NFA Dead Forex Firms Walking

[forex scholar]

The Collapse of CFG

In January of 2007 CFTC reports showed that CFG Trader had $1,790,000 in Adjusted Net Capital. That means they were $800,000 over their required amount. So for the average trader checking in on CFG everything looked good right? Suppose you also checked the NFA website and saw they had a clean regulatory record. Looks good right? You spoke with a smooth talking sales rep and saw they had been in business since the nineties. Looks good right? Boy would you have been wrong. For it was at this time that CFG began to unravel.

According to the NFA in its 2007 audit NFA noted that, “the balances on Forefront’s Form 1-FR dated January 31, 2007, which had been previously filed with NFA, were inconsistent with the general ledger the firm provided to NFA as part of the audit.” Furthermore, “Forefront had failed to include all customer liabilities when preparing its financial statements. As a result, it appears that Forefront was under the required minimum ANC by at least $850,000.”

The next blow came on March 15th
http://www.nfa.futures.org/BasicNet/Case.aspx?entityid=0334858&case=07MRA00003&contrib=NFA
…still not having received the updated financial statements, NFA spoke with Snellgrove, Conn, Lani and representatives of the firm’s accounting firm. NFA asked whether Forefront currently had the required minimum ANC. Snellgrove referred the question to Lani who responded that the firm did “not have accurate numbers to work with.” Additionally, Lani indicated that it would be “a fair statement to say that the firm does not know its financial status.”

With CFG’s financials in chaos the NFA notified the CFTC who then went to court to get an injunction to halt the transfer of any money out of the firm. The CFTC injunctive action states the following:
http://www.cftc.gov/opa/enf07/opa5310-07.htm

According to the CFTC complaint, as of January 31, 2007, and perhaps earlier, Forefront’s net capitalization was below the adjusted net capital required by the Act and a Commission regulation. As of March 19, 2007, the complaint charges, Forefront’s adjusted net capitalization remained below the required adjusted net capital with Forefront’s total liabilities equaling $8,000,000 while its assets were only $6,760,000. Furthermore, the complaint charges Forefront with failing to maintain books and records that it is required to maintain pursuant to a Commission regulation.

While the CFTC was dragging CFG through the courts the NFA decided to give CFG one final kick in the ribs while they lay curled up in the fetal position by hitting them with a formal complaint regarding their marketing practices on April 4, 2007:
http://www.nfa.futures.org/BasicNet/Case.aspx?entityid=0334858&case=07BCC00011&contrib=NFA

At this point the court approved a receiver to preside over the dissolution of CFG and arrange for a customer buyout. I Trade FX put in the highest bid and then proceeded to take over CFG’s customer accounts.
http://www.cftc.gov/opa/enf07/opa5311-07.htm

The swift and stunning collapse of CFG ended happily enough with customers getting their money back. But it could have been much worse. What would have happened if a creditor had interceded to lay claim to customer funds as happened with the customers of RefcoFX? In such a drawn out situation a potential buyer would have been scared off and by the time the estate was settled (minus the huge legal fees of course) customers would have been lucky to get back a fraction of their investment.

This is just one of the lessons to be learned from the Collapse of CFG. I will review the others tomorrow in “Part III – Lessons from the Collapse of CFG.”

 

[forex scholar]

Lessons from the Collapse of CFG

Why does the NFA want to raise capital requirements? Precisely because of firms like CFG. Of course, many of the fraudsters will be driven out of the business which is certainly a good thing and one of the reasons for the NFA to take action. But there will always be con-men in the financial markets. I believe the real reason the NFA is pushing so hard to raise capital requirements is its concern that there are many more potential CFG’s out there.

The fact is you need more than $1,000,000 to run this kind of business today. Ten years ago when there was no regulation you could a run a forex broker dealer on the cheap. Not now. After all a good compliance officer alone can run you upwards of $200,000 a year never mind all the accountants and book keepers and legal staff needed to run a fully functional compliance/accounting department. But guys like Don Snellgrove couldn’t afford that kind of staff. And neither can many of these poorly capitalized firms. When you are a small forex broker dealer start up you have one goal: GET CUSTOMERS. To do that you need a fully functional platform and an aggressive sales force. That costs money. Compliance can come second after that, if at all…

With this in mind I have outlined a checklist for the average trader looking to find a broker:

1) Make sure they are registered with the NFA (or appropriate regulatory body such as the FSA in the United Kingdom). Avoid unlicensed firms at all costs.

2) Check the firm’s regulatory background on the NFA’s website. (http://www.nfa.futures.org/BasicNet/) Be sure to also examine the background of the principals of the firm. This is extremely important because if you see that a principal has a record of working for a bunch of firms with dodgy backgrounds then you need to seriously reconsider that firm.

