!
Went to Camperdown offices this week, no-one there and office completely empty.
Can anyone on here help me with the following.
1) Are they still trading anywhere.
2)Have they gone bankrupt.
3) What is their registered name at companies house.
4) How do i go about getting my money back.

Many thanks in advance.

Pete

Which company invoiced you? There have been numerous changes in company name since late 2011. They do not appear to be bankrupt and they are still, in theory, trading though under a new name. Baghdady is still sending out marketing crap. Let me find some more info for you.

 

[alphadude]

does anyone know why FXStreet kicked out Baghdady; and removed his profile all together from their site?

 

[scose-no-doubt]

Cos he got Scose'd

 

[the hare]

I think it's the most significant information that has come to light in some time.

I agree.

It would be interesting to determine the exact nature of the 5.5M in "trade losses" cited in the bankrupcy proceedings. If I understand correctly MB argued that these "trade losses" where not incurred at a commodity futures or securities brokerage firm.

 

[the hare]

I seem to recall him stating somewhere (possibly in the infamous webinar del lulz, also known as the What The F uck Broadcast) that he was not and has never been bankrupt. Is that right or does my memory play me false?

I recall correctly either he or Malcolm Steel made a similar claim in a post answering his critics on one of the forums.