GUILTY Case# 2014-024 | Peace09 vs astonmarkets.com
- Thread starter Peace09
- Start date
-
- Tags
- guilty votes aston forex
nevadaoutlaw
Private, 1st Class
- Messages
- 40
No matter haw much due diligence the investor applied, if it is apparent the broker is at fault, a ruling needs to be issued. This could possibly help some other investor avoid similar circumstances. Having said that, I wish there was a universal statement, warning, whatever you want to call it, that was mandatory to be posted at every website about what to look for if the site requires investment funds to be posted. I realize that will never happen when brokers are in so many diversified locations, and governed, or not, by different rules. Oh well, another hopeful individual that got burned.
Alonedevils
Master Sergeant
- Messages
- 316
19.840 USD ?
Thats a large money ..
Thats a large money ..
UncleSteve
Corporal
- Messages
- 114
Yeah but that's the point of this, isn't it? By the time a broker is referred to negatively here in forums,reviewed poorly, had a case opened etc, there are hundreds if not thousands of web pages in the FPA servers. Google sees each one being created and if you due the minimum of due diligence - just search for their name - you see the effect of that.
And if they resolve the problem or get a not guilty "Ruling", that's what pops up if you follow the FPA links. So in return for resolving their mess-ups and doing the right thing for their customers, they get what amounts to a public endorsement.
This may be vigilante justice, but I for one thing that had something going for it...
dbrawner
Private, 1st Class
- Messages
- 49
Since the vote is in; this reply may never be read but here goes...
For those who feel I was too harsh, you may be correct and have a right to your opinion. I can be unforgiving at times.
For those who feel testing the waters with a small investment before committing a large amount of capital is sufficient due diligence I say; that is a wise strategy but not due diligence. Had the broker defaulted on the smaller deposit would you feel less angry, or less defrauded?
For those who feel that a "good deal" presented on an internet page is sufficient justification for an investment (regardless of the size) I say good luck. In Latin that "deal" required, no begged, the question, "cuo bono" ... to whose benefit.
As long as there is money to be made and people seeking to make it, there will be scammers ready to take some from the unwitting.
My votes on these cases reflect the end result of carefully considering what has been presented. I feel my comments and reasoning behind my consideration to be as valuable a contribution to the process as the vote itself.
It's too easy to get emotionally upset and personally vested in vengeance on the brokerage industry by voting guilty just because someone lost their investment capital (in many cases, capital that, by all normal standards, should not have been invested in the first place).
Due diligence today is relatively easy compared with 10 years ago. The same tool that discovered the "great deal" also provides the means to discover the good, the bad, and the ugly truths about that deal and its dealer... the internet.
FPA has huge resources to check out brokers, scams, and other educational resources regarding our chosen field of investing. I just want to be sure we are not becoming a crutch or recovery service for those unwilling to do a little checking before they invest.
Thanks for letting me rant too...
For those who feel I was too harsh, you may be correct and have a right to your opinion. I can be unforgiving at times.
For those who feel testing the waters with a small investment before committing a large amount of capital is sufficient due diligence I say; that is a wise strategy but not due diligence. Had the broker defaulted on the smaller deposit would you feel less angry, or less defrauded?
For those who feel that a "good deal" presented on an internet page is sufficient justification for an investment (regardless of the size) I say good luck. In Latin that "deal" required, no begged, the question, "cuo bono" ... to whose benefit.
As long as there is money to be made and people seeking to make it, there will be scammers ready to take some from the unwitting.
My votes on these cases reflect the end result of carefully considering what has been presented. I feel my comments and reasoning behind my consideration to be as valuable a contribution to the process as the vote itself.
It's too easy to get emotionally upset and personally vested in vengeance on the brokerage industry by voting guilty just because someone lost their investment capital (in many cases, capital that, by all normal standards, should not have been invested in the first place).
Due diligence today is relatively easy compared with 10 years ago. The same tool that discovered the "great deal" also provides the means to discover the good, the bad, and the ugly truths about that deal and its dealer... the internet.
FPA has huge resources to check out brokers, scams, and other educational resources regarding our chosen field of investing. I just want to be sure we are not becoming a crutch or recovery service for those unwilling to do a little checking before they invest.
Thanks for letting me rant too...
Pharaoh
Brigadier General
- Messages
- 20,310
Although I do agree that far too many traders are like suicidal sheep running towards the slaughterhouse without a thought about what's going to happen, I still find that to be no reason to vote Not Guilty.
Yes, this case could have had more evidence. On the other hand, the company that has the money failed to reply either to their own client or to the FPA. If a company holding client money can't be bothered to send a quick email, I see no choice but to vote Guilty.
Part of those resources the FPA has to help traders is easy access to stories like this about a company accepting client funds and then cutting off all contact.
Yes, this case could have had more evidence. On the other hand, the company that has the money failed to reply either to their own client or to the FPA. If a company holding client money can't be bothered to send a quick email, I see no choice but to vote Guilty.
Part of those resources the FPA has to help traders is easy access to stories like this about a company accepting client funds and then cutting off all contact.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