3) Check the firm’s financials. (http://www.cftc.gov/tm/tmfcm.htm) Make sure the firm you are dealing with is well capitalized. This should be one of the most important criteria used in deciding on a forex broker. As I have demonstrated meeting the minimum capital requirement should not be an ending point when considering a firm since at one time or another even the most crooked outfits are reporting they are in compliance with the cap laws. Furthermore, beware investing with firms below $5 million net capital right now until the situation with the NFA proposal is sorted out. No, the rule has not passed yet but it most likely will and should that time come it is very likely that some of the firms on the dead pool list wil go under. Why put yourself through the stress of wondering whether or not your firm will be able to make the cut?

4) Test a firm’s customer service in advance. Are they open on the weekends? Do they respond quickly to emails? Do they have actual customer service 24 hours a day or just a surly dealer outside business hours who doesn’t like talking to people? Customer service with a forex firm is a lot more important than customer service with your bank as it can often times have a direct impact on your p/l.

5) Avoid “get rich quick” scams. Easily said but even though everyone knows it people still fall for them, especially in forex. Whether those scams involve some broker promising software guaranteed to make you a millionaire or some money manager saying his fund always has a positive return don’t fall for the hype. Remember, if what they said were true they would be millionaires sitting on a beach in Bermuda not sweating it out trying to get you to buy in on their scheme.

6) Experience means nothing in forex. Keep in mind this industry is only 10 years old. This isn’t the equity market where you have brokerage firms that have been around for decades. Everyone is new to forex including the brokers selling themselves to you. Don Snellgrove had more experience in this industry than almost anyone but his firm was not the better for it. Stability is what matters. And larger firms tend to be more stable because they have the capital to ride out the storms in this industry. Furthermore, many of them are backed by well established corporate partners or investors while smaller firms are mainly on their own with limited resources at their disposal.

So there you have it. Those are the lessons from the Collapse of CFG. Take them to heart and trade wisely.

 

[forex scholar]

NDD Risks

There is this myth going around that NDD firms have no risk because they are "not market makers." It's time to put this myth to rest once and for all.

First, all firms, whether they have dealing desks or not, are required to set aside 10% of all customer assets if they offer 100 to 1 leverage. So a firm with $50 million in customer assets is required by law to already set aside $5 million just to meet that simple requirement. When added to the probable NFA rule change that firms set aside an additional $5 million in capital that means firms will need $10 million in capital as Currency Trader Magazine reported.

But getting back to the NDD 'no risk' myth. Here are just some of the risks NDD firms have to cope with.

1)Business Risk. All businesses have the simple risk of not having enough revenue to cover their expenses. Forex firms are no different. But since forex firms are holding customer funds the temptation of creditors to lay claim to those funds should a forex firm go out of business is too tempting. That is one reason the NFA wants forex firms to have more capital on hand than the average business in America. If a restaurant goes under the customers of the restaurant don’t feel the pinch since they just go to another restaurant. But customers of forex firms could lose their money on deposit if the firm they do business with goes under. Thus the risk is far greater to the general public.

2)Credit Risk. The reason behind Regulator's customer asset requirement rule (firms must set aside 10% of all customer assets) is because of the risk of customers defaulting on their credit obligation. This happens in futures all the time when accounts go negative. While forex firms like to brag about their platforms preventing customers from going negative the fact is it does happen. If the market drops 100 points in one tick it can easily happen. And if the firm can’t collect on that customer they have to eat that loss. That is a big risk. And with customers trading at 400 to 1 leverage in some cases the NFA is well justified in demanding firms have more capital on hand to offset that risk.

3)Market Making Risk. As much as NDD firms like to say they have no market risk because they pass along their trades to banks the fact is they still do have market risk. While that risk is not as large as non-NDD firms the fact is if the banks who execute each trade suddenly decide NOT TO execute a trade it is the NDD firm that has to take over pricing. Banks are not obligated by law to make prices the way exchanges are. If the market gets wild and the NDD firm’s bank decides not to make any prices who do you think is stuck with that responsibility? The NDD firm is. Either that or they don’t offer prices at all and basically cease operations. I would say that is quite a risk and certainly justifies a higher capital requirement as a result.

4)Market Discrepancy Risk. Trade discrepancies happen. There will always be cases where a bank says it executed a trade at one price while the counterparty says that trade was executed at another price. Since banks are loathe to admit guilt the onus of responsibility almost always falls on the counter party. And with high leverage those discrepancies can be very costly. Again, this justifies a higher capital requirement to help offset that risk.

So as you can see NDD firms have plenty of risk as well. They are not immune to the laws of economics. And as such are just as much in need of higher capital requirements as every other forex dealer.

