Is FBS legit? http://www.fbs.com/ ?ppk= myinsurance

[FBS Official Rep]

From my point of view, publicly warning traders about what appears to be a very bad deal is not throwing dirt or negativity. It's clarifying what some clients don't understand so they can stay with your company and pay lower fees. They will see "insure your money". I doubt even one of the people who uses this on a regular basis sat down with a calculator and determined that the best which could be hoped for was to pay a minimum of $120 for every $100 of potential benefit.

Again you skip answering my questions. Is this because you won't or because you can't?

Explain how this insurance suits the needs of anyone other than FBS. Under "perfect" circumstances, the client pays $120 and gets exactly $100. Under imperfect circumstances, the client could wipe out the account before reaching the minimum trade volume and be eligible to collect nothing. Or, the client could continue to pay extra trading fees above $120 without ever qualifying for the $100. What possible benefit can this provide to a client?

Explain why you won't even comment on my far more generous offer to you. I'll even be more flexible with the terms to meet your needs. If you like, I'll change it to any amount, as long as the premium is 10% above the maximum payout. If you like, you can pay in small installments and the policy will immediately apply to the part you've already paid for, again with payments collected to date being 10% above the maximum payout. Do you see any way in which the deal I'm offering you is inferior to the deal you are offering your own clients? If so, please explain. Do you see anything wrong with the insurance deal I'm offering you? If so, please explain.

Dear Pharaoh

I think it is wonderful that you take such care in traders just as we do at FBS – in this respect we are indeed likeminded.

We created this promotion with the aim to provide clients with the opportunity to insure and save their funds while trading.

The choice is always left up to the trader. We simply provide the opportunity – and if a client feels that the promotion will benefit them, it is there for their disposal.

All traders are different and use different trading strategies. Deposit insurance provides clients with the opportunity to return the insured amount in full or partly in case of un-expected losses.

As an example, some traders take the approach of riskier trading, such as trading on news. Traders who take huge risks – may not be as concerned about a 1 pip increase as other traders, and benefit with deposit insurance by returning their funds in case of losses.

Traders that connect this promotion, understand that there is an amount of lots that needs to be traded and are ok with this condition, because, ultimately, they are investing in something that they feel will benefit them in the future. I would like to state once more, to all readers, that it is important to always read the full list of promotional details prior to participating in the promotion - If you have any questions about the conditions, our customer support is happy to explain and answer your questions 24 hours a day 5 days a week.

Another good point to note, is that cash-back and partner commission continues to be paid out on insured accounts, because we work for the benefit of our clients.

FBS has tight spreads, and even with a one pip increase, the spreads are beneficial and well to work with for traders.

I thank you and value your opinion Pharaoh, but please try not to make hasty judgement only on their behalf. There is no need in searching for the downsides, where there are non – because we are on the side of out traders.

Please let me know if you have any further question, I will be happy to answer them.

 

[Pharaoh]

You created the opportunity to pay a minimum of $120 to be able to get back $100 in losses. News traders will still have to pay $10 extra per lot on 12 lots of volume to qualify. So far, nothing you have said shows this is in any way better than selling $100 bills for $120. In many ways, its worse. Payments must be made over time and the trader who meets volume requirements may end up at breakeven or in profit - but would be $120+ more in profit without the insurance scheme.

And you again skipped answering any questions about my offer of a far better insurance deal. I wonder why? ;-)

 

[FBS Official Rep]

You created the opportunity to pay a minimum of $120 to be able to get back $100 in losses. News traders will still have to pay $10 extra per lot on 12 lots of volume to qualify. So far, nothing you have said shows this is in any way better than selling $100 bills for $120. In many ways, its worse. Payments must be made over time and the trader who meets volume requirements may end up at breakeven or in profit - but would be $120+ more in profit without the insurance scheme.

