This is a reference to UT Markets. It's another amazing investment opportunity which can't seem to handle it if enough clients withdraw. You can read about them, their defenders, and their collapse (in progress) here:
https://www.forexpeacearmy.com/comm...ar-of-utmarkets-forex-broker-in-london.42431/
Pharaoh, thanks for your message.
I'm not sure about your trading skills but it's proven that 12% a month is possible in forex if you invest enough time and effort. Maybe the fact that there's a software doing the trades is not very convincing but the fact that the trades are good is real.
In my original message where I spoke about the credibility of Exential, I was talking about the credibility of their contract which says they will return the money to investors even if they lose in trading.
I don't think any of the investors (including me) believed that they will return any money in case of loss in forex. That's what i meant by credibility, I didn't mean that we suspected they are Ponzi and still we invested with them!
The definition of a Ponzi scheme is clear to all and nobody is arguing if it's a crime or no.
If you have any sensible proofs that they were not trading please share it with us.
Thanks and Regards.
Proving they are not trading would be similar to proving that Bernie Madoff wasn't trading. The truth in a Ponzi is often that a small amount of money is traded (typically unprofitably) and most of the rest is either skimmed off or used to pay new investors. You have to look for the warning signs, since proof is only inside the company's closed books.
1. Yes, a really good forex trader could make 12% for several months in a row. Such a trader might even average 12% a month for a year. On the other hand, I have yet to see any trader who could score even 10% or above per month year in and year out with no losses. The greatest money forex traders will have bad weeks, months, or even years. A fixed return of an unsustainably high interest rate is a massive warning sign of a Ponzi.
2. Lies about details are another warning sign. Pooled investments don't require an LPOA, since the account is not in the client's name. So, how to we explain this:
Ok.
In order for me to explain this, I need to clarify few things. I know most of the people are much more educated than me in forex but for those who are not, here is the Explaination.
In the business plan of EG, there are 2 parties.
1. T*d*wul me : Money manager
This company have taken LPOA from all of us in order to do the trading on our accounts which is suppose to be held with broker. ( F*I or Ellip$Y$ )
2. F*l or Ellip$Y$ : financial brokers used by EG in order to conduct trading and use their platform and hold our money.
In order for EG to be legitimate and do the trading, our money is suppose to be with financial brokers but when I sent an email to F*I and asked them for trading statement, they replied back that they don't have my account and therefore I checked the same with my RM and he said its under the master account.
Master Account : it's the account of EG with FC* and according to my RM and even the TL my account is under the master account of EG but the financial broker doesn't recognize me as a client and therefore even IF (A big IF) my account is under the master account (which is in the name of EG) EG have all the rights to withdraw deposit and claim any payments from that account, and in this scenario the LPOA signed by me becomes VOID and it's a clear case of commercial fraud.
I.E. Money Manager = Financial broker.
It's my personal findings with my lawyer which we will proove it in court very soon.
Suggestion: please send an email to the broker and ask for your trading statement in order to find out whether your account is with financial broker or your money is just rolling to others
Looks to me like the LPOA was just to reassure the client. Now the client has no trading account in his own name to go with the LPOA and no way to check on what trades did or did not happen.
3. If trading this amazingly successful was going on, the moment the DED stepped in, trading records proving the superhuman trading abilities of Exential's team would have been provided. The investigators would have rushed to get Exential reopened - so they could invest their life savings into the plan. So far, I see no signs of this happening.
4. A real investment of the profitability claimed by Exential wouldn't be damaged very much by client withdrawals. After all, if I worked at a place which could pay out that much profit per month and still make enough to pay my salary, I'd be in the perfect position to see if it was real and invest my life savings if it was. I'd also be dragging in my friends and relatives. The employees and their immediate families alone would provide more than enough profit to keep the office running by now. Yet, somehow Exential has trouble paying clients and keeps wanting them to sign off on longer and longer delays. Show me any legitimate investment which would have such symptoms. The real reason for these symptoms is that Exential employees would never put their own money into what they know is a scam, and all that supposedly traded money has been spent. Without new investors, there's not enough cash to continue payouts.
If only more people had reported this sooner, the scam could have been shut down faster.