 

[forex scholar]

Forex Dealer Dead Pool (version 3.0)

The New CFTC numbers came out last week:
http://www.cftc.gov/files/tm/fcm/tmfcmdata0706.pdf

As a result it is time for another Dead Pool Update:

Poorly Capitalized Firms
Advanced Markets ($1,039,000)
American National Trading Corp ($2,159,000)
Bacera Corporation (Shutdown!)
Cal Finanical Corporation (Shutdown!)
Direct Forex ($1,458,000)
E FX Options ($3,158,000)
Forex Club ($2,873,000)
FiniFX (Not Accepting New Customers)
Forward Forex (Shutdown!)
FX Option1 Inc (Shutdown!)
GFS Futures & Forex ($2,995,000)
Hamilton Williams ($1,130,000)
I Trade FX ($3,957,000)
MB Trading ($1,170,000)
Money Garden ($3,584,000)
Nations Investments (Shutdown!)
One World Capital ($2,308,000)
Performance Capital International (Vanished)
Royal Forex Trading ($1,171,000)
SNC Investments ($1,524,000)
Solid Gold Financial ($2,239,000)
Spencer Financial (Shutdown!)
Trend Commodities (Shutdown!)
United Global Markets (Shutdown!)
Worldwide Clearing (Shutdown!)
Wall Street Derivatives ($936,000)

Unregulated Firms (Buyer Beware)
FXDD (?)
GCI (?)
Cletus' Fishing & Forex (?)
Krusty's Currency Trading (?)

So far not a single firm in the dead pool has shown any signs they have the capital to potentially meet the proposed requirements. Of course, they are not required to put forth any additional capital yet since the rule has not passed but you would think that at least one or two of them would take the initiative and pony up the dough now to show the world they are in it for the long haul.

Although I must doff my cap to I Trade FX for their near $4 million in reported capital. Contrary to my earlier ribbing they are getting closer to making the $5 million barrier to entry and just may stick it to the scholar in the end. They have replaced the firm that was, prior to the most recent report, the most likely firm to make it off the Dead Pool List- MB Trading. The month before MB Trading was showing $3,952,000 in adjusted net capital but now they are only showing $1,170,000 in adjusted net capital. That is quite a drop for MB Trading. It leaves them with only $171,000 in excess net capital. Of course, it could be a one month anomaly so I won't jump to any conclusions. But in light of the new NFA proposal and the increasing drumbeat from the media about the likelihood of this rule becoming law it seems to me MB Trading should be INCREASING their net capital, not decreasing it. It leaves one to wonder just what's going on over in El Sugundo...

 

[forex scholar]

Underwater Udo

The word "Bucket Shop" gets thrown around a lot in the retail forex business. But what exactly is a bucket shop?

www.traderslog.com describes a Bucket Shop as follows:

Describes a brokerage facility that books (takes the opposite side of) retail customer orders without actually having them executed on an exchange. The term comes from the practice of placing an order in a bucket rather than transmitting it to an exchange as a broker would normally do. Bucket Shops were popular during the 1920's at a time when many stocks traded at over $100 a share and the average salary was $1,000 a year, making investment in the stock market too expensive for most people. The most sophisticated bucket shops, known as bucketeers, were hard to distinguish from legitimate brokerage offices, having their own ticker tapes and chalkboards. The bucketeers would often take opposite positions in the market to ensure that their customers could not win.

Forex bucket shops essentially do the same thing and simply pocket the money right up front without even bothering to go into the market to offset customer trades. Instead, the firm simply creates dummy statements showing customers they are making money and that as a result they should send in more money. Then after they have milked the customer enough they'll send out another dummy statement showing them they have lost it all. Or they just fold up shop and run like the wind.

Such were the sales practices of such prominent dead forex firms walking as Forward Forex, Trend Commodities Limited, Worldwide Clearing and FX Option1 Inc. Add to this list another con-man, and newly baptized convict, Udo Rotmistrenko. Udo was a licensed Commodity Trading Advisor registered with the CFTC. The NFA granted him his license in March of 2000:
http://www.nfa.futures.org/BasicNet...ntityid=0300565

Udo was the sole proprietor of Rittmeister Capital Management and his specialty was managed forex funds. But by June 2, 2004, the only thing he would be managing was how to find enough spare change to make his lone phone call from prison. For on that day he would be arrested by the feds for forex fraud. The details of Udo's case can be found here: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nys/press...entencingpr.pdf

For the condensed version here is essentially what Udo did; courtesy of the Fraud Digest: http://frauddigest.com/fraud.php?ident=3485

On March 31, 2005, Rotmistrenko pled guilty to twelve counts of wire fraud and twelve counts of mail fraud. During his guilty plea, Rotmistrenko admitted that, from 1999 to 2003, as then-CEO and president of Rittmeister Capital Management in New York City, he fraudulently induced investors to wire and mail him funds by giving the investors inaccurate information regarding his company’s profit history. Rotmistrenko did so by giving the investors account statements that falsely inflated the profits the investors were earning and by using investor funds to pay his personal expenses without disclosing those expenditures to the investors. According to the Indictment, Rittmeister held itself out to the investing public as a brokerage firm that managed investments for retail customers in the foreign currency exchange (“forex”) market.

