NFA bans locking from 15 May 2009 - page 27
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Those DCs that will ban lock from 15 May are guaranteed not to have any problems with payouts of earnings.
Did you want to give some opinion about reliability of such brokerage companies? Justify it, nobody will take your word for it. What do locs and payouts have to do with it?
Did you want to make a comment about reliability of such brokerage companies? Justify it, no one will just take your word for it. How are lots and payouts connected?
The ban is imposed by the NFA, i.e. those DCs are in a regulated space. They have deposited XX million of their own money as collateral, i.e. even if the DC goes bankrupt, clients will not lose anything. In case of any misunderstanding with brokerage companies, clients have to complain to NFA and the complaint will be solved in their favor. NFA is not CRUFOR, on which all do not care, they have real power.
Or rather, if there is an "issue" in the DC-client relationship, then:
1. in 85% just a call/letter to the DC solves everything in favour of the client. If it doesn't work, then
2. 14% of calls/letters to the brokerage company with a note that they will complain to the authorities and everything works out in the client's favour. If it doesn't work, then
3. in 1% you still have to complain to the regulator and everything works out in favour of the client.
So in regulated companies everything is always decided in favour of the client, even if the client is wrong.
If there is an "issue" in the DC-customer relationship, then:
1. In 85% just a call/letter to the DC solves everything in favour of the client.
I.e. in regulated companies everything is always resolved in favour of the client, even if the client is wrong.
+1
Tested.
The ban is imposed by the NFA, i.e. those DCs are in a regulated space. They have deposited XX million of their own money as collateral, i.e. even if the DC goes bankrupt, clients will not lose anything. In case of any misunderstanding with brokerage companies, clients have to complain to NFA and the complaint will be solved in their favor. NFA is not CRUFOR, on which all do not care, they have real power.
Or rather, if there is an "issue" in the DC-client relationship, then:
1. in 85% just a call/letter to the DC solves everything in favour of the client. If it doesn't work, then
2. 14% of calls/letters to the brokerage company with a note that they will complain to the authorities and everything works out in the client's favour. If it doesn't work, then
3. in 1% you still have to complain to the regulator and everything works out in favour of the client.
I.e. in regulated companies everything is always decided in favour of the client, even if the client is wrong.
Sorry for getting in the way again...
:)))
This is the right way to go:
- If the client has a problem, the NFA will solve it.
That goes without saying...
*
However, in bankruptcy... to satisfy the settlement with customers apparently:
1. The amount of the statutory fund has to be = or > the amount of the client's money
For the nearest future the NFA has fixed 30 mio American rubles.
It seems to me, judging by some "scam offices" where there were amounts almost an order of magnitude higher
This 30 mio depo dealing is below average...
2. Satisfaction after bankruptcy will be proportional.
Certainly not ZERO, but not all...
3. the NFA for full satisfaction then has to limit the total client depo.
*
That's off-topic...
Let them burst with excitement.
Old Europe will be wiser, and with years of experience...
That's more accurate:
- If a customer has a problem, the NFA will solve it
In principle, this is self-evident...
*
However, in bankruptcy... to satisfy their clients apparently:
1. The amount of the statutory fund must be = or > the amount of the client's money
For the nearest future the NFA has fixed 30 mio American rubles.
It seems to me, judging by some "scam offices" where there were amounts almost an order of magnitude higher
this 30 mio depo dealing is below average...
It would be truer to say that if there is an NFA hanging over the dealing desk, the dealing desk itself will quickly arrange everything to satisfy the client. Everyone understands this, especially clients of unregulated DCs.
Very misunderstanding of the essence of bankruptcy. Did Russia go broke in '98? No, there was still a lot left in the back of the country that did not prevent it from going bankrupt.
Bankruptcy does not mean that a company has no money at all. Bankruptcy is the inability to meet current liabilities. The NFA believes that $30 million is enough. Have any of the NFA-controlled companies bilked their clients?
Have any of the NFA-controlled companies bilked their clients?
Whether those companies were controlled or not has not been investigated...
(Moreover, in addition to companies, the NFA also controls individuals)
But I used to read "news from the NFA fields" ;)))
Translations of NFA publications on various forums...
*
As the most striking example REFCO forex division clients
Shaw flew like plywood over Paris...
Did you want to make a point about the reliability of such DCs? Justify it, no one will just take your word for it. How are locks and payouts connected?
What does reliability and locs have to do with it?
Does the cancellation of locks increase reliability or something?
Timbo, you are cleverly evading the answer...
What does reliability and locs have to do with it?
Does abolishing locs increase reliability or something?
Timbo, you have cleverly dodged the question...
Is this the way to throw yourself at everyone to make yourself look sophisticated? Although I disagree with Timbo on some issues, but they are not fundamental, and he has more KNOWLEDGE than some of his opponents. No one has abolished logical thinking...
What does reliability and locs have to do with it?
What, does cancelling locs increase reliability or something?
Timbo, you're cleverly evading...
No, he wrote it clearly. The arguments are the same as those in favour of deposits in Sberbank, all the grannies keep their savings there because they think "What about it! It's a state bank! Nothing is safer than the state!" and by virtue of senility, atherosclerosis and memory loss.
Sorry timbo, but your argument doesn't stretch to a guarantee. Rather on the formulation "these DCs have comparatively higher reliability due to compliance with NFA regulations and NFA supervision, and the NFA is much more authoritative than, say, the CRUFM".
P.S. Marasmus and other nastiness in any case do not take it personally, I respect your knowledge in this area, but still try to filter :)
Personally, I don't give a shit. No money is given away for free here.
So I don't give a shit about Western DC's propaganda.
And it is forbidden to discuss kitchens in general.