And you again skipped answering any questions about my offer of a far better insurance deal. I wonder why? ;-)

Hello Pharaoh

We create an opportunity, yes, for clients to utilize if they feel that it is beneficial for them. If a traders strategy is scalping, then the deposit insurance may not be beneficial (still remains the traders choice) but for traders who are trading on news, we truly believe that, for them, having a one pip increase on spread is indeed beneficial when it comes to high risk of unexpected losses. Once again, the choice remains, up to the trader. We have a large amount of traders who connect the Deposit Insurance to each of their deposits, and they are aware of all the promotional conditions.

In regards to your offer, I see no relevance at all to the issue at hand, and no relevance to FBS Deposit Insurance. I may suggest, that you create a website and start an Insurance company if you wish.

Thank you

 

[Pharaoh]

You are incredibly good at attempting to divert attention away from the FACT that you are selling $100 of coverage for a MINIMUM price of $120.

So the closest you can come to commenting on my offer is that it's unrelated. No comments about how it was for a lower rate, had far less rules attached, and could even be collected in the event your trades were profitable. Obviously, I would not start such a company for 2 reasons. The first is that I laid out my terms in a much more obvious way, so fewer people would fall for the foolishness of paying a markup. The second is that I don't believe in taking advantage of innocent traders through unethical offers. Unfortunately, your offer is written in a way which requires careful reading and calculation, and you appear to not care about benefiting your clients by charging at least $120 for $100 in benefits.

I had hoped this thread would be enough to point out the errors in logic and ethics to you. I see that the extra profits you are raking in with the very bad deal for your clients have either blinded you to how horrible the deal is for clients or have numbed your conscience enough that you don't mind inflicting this sort of abuse on your customers.

If you were in the USA, I'd happily report this beneficial deal to the Federal Trade Commission. Instead, I guess I'll have to ask AsstModerator to take a look and consider a warning on the FBS review page.

 

[FBS Official Rep]

You are incredibly good at attempting to divert attention away from the FACT that you are selling $100 of coverage for a MINIMUM price of $120.

So the closest you can come to commenting on my offer is that it's unrelated. No comments about how it was for a lower rate, had far less rules attached, and could even be collected in the event your trades were profitable. Obviously, I would not start such a company for 2 reasons. The first is that I laid out my terms in a much more obvious way, so fewer people would fall for the foolishness of paying a markup. The second is that I don't believe in taking advantage of innocent traders through unethical offers. Unfortunately, your offer is written in a way which requires careful reading and calculation, and you appear to not care about benefiting your clients by charging at least $120 for $100 in benefits.

I had hoped this thread would be enough to point out the errors in logic and ethics to you. I see that the extra profits you are raking in with the very bad deal for your clients have either blinded you to how horrible the deal is for clients or have numbed your conscience enough that you don't mind inflicting this sort of abuse on your customers.

If you were in the USA, I'd happily report this beneficial deal to the Federal Trade Commission. Instead, I guess I'll have to ask AsstModerator to take a look and consider a warning on the FBS review page.

Dear Pharaoh

Not once have I diverted the attention away from the fact that there is a one pip spread increase on the account of Deposited Insurance. Please clarify where I have done so.

I believe that this thread is a wonderful opportunity for discussing the different opinion views on the promotion of Deposit Insurance.

Your opinion, that you feel this promotion is not beneficial was received, and some traders may very well agree with you - in which case, they simply do no connect this promotion. Once again I will state, that many of our traders are very happy and enjoy the benefits of said promotion. Stating that this is a VERY bad deal, is simply your opinion. In essence a trader pays $20 to RETURN $100 that they LOST in trading. It all come down to personal preference and own opinion.

It is not fair to cancel a promotion for traders who feel it is beneficial and use this promotion, because you feel that it is bad.

I am not familiar with the laws of the United States - wу are not in the USA nor does FBS provide services for US traders.

Please let me know what else I may help you with.

 

[Pharaoh]

Not once have I diverted the attention away from the fact that there is a one pip spread increase on the account of Deposited Insurance. Please clarify where I have done so.

I believe that this thread is a wonderful opportunity for discussing the different opinion views on the promotion of Deposit Insurance.