In order to induce potential customers to invest funds through Rittmeister, Rotmistrenko and Rittmeister sales representatives made false and fraudulent representations regarding Rittmeister’s trading history in the forex market. Specifically, they falsely represented to retail customers that Rittmeister historically generated large profits, as high as in excess of 43 percent per year, for its customers through forex trading. In fact, Rittmeister generated little or no profits for Rittmeister’s customers through trading in the forex market. Furthermore, sales representatives told retail customers that Rittmeister’s customer investment funds were used to invest in the forex market, when, in fact, the company failed to transfer a large majority of investor funds to any forex trading firm for the purpose of executing forex trades. Rather, a substantial amount of investor funds were diverted to pay Rotmistrenko's personal expenses, and to pay Rittmeister’s operating expenses. To hide the fact that a large portion of the customer funds Rittmeister received was being diverted to pay Rittmeister’s operating expenses and for Rotmistrenko's personal benefit, Rotmistrenko created and sent clients false and fraudulent account statements that represented trading activity and profits and/or losses incurred on trades in client accounts. In truth, Rittmeister failed to generate any trading profits for the customer accounts. Rotmistrenko diverted customer funds from Rittmeister’s bank accounts in various ways, including the following: (i) approximately $319,000 was withdrawn in cash; (ii) approximately $146,900 was paid to an associate; (iii) approximately $24,900 in checks was made payable to Rotmistrenko; (iv) in excess of $30,000 was used for car payments and other car expenses; (v) approximately $38,000 was used to pay college tuition for Rotmistrenko's wife; and (vi) funds were used to pay for numerous hotel, motel and restaurant bills, wedding expenses, and gym memberships.

In fact, Udo is quite the sportsman. Not only did he use customer funds to bankroll his trips to the gym but he used them to pay for scuba diving lessons too! A simple googling of old Udo shows him to be a member of the "2001 Rec Scuba Rogues" http://www3.sympatico.ca/johnfrancis/rogues.htm. You can see his mugshot under the name "chaoswolf." Wonder how many pips all that scuba gear cost his investors? And boy could I spend hours and hours coming up with appropriate metaphors for Udo's membership in a club titled "Scuba Rogues..."

But alas Udo won't be breaking out his wetsuit anytime soon because on June 17, 2007, Udo was sentenced to 51 months in prison by Judge Deborah Batts. Ouch. Rarely do forex fraud criminals get such harsh prison sentences. What gives? Well, this was not your typical clumsy regulatory action. This case was initiated and prosecuted by the United States Attorney of the Southern District of New York. This was the office that gave America Rudy Giuliani. In short, these guys don't mess around. And that is an important thing to remember because prior to Udo's being arrested he had been given a clean bill of health by the NFA. What does that mean? It means that doing a background check is no guarantee that you're dealing with a legit firm.

In short, there is only one way to avoid the bucket shops and that is to avoid any and all unregistered firms and to avoid anyone that isn't showing a healthy balance sheet. Am I saying that firms with just a couple million dollar are bucket shops? Of course not. But since we know forex fraud is primarily taking place with smaller firms why take the chance? In short, until the industry gets flushed by regulators investors should be wary of any firm that isn't showing a healthy balance sheet else you stand a chance of being eaten alive by the Chaoswolves of the world.

 

[forex scholar]

NFA Ties Up Some Loose Ends

Meanwhile, back at the Dead Pool. The NFA appears to be wrapping up the closures of CFG and UGMFX. They released the following two press releases today regarding the regulatory actions they took against said firms. Once again both firms were very poorly capitalized and were not able to keep their books straight. Once again this is one of the reasons regulators want to raise capital requirements. Once again if regulators share these concerns the trading public should as well.

NFA permanently bars Virginia forex firm, Forefront Investments Corporation
August 13, Chicago - National Futures Association (NFA) has permanently barred Forefront Investments Corporation (Forefront), a Futures Commission Merchant and Forex Dealer Member located in Richmond, Virginia, from NFA membership. The Decision, issued by NFA's Business Conduct Committee, is based on a Complaint filed in April 2007 and a settlement offer submitted by Forefront.

The Complaint charged that Forefront used misleading promotional material. In addition, the Complaint charged that Forefront failed to comply with NFA financial requirements, file financial statements within a timely manner, and implement an adequate anti-money laundering program. Further, the Complaint charged that Forefront failed to have a principal also registered as an associated person (AP).

NFA permanently bars United Global Markets LLC and orders firm to pay $40,000 fine
August 13, Chicago - National Futures Association (NFA) has permanently barred United Global Markets LLC (UGM), a Futures Commission Merchant and Forex Dealer Member located in Boston, Massachusetts, from NFA membership. Additionally, NFA ordered UGM to pay a $40,000 fine. The Decision, issued by NFA's Business Conduct Committee, is based on a Complaint filed in August 2007 and a settlement offer submitted by UGM.
The Committee found that UGM failed to maintain the required minimum adjusted net capital.

The Decision follows a recent enforcement action taken against UGM. In June 2007, NFA issued an emergency Member Responsibility Action against UGM. See previous press release.

 

[a_gnome]

The word "Bucket Shop" gets thrown around a lot in the retail forex business. But what exactly is a bucket shop?

Forex bucket shops essentially do the same thing and simply pocket the money right up front without even bothering to go into the market to offset customer trades. Instead, the firm simply creates dummy statements showing customers they are making money and that as a result they should send in more money. Then after they have milked the customer enough they'll send out another dummy statement showing them they have lost it all. Or they just fold up shop and run like the wind.

