Problem Danny Wall, 4 squared, 4sqa.com SCAM

[Chaz McHan]

To me, no. If you are an individual taking "investments", you do not continue to receive funds when you can't pay your debts.

Wouldn't this insure that your money is gone for good? If he can't do what he does to make money, then he can't overcome his debts, right?

There is something fundamentally wrong with your investment scheme if this is what you do.

Well, maybe so. At least it might be an indication to him that he should get into another line of work... and an indication to his potential investors that he might not be the right guy for the job.

You cannot be illiquid or you are running a ponzi scheme.

No, that's not the definition of a Ponzi scheme.

What it seems like you are saying here is that something happened to put him in the red. The escape from the red is to bring in new investor money. Is this not Ponzi defined?

No, not quite. A Ponzi scheme is defined by paying old investors with new investors' money. Bringing in new investor money to earn money for THOSE investors and then paying debts with his own portion of the earnings (contracted profit-sharing, commissions, whatever) is legitimate. I DO NOT know that this is what Wall is doing, though. Again, I am just playing Devil's advocate in order to see if my "what ifs" hold up to your scrutiny.

Once Madoff was in the red, if he called it quits, returned what he could and went to prison then think how many lives he would not have destroyed.

No, Madoff never invested the investment money. He paid earlier investors with later investors' money. No investments. No trading. Just stealing.

Instead he did what it seems you propose Danny to do, kept bringing in new money on the hopes he could "turn it around." Maybe I am misunderstanding you but I do not agree with this logic and I can not in good conscious stand by while other money is brought in from someone else to pay me. The pyramid will collapse somewhere.

Agreed, if that's what he's doing. JAIL! JAIL! JAIL! My question is: Is it possible that he's looking for more investment money from which to earn profits for his new investors and EARN his own legitimate, disclosed portion, and then in turn use his OWN portion to pay off his own debts?

So... "2. If he was taking other people's money and then paying you (and the others) with it, then he would be running a Ponzi scheme. The fact that he's taken in more money (what his job entails) and not made the payments (for possibly real reasons) doesn't automatically spell fraud or scam to me."

My point there was that if it was Ponzi, he'd have paid you already from new investor money, right? He didn't use that new money to pay you, but (is it possible?) to invest for those new investors. This might further explain his face-saving and time-buying lies/excuses. Again, just hypothetical.

What could the real reason be? It all got stolen? Lost it in a a bad trade? Regardless, the funds were GUARANTEED to be returned. If you do not hold sufficient funds to guarantee you can return what you took in, when that is what you state you will do, you are scamming.

OK... I can't think of any possible or even hypothetical defense for this part. You are 100% correct here. I advise investors to RUN FAR AND FAST away from investment "managers" making profit guarantees. It's irresponsible and unethical... and in some place and under some conditions, ILLEGAL, even felonious.

Guaranteed returned funds should not be held in such a way that they can be lost. Stolen??? All his money from a errand runner?? That is a joke or this guy is a complete idiot to place ALL his money with an errand runner.

Again, I agree 100%. Was the guarantee in writing with a specific date? These elements make it a slam dunk.

He did guarantee the $1000 would be returned to me. He was to provide instruction to me, which was mediocre at best, trade my money, double it and then return my principal back to me and he would keep what he made off of it. ... These were both in his "guaranteed" pools.

WOW. This is totally illegal... unless he's licensed to pool money, which I tend to doubt.

He used to have forms he made up on him "guaranteeing" the return of these funds which are inaccessible now but some of the victims have hard copies of them.

I'd love to see one of these forms.

Quite simply he needs to pay it back because he said he guaranteed he would, that's it.

Agreed, but this principal doesn't address the time line he might use or need to use to do so. That form probably does, though, right?

I'm kind of wondering what meets your definition of scam exactly?

Well, even according to the legal definition, "fraud" requires INTENT TO DEFRAUD.

Guaranteeing the return of funds, not doing so, and then moving on to collect more funds speaks of nothing but scam to me.

