1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Forex Confidential

Discussion in 'Scam Alerts' started by zakix, Mar 30, 2009.

  1. zakix

    zakix Recruit

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since I joined Forex Confidential none of my P/L reports matched the ones posted in ForexConfidential home page.
    (Forex Confidential - Forex Training - Forex Signals - Managed Forex Accounts)
    All my questions were answered by explaining that it was my fault in either not understanding the report or some other reason.
    I have joined trade-assist and as of 26th Jan 2009 the trade-assit operated and it should be noted that it was operating without any sort of intervention by me.
    At the end of February 2009 my account was down 7% and if I count and add the fees for the set-up of the trade-assist and the monthly fees the account was down close to 10% (It is now down close to -20%).
    Having the account losing is part of trading - absolutely no doubt about it.
    I have never complained regarding the loss of funds.
    I have waited until the 17th March 2009 – when the P/L results for Feb 2009 were posted at ForexConfidential home page
    It seems to me publishing the results should not take that long – but I was patient.
    The posted P/L result published was a -1.9% (minus 1.9%)
    My account for the equivalent period was down close to -7% (minus 7%)
    I have made endless inquiries about the discrepancy – all mails will be attached for your view.
    All the inquiries were promptly replied to – denying any form of responsibility and stating me as the one responsible for the discrepancies – along with the broker (IBFX).
    Later on a report (excel worksheet) was submitted to me pointing to the differences in the trades – assuming I have closed one trade and closed it too early (which I have not) and assuming another trade was not handled right due to limitations by the broker (I never really understood the point FC were trying to make since they admit many of their clients use the same broker – IBFX – but the problem occurred – so it seems – in my account alone). It should be made clear: I have not touched the account - I was looking into the operation of the trade assist. Not touched any of the trades - never.
    The report submitted by FC has – to the best of my knowledge - no matching points with the trades carried out in my account. None.
    The trade-assist venue is supposedly doing the same trades for all customers and the variations would be only in the size of the trades and the risk ratio granted by the client. No veriation in amount of pips should appear.
    Therefore I fail to understand the totally different report that FC generated considering Feb 2009 as compared to my report.
    When I have denied my responsibility for the discrepancies I was unilaterally cut off the service for "violating the agreement". I fail to understand this due to the fact I have only made inquiries and I am not aware that doing so can violate an agreement. When asking for refunds I was told I would not be able to have the fees refunded ($97 for "set-up" and 3 X $197 for monthly fees and some more fees)
    Attached are the mails that were exchanged.
    As I do not consider myself an expert in accounting or statistics or trading - I urge you to please go over the issue and see if I should be the one to be blamed for the discrepancies between my P/L results for Feb 2009 and the published results of P/L of ForexConfidential. Also please check if there was any violation of any agreement on my part.
    If there is no discrepancy then I should be begging pardon from ForexConfidential – and will certainly do so.
    If there is a discrepancy – that was so emphatically denied - then one may assume that the published results of past performance – for the years of operation, not just for Feb 2009 - were not published along principals of integrity and good faith.
    I'll be glad to send any inormation that is needed to review the case.
    Thnx very much
    Zaki
     
  2. forexconfidential

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Greetings, I am so sorry for not replying to this thread sooner, I just found it this morning.

    Our Trade-Assist feature (which no longer exists) was intended as a way for our members to have the signals we send, automatically executed. It was software that ran on the members own VPS accounts to fetch our signals and auto-execute them.

    The software would check for new signals every 30 seconds and when it finds one, execute it. This created up to a 30-second delay in execution of signals. While this is still faster than a human manually receiving the signal via SMS, reading the message, opening their tradestation and executing it, it still created a few pips of discrepancy from one trade to the next between the members results and our results. Since we trade on the 30-minute and 4-hour charts, the discrepancy wasn't that bad and most members were very happy with the service.

    However, sometimes broker-related issues did come up. Just like with manual trading, we had a number of occassions with one broker or another where a trade might get skipped, stop loss might not get moved properly (too close to market price,etc) and other things. Sometimes the brokers servers were completely down for a chunk of the afternoon so MT4 couldn't place trades.

    Zaki in February had two "discrepancies" that stood out from the rest. One of his trades had a stop loss moved to break-even and he was stopped out there - but we never sent any signals moving that stop loss so quickly and we ended up making 70 pips on the trade. Either he moved the stop loss, someone broke into his account, or it happened magically...but it wasn't one of our signals. The other "discrepancy" was a situation where we sent a signal to move a stop loss tighter, but when Zaki's tradestation tried to execute it, it was too close to the market price and the broker rejected the new stop losss.

    The Trade-Assist feature was never meant to be a type of "managed account" - it was just a way for members to catch the signals while they were away from their computer. Members were supposed to watch the trades and keep an eye on things. It was nothing that "we" were doing "for" them - it was their software running in their VPS taking care of the signals.

    Zaki continued to insist that these two trades were "our" problem because he was "paying us to trade his account". His misunderstanding of how Trade-Assist worked and his improper assumption that this was a type of "managed account" meant that we could no longer support him as a member, and in fact, we canceled the Trade-Assist service completely to prevent future misunderstandings with anyone else.
     
  3. ernest8fingers

    ernest8fingers Master Sergeant

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2008
    Messages:
    488
    Likes Received:
    7
    Sounds like the truth

    Wow- This is (maybe) the 1st lucid and honest response from a "broker/Account Managment" I have seen on this forum. Everything mentioned does in fact occur from time to time. And since they are not furnishing any pricefeed (only trade services) Y would they want to destroy their customers account? And,many people and many ManagedFunds accounts are currently down-some have even been vaporized.
     
  4. zakix

    zakix Recruit

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    The fact of the matter remains: Throughout all the membership period there was NOT ONE SINGLE month when the traded account (mine) had the same results as the published one. and to no-surprise the published results were by far much higher then actual results. By doing that they do not intend on destruction of my account they merely intention is to mislead the public in the published results. Please keep in mind then when mistakes occure they are random - otherwise they are no mistakes... I did not put or changed any orders in my account - ever. May be the response of the "not-account-manager" seem "lucid and honest" but it has very little to do with reality. Please keep in mind that the service seized from operating - ever wonder why?
     

Share This Page