Hi there FS,
Good thread - it's good to have stuff like this posted so that people at least think before placing their money with a firm.

I'd just like to quibble over the bucket shop definition a little. Most market maker FX operations (as opposed to ECN/DD operations) will "bucket" at least some of their customer trades. Since they are market makers they are providing the quotes to their clients - they are in essence the market that their clients trade. If the trade size is small or if the client has a poor trading record then rather than go and hedge themselves against the position that their client opens with them they will simply take the other side. This doesn't mean that they are doing anything wrong, it's quite legitimate - it just means that what the customer makes they lose and v.v. and the customer has a genuine position in the market. Whether this means that the operation is a "bucket shop" or not is a moot point.

This is not the same as the ponzi schemes that you are talking about where everything is made up and far from legitimate.

Anyway, just my 2p's worth and keep up the good work.

 

[forex scholar]

Excellent point gnome and I agree with you. One should not confuse those conducting fraud with those operating a legit dealing room. Your point is well taken.

 

[JTrader]

I admire your extensive construction of this thread FS! very informative, and stuff a lot of us wouldn't even think of!

 

[forex_student]

Let's say a forex firm is caught with its "pants down" (undercapitalized, schlocky management, etc.) Since many of these issues are by no means concluded in the courts, can a firm just go up the street, reincorporate under a different name and do business? Is it totally concluded that the NFA/CFTC has jurisdiction for off-exchange products?

The NFA website itself mentions the Zelener case.

 

[forex scholar]

Let's say a forex firm is caught with its "pants down" (undercapitalized, schlocky management, etc.) Since many of these issues are by no means concluded in the courts, can a firm just go up the street, reincorporate under a different name and do business? Is it totally concluded that the NFA/CFTC has jurisdiction for off-exchange products?

The NFA website itself mentions the Zelener case.

Another excellent point (some sharp minds at T2W). The issue of NFA/CFTC jurisdiction HAS NOT been definitively solved in the United States. There is still a lot of debate over whether even the CFTC has jurisdiction over Spot Forex. So yes, there is a chance a firm could just pack up and move to another state and start over again...

 

[forex scholar]

For the Critics

I have received some complaints from other forum users that my "Dead Forex Firms Walking Dead Pool" amounts to nothing more than scare tactics since the rule hasn't passed and since no one is yet required to meet the proposed $5 million capital requirement. In short, these little firms are being given a bum rap.

But those critics are missing the big picture. The Dead Pool is not meant to be fair. It is meant to single out those firms that have a low probability of meeting the proposed capital requirement (keep in mind Currency Trader Magazine said the proposal could possibly “wipe out 90% of the industry.”) The counter argument to that is some of those firms have additional capital they aren’t showing in the CFTC Capital Reports. That may be so but how is the average trader to know that absent firms showing us their company financials? My critics insist the onus of responsibility to find this out is on me because I am putting these firms on the Dead Pool list but I say the onus of responsibility is on the firms because it is they who are soliciting customers to trade at their firms.

Why the Dead Pool? Because traders should be aware of the very precarious state these firms may find themselves in should the rule pass. The time to know this information is BEFORE a firm goes under, not after it has gone under. That is why I have included so many stories in this thread detailing the demise of so many poorly capitalized firms. The CFG case in particular is an instructive one I encourage everyone to read.

True, CFG was undercapitalized while the firms in the Dead Pool are currently meeting their capital requirement. But the NFA was taken by surprise when they checked CFG’s books, who as late as January of this year showed they were meeting their capital requirement too. My point is “low capitalization” can quickly lead to “undercapitalization.” And while the firms on the dead pool are not undercapitalized (I take back any comments to the contrary regarding undercapitalized firms on the dead pool), they are poorly capitalized and thus a lot more likely to go out of business should this rule pass.

Finally, I want to make clear I'm not saying all these firms will be going out of business should the new capital requirement be adopted. Surely some will survive. And it should also be noted that a firm’s month to month Adjusted Net Capital on the CFTC’s website can change radically from one month to the next. While I joked about I Trade FX with the line “Run Forrest Run” after they posted negative capital for one month I never stated I Trade FX was bankrupt and their current Adjusted Net Capital figure shows them to have close to $4 million which means they are one of the most likely firms to survive the proposed capital increase. So the CFTC capital requirement figures are not the end all be all in this debate. That I will grant my critics.

But at the moment, that report is the only independent source for checking a firm’s financial health. As such it carries tremendous weight and needs to be closely followed by the trading public in addition to the many other things a trader should do when checking on a firm before they open an account.

 

[forex scholar]

Euro Money Comments on Cap Requirement

Euro Money has just published an article on the rule proposal that backs up everything I have been saying. Furthermore we are now seeing a lot of other Industry players offering their comments. Here are some choice quotes from some industry titans: http://www.euromoney.com/article.as...ticleID=1398928

Todd Crosland, Interbank FX's founder chief executive, says: "The NFA has proposed to raise the minimum net capital requirement to $5 million. If you offer greater than 100:1 leverage, you would have to maintain two times that amount, or $10 million. We believe that by the end of the year the NFA will have fully implemented the new minimum net capital requirements. Our current net capital is [now] in excess of $25 million."