Not necessarily "scam," BUT yes to "stupidity," "arrogance," "incompetence!" One more thing I should say it is... but this does NOT mean it's an intentional fraud... By guaranteeing the return of funds, etc., etc., he acted UNETHICALLY and way outside "best practice." He's a marketer who seems to be all about self-promotion. He's obviously skilled in this area and would make a very good "team member" somewhere. Ideally, he'd have a legal/compliance department which would keep him (and his exuberance, salesmanship, etc.) in check and make sure he stays within the parameters of defined business ethics and best practice. Not to mention, ideally, he'd not have his daughter's BFF making bank runs, but would have an accounting department as well. LOL

I do not know your friend who had this problem. I would not want to smear someone who did not deserve it either. If this dude was honest about what was going on, things might be different, his stories are just complete BS and unbelievable.

Agreed.

The funds were guaranteed returned. If you can't guarantee the return when you say you will then you are a scam.

Nah. This is where I disagree. This is not what makes you a scam, as I've written above. It is enough to make someone suspect a scam, however, and dig in and do research (as you have done!). It's also enough for me to say "RUN! DON'T TRUST THIS GUY WITH YOUR MONEY! TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW!" (as you have done, and I will do.) It's not enough, though, to accuse someone of having the "intent to defraud."

Just to show you how this guy operates look here:

International Organization of Sales Trainers & Speakers » Danny E Wall

Like I said, he's a MASTER self-promoter. I'd hire him to sell vacuum cleaners, if that was my business. I wouldn't touch him with a ten-foot pole, though, as a trader, trainer, or even as a referring agent for me.

Brendon Burchard Official Site

Let me know your thoughts. In addition the site on the first link iosts.org claims Brendon Burchard is the president of the company. I have contacted Brendon Burchard and he says he is not and has no idea who Danny Wall is.

Whoa... REALLY? How can he have the balls to actually feature someone like this as if he was a partner behind that person's back??? We live in the information age, after all. Anyone can find out anytime. This kinda shocks me.

Don't get me wrong I appreciate your feedback on this and I looked at your site and see you are a trader yourself. Any comments you have are appreciated.

Yeah, thanks. And again, I am NOT trying to defend this joker... and BTW... I watched a couple of his videos and I have to tell you that HE'S AN IDIOT. He doesn't really know what he's talking about. I am sure he knows more than the average Joe, but not anything close to close to close enough to be a teacher and trainer, especially for the money he requires of people for the service.

His take was mind-numbing on the new NFA regulation lowering the margin for US-based traders at US-based brokerage houses to 50:1. I am an aggressive trader and I almost never exceed 20:1 and usually stay within 5:1 limits. I also was upset about the new regulation because it takes away some elastic in the margin to guard against momentary spikes due to liquidity loss. That's all. HE, on the other hand, claims it's the "end of spot trading" and that the kinds of profits earned in the past are no longer possible, etc. What hogwash!

RUN!

 

[vincam]

To me, no. If you are an individual taking "investments", you do not continue to receive funds when you can't pay your debts.

Wouldn't this insure that your money is gone for good? If he can't do what he does to make money, then he can't overcome his debts, right?

Probably, but it depends on what we believe he does to make money. I believe he steals it from others. His promised returns were in excess of 200% in three month periods. As a trader/manager can you say that you can legitimately come up with these kind of returns?


Once Madoff was in the red, if he called it quits, returned what he could and went to prison then think how many lives he would not have destroyed.

No, Madoff never invested the investment money. He paid earlier investors with later investors' money. No investments. No trading. Just stealing.

According to Madoff he was legit till the mid 90's then the expectations of big returns turned him Ponzi. The feds say otherwise, that he was never legit, so I guess we don't know on this one.

What it seems like you are saying here is that something happened to put him in the red. The escape from the red is to bring in new investor money. Is this not Ponzi defined?

No, not quite. A Ponzi scheme is defined by paying old investors with new investors' money. Bringing in new investor money to earn money for THOSE investors and then paying debts with his own portion of the earnings (contracted profit-sharing, commissions, whatever) is legitimate. I DO NOT know that this is what Wall is doing, though. Again, I am just playing Devil's advocate in order to see if my "what ifs" hold up to your scrutiny.