Your opinion, that you feel this promotion is not beneficial was received, and some traders may very well agree with you - in which case, they simply do no connect this promotion. Once again I will state, that many of our traders are very happy and enjoy the benefits of said promotion. Stating that this is a VERY bad deal, is simply your opinion. In essence a trader pays $20 to RETURN $100 that they LOST in trading. It all come down to personal preference and own opinion.

And there you go. You admit the 1 pip spread increase, but are claiming someone spent $20 to get $100 back.

Let me put it as a VERY simple example to you.

Trader A signs up for your "insurance", which costs him an extra pip of spread.

The trader makes 10 trades in a row of 1 lot each on the EURUSD, averaging a 1 pip loss on each trade. He's now down $100, but still must trade 2 more lots, costing $20 to qualify for getting his $100 back.

And you really claim he spent $20 to get back $100. Amazing!, until you look at Trader B.

Trader B doesn't sign up for insurance. He makes exactly the same trades, but doesn't get his spread marked up. At the end of 10 trades, he's at breakeven. In other words, he has $100 more in his accont as Trader A. If he and Trader A both make 2 more 1 lot trades and then Trader A gets his $100 back.

So, in the end, Trader A and Trader B made exactly the same trades. Trader A ended up getting the most direct route to getting his insurance, and ends up with 20 less than a trader with no insurance. He didn't pay $20 to get $100. He paid $120 to get back $100 which he didn't have to lose.

Let's check 2 more traders.

The there's trader C. He takes the insurance, does 10 trades of 1 lot averaging breakeven. He's paid $100 into the insurance plan, but has no losses, so cant get any money back.

Trader D skipped the insurance and is taking the same signals as Trader C. His otherwise identical trades have given him $100 in profit.

If Traders C and D go on this way, Trader C will keep paying away potential profits for insurance and Trader D will keep racking up profits.


As anyone can see, Traders B and D are the ones benefiting - at the end of every trading day, they are financially better off than traders making the same trades who pay for "FBS insurance", even if the insurance is exercised at the earliest point of eligibility.


A typical lottery is a tax on those who are bad with math. The FBS insurance program is a way to extract an extra $10 per lot from traders who didn't sit down and do the math.

 

[FBS Official Rep]

And there you go. You admit the 1 pip spread increase, but are claiming someone spent $20 to get $100 back.

Let me put it as a VERY simple example to you.

Trader A signs up for your "insurance", which costs him an extra pip of spread.

The trader makes 10 trades in a row of 1 lot each on the EURUSD, averaging a 1 pip loss on each trade. He's now down $100, but still must trade 2 more lots, costing $20 to qualify for getting his $100 back.

And you really claim he spent $20 to get back $100. Amazing!, until you look at Trader B.

Trader B doesn't sign up for insurance. He makes exactly the same trades, but doesn't get his spread marked up. At the end of 10 trades, he's at breakeven. In other words, he has $100 more in his accont as Trader A. If he and Trader A both make 2 more 1 lot trades and then Trader A gets his $100 back.

So, in the end, Trader A and Trader B made exactly the same trades. Trader A ended up getting the most direct route to getting his insurance, and ends up with 20 less than a trader with no insurance. He didn't pay $20 to get $100. He paid $120 to get back $100 which he didn't have to lose.

Let's check 2 more traders.

The there's trader C. He takes the insurance, does 10 trades of 1 lot averaging breakeven. He's paid $100 into the insurance plan, but has no losses, so cant get any money back.

Trader D skipped the insurance and is taking the same signals as Trader C. His otherwise identical trades have given him $100 in profit.

If Traders C and D go on this way, Trader C will keep paying away potential profits for insurance and Trader D will keep racking up profits.


As anyone can see, Traders B and D are the ones benefiting - at the end of every trading day, they are financially better off than traders making the same trades who pay for "FBS insurance", even if the insurance is exercised at the earliest point of eligibility.


A typical lottery is a tax on those who are bad with math. The FBS insurance program is a way to extract an extra $10 per lot from traders who didn't sit down and do the math.