Gain chairman Mark Galant says: "Making sure all FDMs are well capitalized is a positive for the industry. The management at many of the smaller FDMs have no real FX market experience and have never managed a 24/5 trading operation. Besides being able to cover your financial obligations to your customers, you also need sufficient capital to post collateral with bank liquidity providers. An FDM that does not have good credit lines can get in trouble pretty quickly if they are unable to lay off their risk as needed.

The Euromoney article is also quoted as saying,

"If, as expected, US regulator the National Futures Association implements a proposal it has sent out to its 43 forex dealer members (FDMs), the result will be that many firms will have to attract fresh funding or close down. The proposal is due to be discussed by the NFA's board in August. If ratified, it will then go to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which effectively acts as the NFA's gatekeeper. The CFTC will almost certainly rubber stamp it."

"In its proposal, the NFA points out that the under-capitalization of many FDMs is the main cause of many of the problems that have plagued the sector, It is therefore looking to raise FDM's net capital requirements from $1 million to $5 million. Two other proposed changes to the NFA's concentration charges and its accounting requirements are likely to result in FDMs being obliged to have a minimum of $10 million in adjusted net capital to stay in business."

"The majority of FDMs do not have this much free capital available, so unless they receive fresh funding, they will almost certainly go out of business if the proposal is passed."

 

[forex scholar]

I Trade FX Moving On Up

I Trade FX has officially come out in favor of the new proposed capital requirement with an impressive statement below. It is a statement no other firm has made to date. There was no equivocation or spin in their support for the rule. As such I will be removing them from the dead pool and request that the moderators delete them from the list. You have my congratulations I Trade.

I Trade FX Press Release
I-Trade FX experiences growth in excess of 700% for 2007.
Orlando, FL- August 15th 2007 – I-Trade FX, LLC, one of the nation’s leading Forex Brokers and provider of currency trading services for large and small institutional and individual investors, announced today that I-Trade FX has seen exceptional growth in 2007, with current revenues in excess of 700% year-to-date from 2006.

Mr. Martinez, Co-Founder and President stated, “I-Trade FX was founded by a very talented and experienced management team with over 75 years of experience in the investment banking arena. It is our mission to deliver a higher standard of dealing practices and customer service to the industry.” Mr. Martinez continued, “I clearly believe that after salvaging relationships with approximately 3,000 clients acquired from CFGTrader, the industry has no choice but to realize we are a major competitor.”

I-Trade FX welcomes and is in full support of the NFA’s most recent proposal to raise the minimum capital requirement from $1 million to $5 million for Forex Brokers. “Undercapitalized firms dramatically increase risk for the investor. Raising the capital requirements will substantially reduce the risk to current and future clients that open accounts and will provide greater security for the client,” reported Mr. Martinez.

 

[forex_student]

The Euromoney article is also quoted as saying,

"The majority of FDMs do not have this much free capital available, so unless they receive fresh funding, they will almost certainly go out of business if the proposal is passed."

No they won't.

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that many won't go out of business. If a firm is short on the new capital requirement, after having been accused by the NFA of operating with too little capital (or numerous other NFA violations) that firm can take its remaining capital, move to a different office, reincorporate and attempt to take the business offshore. Maybe a new list should start of the firms that are doing this now.

Then lying to the NFA, previous criminal convictions, abuses, fraud, scams, etc. make no difference. And the biggest victims of such abuses are those who invest in forex funds who clear through such brokers or IBs, because these customers are not prone to scrutinize the firms their fund managers clear.

So the list of Dead Firm's Walking becomes moot and violations unactionable. The firms will rise from the dead like ghouls.

The NFA is a regulatory club, like a seal of good standards. A spot forex firm can join it to prove the firm's standards, but the NFA really only has control over its members. The NFA's control over spot forex is not yet decided by the courts.

If you are a member of a country club and your golf cart's wheel digs a hole in the fairway, you can be fined as a member or even kicked out of the club. But this does not prevent you from going to the public course and playing 18 down the road.

The small fish themselves suspect that the large firms are trying to drive them out so as to reduce competition in the spot forex business through influence with the NFA.

But competition is one thing, freedom to steal is another.

It is too bad because the old bucket shops of the days of Livermore still exist in the form of spot forex "dealers", and are ripping off unsuspecting customers every single day. I hope Zelener is overturned for the sake of honest, well capitalized
brokers and honest, competent traders who rely (to some extent) on trust.

And thanks forex_scholar, you have informed the trading public about an issue that might have gone unnoticed.​

 

[forex scholar]

On Tap for Next Week

On Tap for Next Week

What a wild ride it has been the last few days in the market. Sadly, some traders have missed out on all the action. Specifically, the traders of Tradex Swiss AG. Tradex is apparently under investigation and there is some kind of account freeze for customers. Next week I’ll talk more about the Tradex case and also discuss the perilous state of FX regulation in Switzerland.