Humm...we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I see what you are saying here, but I think if you are as negative as he is (at least $150000) the commissions your would need to make this back would mean you are handling well in excess of double this amount (or you would be at least seeking to bring in that much more) If you are handling this kind of money for other people and don't have $1000 to pay back to me, something is seriously wrong.

Guaranteed returned funds should not be held in such a way that they can be lost. Stolen??? All his money from a errand runner?? That is a joke or this guy is a complete idiot to place ALL his money with an errand runner.

Again, I agree 100%. Was the guarantee in writing with a specific date? These elements make it a slam dunk.

In my case it was an e-mail stating my $1000 would be returned in three weeks. For others there is a form, I can obtain a copy, that had specified returns and specific dates, I have definitely see these, several of them over time. Is there any contact info for you outside of this forum? I can e-mail you one I think, someone else has one but I think I could get it sent to you.

Quite simply he needs to pay it back because he said he guaranteed he would, that's it.

Agreed, but this principal doesn't address the time line he might use or need to use to do so. That form probably does, though, right?


Timelines were most definitely in place, in my case an e-mailed statement. In others it is in the forms he put out. He has gone well passed these deadlines, for me two months.

How can one prove "intent to defraud"? The other party can always say, oh I did not mean to take your money, I always intended to invest it, I just never did? Ponzi himself could have used such a defense, " I wanted to invest the money but I sucked at it so I just tried to keep everyone happy, I never really tried to steal it, just keep the boat afloat till I could find a way out." Seems like a very high burden of proof to label someone a scam, maybe for legal fraud purposes that is what it is but to be labeled a scam by us average Joe's seems too high. My bar is much lower, you say you will deliver a good or service in a specified time frame, you accept money for it and then you don't do so, then you move on and tell the next guy you will do the same thing, and on and on, that is my personal definition and that is what Danny is doing.

Did you read carefully those two links I posted? He not only uses Mr. Burchard's name but his "life" story. He more or less removes Brendon's name from his life story and inserts his own all the way down to the last line about his "incredible wife"

If you have any contact info I can try to forward the "pool" form to you, I think someone also has a printout of his "fund" he claimed to have had. They used to be accessible but they aren't anymore.

 

[Chaz McHan]

Probably, but it depends on what we believe he does to make money. I believe he steals it from others.

Before it's proven, I HAVE to give the benefit of doubt, especially with a criminal charge. Innocent until proven guilty and all. (even though I suspect you are probably right)

His promised returns were in excess of 200% in three month periods. As a trader/manager can you say that you can legitimately come up with these kind of returns?

Nope. Not with any confidence before hand, not with any consistency, and CERTAINLY not with any guarantee. My best ever DAY (and keep in mind that I trade a portfolio of millions of dollars) ever was 226%. Including that, I might have surpassed 200% in 3 months 2 or 3 times (off the top of my head) in more than 6.5 years. It can happen. Only a fool or a scammer would guarantee it, though. I'm already convinced that he's a fool. I suspect he's a scammer also, but I would continue to encourage restraint from accusing him of this. JUST IN CASE. We really don't know his whole story, after all.

According to Madoff he was legit till the mid 90's then the expectations of big returns turned him Ponzi. The feds say otherwise...

Well, no... Madoff actually agrees with the Feds now. He came clean to protect his wife and kids from the heat. He definitely WAS legit. He ran a big company for years with legitimate trading desks. The Ponzi stuff was a new product which never was legit, the money never was traded, and there was probably never any intention of trading it. He DID, DEFINITELY intend to defraud. That's what I remember about the case, anyway.

Humm...we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I see what you are saying here, but I think if you are as negative as he is (at least $150000) the commissions your would need to make this back would mean you are handling well in excess of double this amount (or you would be at least seeking to bring in that much more) If you are handling this kind of money for other people and don't have $1000 to pay back to me, something is seriously wrong.