Hello Pharaoh

Trader A, B, C and D - all have different trading strategies and have their own reasons and needs for signing for the Deposit Insurance.

If a trader - has a risky strategy and feels that there is a fairly high chance that one of his/her trades (for example on the news) may not go as planned and end up in losses, for them a 1 pip increase is worth investing, so that they may have the opportunity to get the funds back from FBS.

I would like to point out:

• If a client traded from 50% to 70 % of required lots by the time of insured event occurrence, 30% of insured amount will be compensated
• If a client traded from 71% to 90 % of required lots by the time of insured event occurrence, 40% of insured amount will be compensated
• If a client traded from 91% to 99 % of required lots by the time of insured event occurrence, 50% of insured amount will be compensated

Once the necessary lots are traded, the 1 pip increase on the account is cancelled - and the client keeps that insurance, for any time in the future - when it becomes necessary.

Deposit Insurance, is not a necessity - it is a choice - an offer - a possibility provided for those traders who wish to connect the services for their purposes.

Thank you.

 

[Pharaoh]

I see one small good thing for traders in this terribly unfair plan of yours in your prior post. It seems that once a person meets the requirements for 100% of the overpriced insurance, the extra pip of spread ends.

The rest would fall into the "consumer unfriendly" category.

Wow! A trader has paid $119 of the $120 premium and doesn't have enough cash left to trade another 1/10 of a lot. The trader can get back $50.

Traders A and B were making identical trades. Traders C and D were making identical trades. Since the concept that they might indeed have similar goals, allow me to simplify the problem even further:

Trader 1 decides to test the desirability of the FBS Insurance scheme. He opens a pair of accounts (A and B). Via a fast trade copier, he places trades on a demo which are simultaneously mirrored to his live account. All trades are for 1 lot on the EURUSD

Account A has 100% insurance on $100. After 10 trades of 1 lot, it averages 1 pip loss per trade, so it down $100. This account has now completed 83% of the required 12 lots, so is eligible for only a $40 refund. The next two trades average breakeven, the account now can get the full reimbursement of $100.

Account B has no insurance. After 10 trades of 1 lot without the wider spread, it ends 10 lots at breakeven ($100 above Account A). The next two trades average a 1 pip gain (due to the narrower spread), resulting in $20 more profit which Account A did not get.

So, at 10 lots, Account B was $100 ahead of account A. If Account A has enough left to keep trading and collects insurance, Account B still ends up with $20 more money.

If Trader 1 looks at the math carefully, I doubt that he'd immediately re-insure Account A or add insurance to Account B.


Trader 2 also decides to test the desirability of the FBS Insurance scheme. He opens a pair of accounts (C and D). Via a fast trade copier, he places trades on a demo which are simultaneously mirrored to his live account. All trades are for 1 lot on the EURUSD.

Account C has 100% insurance on $100. After 10 trades of 1 lot, it averages to breakeven. The next two trades average breakeven, the account now reverts to normal spread.

Account D has no insurance. After 10 trades of 1 lot without the wider spread, it ends 10 lots with $100 profit. The next two trades average a 1 pip gain (due to the narrower spread), resulting in $20 more profit profit which Account C did not get.

So, at 10 lots, Account D was $100 ahead of account C. After 12 trades, Account D is $120 ahead of account C. If later account C loses $100 and the insurance is activated, Account D's lead will drop to $20.

If Trader 1 looks at the math carefully, I doubt that he'd immediately re-insure Account C or add insurance to Account D.


The ONLY scenario where the insured account can ever be ahead of the uninsured account are where both accounts suffer a total loss. Traders who trade that way will be very likely to quickly wipe out what little money they get back in insurance. Even this scenario can easily be avoided by uninsured traders - just shove a $10 bill into a piggy bank for every lot traded. 100% of the money places into this insurance fund can be used as loss compensation at any time. Even if the trader wants to stop at $100, only $100 went into the fund to achieve this, not $120.