Also, I’ve been getting a lot of tips and private messages about One World Capital. Something is afoot at One World and I’ll share with everyone what I have learned thus far.

 

[forex scholar]

MG Comments on Capital Requirement

Money Garden has gone public with a statement about the proposed capital requirement rule over at Forex News:
http://www.forexnews.com/fxforum/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1722&PN=1

Unfortunately, the response was rather underwhelming and for the most part brushed off the severity of the current capitalization problem in the industry. Of course, being poorly capitalized according to CFTC reports, that's exactly the kind of answer one would expect from MG. But to their credit they have indicated they will be upping their reported capital on the next CFTC report so let's wait and see what the next report has in store for them.

However, their initial response to the proposal indicates a firm that doesn't quite get what has been going on in the industry these past few years. MG states they are "not opposed to increased Net Capital Requirements..." That's not exactly a ringing endorsement for the proposal. MG then focuses in on accounting standards, which everyone agrees need to be tightened up. Indeed, I wholeheartedly agree with this MG statement, "From reading the second part of the NFA proposal on internal controls, it is alarming to learn that there are firms out there which lack any of the requirements that NFA is only now going to enforce."

But I find the following statement to be wholly revealing of MG's ignorance of the issue, "Sound business practices and internal controls are the decisive factors that are much more important than an increased net capital." Wrong. As the NFA has demonstrated sound business practices and internal controls are often directly related to net capital. Firms that are not well capitalized are far more likely to cut corners and not implement proper internal controls. That is the lesson from the demise of such firms as CFG. I find MG's obtuseness to these kinds of examples to be very disturbing.

All in all MG's statement is a dodge. Unlike I Trade FX, Gain Capital, Interbank FX and others there is no recognition of the seriousness of the capitalization problem the industry is currently facing. Certainly there are other issues that need to be addressed (in particular dealing practices which MG touched upon in their interview.) But none are more serious than capitalization. As such, MG's statement is a big disappointment.

 

[forex scholar]

Crunching the Numbers

One of the more interesting comments made about the proposed capital requirement was made by Todd Crosland of Interbank FX who said, "The NFA has proposed to raise the minimum net capital requirement to $5 million. If you offer greater than 100:1 leverage, you would have to maintain two times that amount, or $10 million." It's a point I have not stressed enough.

The minimum initial capital requirement is not the only capital requirement that firms have to make. There are other requirements as well and when they are added together they can quickly total $10 million. Let's do the math:

Should the proposal pass the following requirements will have to be met:

1) Minimum Initial Capital Requirement: $5 million

2) Requirement that firms offering 100:1 leverage set aside 10% of customer assets in additional capital. Assuming a firm has $30 million in customer assets: $3 million

3) CFTC concentration charges on outstanding open positions which can range from 6 to 20% of total net exposure. Assume a firm has $50 million in net exposure then 6% of 50 million would be: $3 million

As you can see when you add up all the various capital requirements most firms will need in excess of $10 million to be compliant. These cold, hard numbers are staring many of the poorly capitalized squarely in the face and no amount of spin can make them go away.

 

[forex scholar]

Switzerland's Swiss Cheese Regulation

For all the problems that exist in the U.S. domestic retail forex market they still pale in comparison to the problems that exist in the unregulated retail forex market. And it is here on the periphery of the respectable forex world that a whole host of firms operate outside any kind of regulatory scrutiny providing their customers with scant funds protection or any means to conduct any form of due diligence. In short, these firms are the damned of retail fx and woe be to the trader who opens an account with one of them since they are merely playing a game of Russian Roulette.

In the last few years firms have set up shop in unregulated locales all over the world from the Cayman Islands to Cyprus. From the British Virgin Islands to the Philippines to Belize. Yet no part of the world has attracted more unregulated forex broker dealers than has Switzerland.

Ah, Switzerland. Land of fine watches, exhilarating ski slopes and tasty chocolate. Renowned for its banking prowess and for being a pillar of international finance. On the face of it seems like Switzerland would be an ideal place to open a forex business since the Swiss of all people should be very knowledgeable about this most complicated of financial instruments. But that facade is easily torn away once you do some further digging and discover that the vast majority of Swiss forex broker dealers are not in the least bit regulated and for the most part are completely ignored by the Swiss Regulatory Establishment.

"But I go to the websites of these Swiss brokers and see all sorts of regulatory Acronyms referenced. What is that all about?"

Good question Smithers. You see, while Switzerland is well known for being a haven for high finance they are also well known for being a haven for drug kingpins, terrorists, Ex-Nazis on the run, deposed third world dictators, former Refco/Enron Executives and other money launderers and money swindlers as well. So to counter the problem the Swiss government requires any firm that holds customer assets belong to a self-regulatory body which requires member firms to obey certain anti-money laundering guidelines. There are a whole host of these organizations from OAR-G to Polyreg and ARIF. Membership in these associations does not mean the association is checking in on how the firm runs it forex business. Nor can one go to any of these organizations to ask for background information on their member firm. And if the firm goes bankrupt these associations could care less about helping you get your money back. In short, these anti-money laundering organizations are useless to the average forex trader. Listing membership in such an organization is in my opinion patently offensive since membership in that organization is of no benefit to traders.