Well... forex usually works in monthly cycles and a trader doesn't get paid for 45 days after the first trading day of the month. He might very well have $1000, but others are ahead of you in line. (maybe they came in first, maybe he is prioritizing those that lost most, who knows?) NO MATTER WHAT, though, you are right. Something is definitely wrong.

How can one prove "intent to defraud"? The other party can always say, oh I did not mean to take your money, I always intended to invest it, I just never did? Ponzi himself could have used such a defense...

It can be proven. For example, if investor funds were used for personal gain (houses, boats, etc.), that would show intent to defraud (you know, intent not to invest the money).

Seems like a very high burden of proof to label someone a scam, maybe for legal fraud purposes that is what it is but to be labeled a scam by us average Joe's seems too high. My bar is much lower...

The burden of proof NEEDS to be this high. Only the falsely-accused can ever appreciate this fully (I know a guy who was falsely accused of molesting their 2-yr. old by his bitter ex wife. More than a year after he spent time in jail, thousands fighting the charge, running out of money for his lawyers and copping a plea that lost him custody, permanently labeled him a paedophile, etc. because his public defender was over-booked, THEN his wife admitted to me that she made it up. She "repented" and her conscience started to bother her about it finally. She tried to help him get it off his record, but he MADE A PLEA AGREEMENT, which legally means he is guilty and it cannot be undone.).

Besides, your burden is not lower IF EVERYTHING you THINK is true in fact IS true... and PROVED. The point I am making is that if the other possible explanations are "possible," even if not probable, then we all should refrain from accusing of fraud.

If you have any contact info I can try to forward the "pool" form to you, I think someone also has a printout of his "fund" he claimed to have had. They used to be accessible but they aren't anymore.

Sure! You can get me at chaz ///at/// mchan <{dot}> me. Can you decifer that? I just wanna avoid spam bots.

 

[Pharaoh]

If he took an investment from one trader and used it to pay another, that would be a Ponzi. On the other hand, if he's collecting any sorts of commissions on trades, getting 100k from one person should make it fairly quick for him to get 1000 in his own name, but he can't seem to do that.

Endless excuses, especially those that don't hold water, is also a sure sign of scam.

What kind of serious account manager would be running forex, real estate, etc., all at the same time.

Guaranteed forex investment is one of two things:

1. New trader who got lucky and is insanely overconfident (and doesn't understand basic rules about risk disclosure).

2. Total scammer.

Either way, kiss your money goodbye.

 

[Chaz McHan]

If he took an investment from one trader and used it to pay another, that would be a Ponzi. On the other hand, if he's collecting any sorts of commissions on trades, getting 100k from one person should make it fairly quick for him to get 1000 in his own name, but he can't seem to do that.

Well... maybe he hasn't been able to get another $100k yet under management, maybe he had further set-backs (trading-wise), maybe he has been able to earn money, but owes others who are higher priority for whatever reason, maybe, maybe... etc. It is all suspicious, though... and I don't believe any of those things are actually the case.

Endless excuses, especially those that don't hold water, is also a sure sign of scam.

Agreed. Lie to me once, and I will suspect EVERYTHING you say to me is a lie. I can imagine, though, that someone might lie to try to save face and buy time.

What kind of serious account manager would be running forex, real estate, etc., all at the same time.

Exactly. err... LOL... well, I have rentals. Does that make me not a serious trader? j/k. Yeah... and he seems to be seeking investors for LOTS of schemes... spot forex, futures, options, real estate, etc. And he does this all expertly FOR CLIENTS all on his own? Sheesh.

Guaranteed forex investment is one of two things:

1. New trader who got lucky and is insanely overconfident (and doesn't understand basic rules about risk disclosure).

2. Total scammer.

ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!

Thanks, Pharaoh. As usual, you are SPOT ON.

I hope for these poor good people, though, that this guy might prove to be an exception and they get their money back.

 

[vincam]

Well... forex usually works in monthly cycles and a trader doesn't get paid for 45 days after the first trading day of the month. He might very well have $1000, but others are ahead of you in line. (maybe they came in first, maybe he is prioritizing those that lost most, who knows?) NO MATTER WHAT, though, you are right. Something is definitely wrong.