FBS insurance is a clever marketing gimmick designed primarily to let the company suck more money out of traders who aren't doing the math.

 

[FBS Official Rep]

I see one small good thing for traders in this terribly unfair plan of yours in your prior post. It seems that once a person meets the requirements for 100% of the overpriced insurance, the extra pip of spread ends.

The rest would fall into the "consumer unfriendly" category.

Wow! A trader has paid $119 of the $120 premium and doesn't have enough cash left to trade another 1/10 of a lot. The trader can get back $50.

Traders A and B were making identical trades. Traders C and D were making identical trades. Since the concept that they might indeed have similar goals, allow me to simplify the problem even further:

Trader 1 decides to test the desirability of the FBS Insurance scheme. He opens a pair of accounts (A and B). Via a fast trade copier, he places trades on a demo which are simultaneously mirrored to his live account. All trades are for 1 lot on the EURUSD

Account A has 100% insurance on $100. After 10 trades of 1 lot, it averages 1 pip loss per trade, so it down $100. This account has now completed 83% of the required 12 lots, so is eligible for only a $40 refund. The next two trades average breakeven, the account now can get the full reimbursement of $100.

Account B has no insurance. After 10 trades of 1 lot without the wider spread, it ends 10 lots at breakeven ($100 above Account A). The next two trades average a 1 pip gain (due to the narrower spread), resulting in $20 more profit which Account A did not get.

So, at 10 lots, Account B was $100 ahead of account A. If Account A has enough left to keep trading and collects insurance, Account B still ends up with $20 more money.

If Trader 1 looks at the math carefully, I doubt that he'd immediately re-insure Account A or add insurance to Account B.


Trader 2 also decides to test the desirability of the FBS Insurance scheme. He opens a pair of accounts (C and D). Via a fast trade copier, he places trades on a demo which are simultaneously mirrored to his live account. All trades are for 1 lot on the EURUSD.

Account C has 100% insurance on $100. After 10 trades of 1 lot, it averages to breakeven. The next two trades average breakeven, the account now reverts to normal spread.

Account D has no insurance. After 10 trades of 1 lot without the wider spread, it ends 10 lots with $100 profit. The next two trades average a 1 pip gain (due to the narrower spread), resulting in $20 more profit profit which Account C did not get.

So, at 10 lots, Account D was $100 ahead of account C. After 12 trades, Account D is $120 ahead of account C. If later account C loses $100 and the insurance is activated, Account D's lead will drop to $20.

If Trader 1 looks at the math carefully, I doubt that he'd immediately re-insure Account C or add insurance to Account D.


The ONLY scenario where the insured account can ever be ahead of the uninsured account are where both accounts suffer a total loss. Traders who trade that way will be very likely to quickly wipe out what little money they get back in insurance. Even this scenario can easily be avoided by uninsured traders - just shove a $10 bill into a piggy bank for every lot traded. 100% of the money places into this insurance fund can be used as loss compensation at any time. Even if the trader wants to stop at $100, only $100 went into the fund to achieve this, not $120.

FBS insurance is a clever marketing gimmick designed primarily to let the company suck more money out of traders who aren't doing the math.

Hello Pharaoh

I feel it is unfortunate that you feel so strongly against a promotion that others feel is beneficial for them. Since we both work for the benefit and in the interest of our clients, on behalf of FPA you have thoroughly explained and advised traders about this promotion. Thank you.

Dear traders - I always advise everyone to read all promotional conditions thoroughly prior to signing up for the promotion. If you have any questions or need assistance or explanation, FBS customer support is available 24hrs a day 5 days a week for your convenience.

Please let me know if you have any further question or require assistance from me. We wish everyone happy and profitable trading!

 

[Pharaoh]

You can advise them all you like and most won't sit down and do the calculations. If you simply stated "If you want to fully insure $100 against losses, you will need to pay $120 in additional spread." as boldly as you proclaim the other benefits, you would undoubtedly see the number of people taking up this offer decline dramatically.