There is one government body however that does regulate forex trading in Switzerland: The Swiss Federal Banking Commission. True, they regulate banks but they also offer licenses to Securities Dealers as well. Synthesis Bank has just such a license. You can also verify that license by going to the SFBC's website directly: http://www.ebk.ch/e/index.html

Yet the majority of Swiss forex brokers are not licensed by the SFBC because as the SFBC states on its own website (http://www.ebk.ch/e/faq/faq1.html) "Foreign Exchange dealers, provided that they exclusively deal in foreign exchange, are not subject to supervision by the SFBC." That lack of "supervision" is on full display right now in the case of Tradex Swiss AG (http://www.tradexfx.com/).

Tradex Swiss AG
Earlier this year the NFA barred Tradex from soliciting clients in the United States due to the fact they were not properly registered (http://www.nfa.futures.org/BasicNet/Details.aspx?entityid=0350721&rn=Y). As a side note the head of the Boston office of Tradex, Craig Karlis, is apparently trying to move on to bigger and better things. Several times this year Karlis tried to register a new firm by the name FX Nation Inc only to withdraw the FCM application with the NFA (http://www.nfa.futures.org/BasicNet/Details.aspx?entityid=0375959.) The latest withdrawal being as recently as July 30, 2007. Considering people can't even get money out of the last firm he was involved with you would think Karlis would know when to call it quits. Talk about churn em and burn em.

Anyway getting back to the main actor, Tradex Swiss AG. It appears that Swiss authorities shut them down. Although since Tradex has been very tight lipped it is hard to tell what is going on: http://www.hra.sz.ch/cgi-bin/fnrGet.cgi?fnr=0203027861&amt=130&lang=1&hrg_opt=11000&shab=0000000
But the bulletin boards have been flooded with angry customers (http://www.forexfactory.com/showthread.php?t=10894) who can't get their money out. And Tradex is not exactly going out of their way to provide their own traders with any information. One click on their website and all you get is this very disturbing message:

Dear Tradex Swiss AG Clients
Due to technical reasons, we wish to inform you that for the time being, we cannot accept any new account opening requests, or receive payments on existing accounts. For the same reason we also request all clients to close any open positions on their accounts, and to refrain from trading until further notice. We apologise for any inconvenience caused, and we expect to restore all operations in the near future.

Some inconvenience! Such is the peril of investing with an unregulated Swiss Broker. When things go wrong you are completely in the dark with no one to turn to. One day you are trading with such a firm, the next you go to the website and it is kaput while your funds are lost in purgatory.

The lesson? Avoid unregulated Swiss Brokers. The following Swiss brokers, like Tradex Swiss Ag, are not regulated:

WestCapFX
ACM
MIG
DukasCopy
GFX Group (Forex.CH)
Crown Forex

Forget the fancy sales pitches. Forget the Acronyms of the anti-money laundering organizations they belong to. Forget the spreads or the rolls or the foreign currency bank accounts they have. Ask them a simple question: Are you regulated and if you are please provide me with your registration number and a link where I can go and independently verify that you are indeed regulated. Absent that stay far, far away from Swiss Forex Broker Dealers. It just isn't worth the risk.

 

[forex scholar]

One World Forex with One Foot in the Grave

A few months ago the NFA filed a complaint against One World Forex that stated among other things, "One World lacked an understanding of, or was inattentive to, regulatory requirements and was ill prepared to accept customer business as either an FDM or an FCM. The firm had not established adequate systems to enable it to handle customer funds or comply with customer reporting requirements."
http://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/Case.aspx?entityid=0359973&case=07BCC00017&contrib=NFA

Well, with each passing day One World appears to be vindicating the NFA’s assessment as they continue their death spiral downward. The last few weeks I have been flooded with tips about One World Forex. No other firm in the Dead Pool has generated more feedback. And all that feedback has been overwhelmingly negative. But I have been holding back waiting for a clearer picture to emerge. However, this thread at an obscure bulletin board has provided me with the Smoking Gun on One World:
http://www.goldenmoneytree.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=692&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=100

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

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

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

Other traders have sent me private messages confirming the rough shape One World is in. The word on the street is that the situation at One World has become so dire that a large chunk of their sales force resigned because they hadn’t been paid for two months. Other traders are reporting non-responsive customer service, emails that go unanswered and phones that keep on ringing. All the signs of a firm in its last death throes…

The bottom line is when you can’t return a customer’s money when they ask for it you are finished in this business. One World may be able to limp on indefinitely but it is hard to see this firm making a comeback to respectability. Barring a fat sugar daddy willing to pump in ten million dollars this firm’s days appear to be numbered.