There are definitely others in front of me but the thing is they are not getting paid either. As I mentioned previously one of them is at least 6 months in front of me , the others maybe 4 months. But not one of them has even received one dollar and almost all are owed more than me. If he can't pay debts back from six months ago, whatever is going on is continuous and not a one time event. He had no excuses of "theft" or anything else for these others until just now, his M.O. then was just to pull you off his e-mail list, not respond to requests for your money and not return your phone calls. This is a public forum that he could respond/defend his actions to and he is aware of this thread, yet he says nothing. FPA has been in contact with him and he still says nothing.

Endless excuses, especially those that don't hold water, is also a sure sign of scam.

Agreed. Lie to me once, and I will suspect EVERYTHING you say to me is a lie. I can imagine, though, that someone might lie to try to save face and buy time.

There must be a limit to how much time lies will buy you before the overall lie is exposed. Months of lies among multiple people has crossed my line.

I believe for the purposes of this forum, what Danny has done is sufficient to label him a scam. I understand your defense of possible explanations for his actions but there are too many and too much on him to explain away for me. It has gone beyond a reasonable doubt. If you could see the messages I've seen from some of his big money victims, you would probably be outraged as well. One of them feels like dying, all his money gone with no messages from Danny on what is the real deal, just endless BS crap from him. The information needed to prove his fraud is inaccessible to me, only to authorities whom I am trying to get to investigate him, but I think for purposes of a public forum labeling broken promises and unreturned money a
scam is appropriate. I hope the label will if nothing else serve as a huge red flag to avoid him, it is his choice to return the funds to avoid the label, plenty of time has been given, time is up in my opinion.

 

[bobylali]

How can this con man still be free...

Hi guys, I also had been cheated by 130k from this guy. All my life savings. After five month of lies, he definitly doesn't reply me emails. I can't believe that he can do this without being arrested ?! We all must form group and prevent him from continuing to fraud other people and get ou money back. There's no reason that he and his family could continue to leave happy... Isn't it ?

 

[Chaz McHan]

I give up...

OK, I don't think my efforts were wasted in trying to convince people to be MUCH LESS free with the words "scam" and "fraud." A lot of good people are in suspicious situations, especially if not all is known and the only input is from disgruntled clients. A lot of less-than-good people are not worth the time it takes to click on their website, BUT are still not "scammers." A lot of good and bad people alike are just simply incompetent... again, not scammers. We need to be VERY careful with these words.

BUT... when it comes to this Danny character, it appears to me that he's a world-class bull****ter. Since he doesn't just use this skill to get a better price or a better position in a negotiation but rather to take money from those that can't afford it, promising returns and then suspending communications, etc...

Yeah, until further notice and exculpatory evidence is provided in his defense, I have no choice but to affix the FRAUD label to his name.

PLEASE keep us informed as to what happens, ESPECIALLY if he does reach back out to you guys and arranges payments. Everyone deserves this kind of consideration. Scandals make front page, but positive updates, apologies and retractions are placed in small print on page 19 under the high school girls lacrosse scores IF THEY MAKE IT AT ALL.

 

[vincam]

I agree with you Chaz, some people are quick to jump the gun and any kind of problem yields an immidiate scam label to someone who may not deserve it. It is a tough business taking other people's money, any mistake and you will be villified as a thief without even having a chance to make things right. I hope we all offer some latitude to others before branding people frauds or scams.

However....my buddy Danny here is not one of those innocent victims in my opinion, the extremes of latitude have been given and he has only taken advantage of them to look for new money. I hope with the info provided here others can decide for themselves as to if sufficient information warrants the label, I'm just providing the info to keep everyone informed of all that is going on with this guy as he is definately less than forthcoming with how he operates.

I will most definately post any positive outcome if such an event happens.

 

[Scam Investigations Committee]

Preventing a company from being instantly and unfairly labeled a scam is why the FPA Scam Investigations Committee was formed. All scam findings against companies that are still in business contain information about what the company must do to have the scam finding lifted.

Vincam's case against Danny Wall is confirmed by the FPA.

The scam finding will be posted shortly.