HSNNA.com: Forex scam that destroys managed forex accounts, milked for commissions
In an nutshell: Scam.
For evaluation of this system I reviewed several reports of live accounts and I asked the account manager a number of questions.
Demo accounts shown at websites and in emails were not representative of real performance. Live accounts did not grow as much as shown in demos and advertising materials, even during best times, and live accounts crashed regularly. When crashes ocurred, the account managers were actively hiding this information by advertising with new demo accounts that were started after the crashes.
There was false advertising saying that the only payment is 50% of the high water mark. In reality, they avoid the usual format of managed accounts that deduct regular payments for performance fees. The managers act as Introducing Brokers and actually raise their own commission by raising the spread by one pip.
When asked, they said that their system is not suitable for the format of regular managed accounts, and that the broker needed to be paid one pip more for allowing them to trade their 'scalping system' (it is not a scalping system). The broker, however, responded with the information that the account could be set up as a regular managed account and that the 1-pip increase in spread was in fact the payment to the account managers for their services.
Looking at the statements it became obvious that they used a grid system with massive trading volumes of usually more than a full lot per day. This equates to hundreds of dollars per week in commission even for smaller account sizes (over 10% of the account equity in commissions per month).
Thus the scam is that the managers make money by trading volume and not by performance. They still made money while the accounts became seriously depleted or were destroyed entirely, by overtrading or the lack of a viable system. Their main interest appeared in hiding the fact that crashes occur often and in having customers stay on a little longer - because every day of positive or negative trading made profits for them.
Risk protection was non-existent. The managers initially gave the guarantee to close all positions when 50% of the initial account size was reached to limit the maximum loss. This did not happen, several accounts were destroyed entirely.
Money management was not existent. The statements showed that lot size was fixed even in decimated accounts, most likely because the managers were too greedy to take less than their maximum commissions even when accounts were being put at risk. At some point they went as far as doubling the lot sizes and risk, without contacting customers about the dangers.
Thus accounts were damaged or destroyed by overtrading and increased spread to maximize their commission, as well as a lack of a consistent and viable system. Best strategy would be closing an account with them even at a loss, as long as any money is left there to be saved.
Answers to questions were evasive or not forthcoming, and several false statements were made. A reply by Jason Drenston was that he had no time dealing with the issues because he was too busy saving other accounts.
Conclusion: Unethical, unprofessional, dangerous.
Names and websites associated with this scam:
www.hsnna.com, www.hsnna.org
Jason Drenston
Yves Theunissen
Stanley Stamos
ANSA bgb N.V., Doorgangsweg 13, 3920 Lommel, Belgium, BTW: BE 460-578-269, Traderegistration: HRH 108199
Derrek May
Results of my managed account
Example, on their increasing spread:
FAQ on Website: 'Is the performance fee based on new high-watermark realised profits earned? Yes. Do you only charge the performance fee? Yes.'
From ANSA: 'We are aware of this, the technic we use is compared by the brokers as a scalpingtechnic. This is acceptable for them, only when the market is low liquid then they loose money on positions traded like that.
To compensate that they increase the spread. (...) The whole system can only work when every party involved is satisfied, the investor, the traders and the broker. I think everything is in reasonable proportions devided on this way.'
From MIG: 'Ansa is charging an additional pip because of the service that they are providing you.'
In an nutshell: Scam.
For evaluation of this system I reviewed several reports of live accounts and I asked the account manager a number of questions.
Demo accounts shown at websites and in emails were not representative of real performance. Live accounts did not grow as much as shown in demos and advertising materials, even during best times, and live accounts crashed regularly. When crashes ocurred, the account managers were actively hiding this information by advertising with new demo accounts that were started after the crashes.
There was false advertising saying that the only payment is 50% of the high water mark. In reality, they avoid the usual format of managed accounts that deduct regular payments for performance fees. The managers act as Introducing Brokers and actually raise their own commission by raising the spread by one pip.
When asked, they said that their system is not suitable for the format of regular managed accounts, and that the broker needed to be paid one pip more for allowing them to trade their 'scalping system' (it is not a scalping system). The broker, however, responded with the information that the account could be set up as a regular managed account and that the 1-pip increase in spread was in fact the payment to the account managers for their services.
Looking at the statements it became obvious that they used a grid system with massive trading volumes of usually more than a full lot per day. This equates to hundreds of dollars per week in commission even for smaller account sizes (over 10% of the account equity in commissions per month).
Thus the scam is that the managers make money by trading volume and not by performance. They still made money while the accounts became seriously depleted or were destroyed entirely, by overtrading or the lack of a viable system. Their main interest appeared in hiding the fact that crashes occur often and in having customers stay on a little longer - because every day of positive or negative trading made profits for them.
Risk protection was non-existent. The managers initially gave the guarantee to close all positions when 50% of the initial account size was reached to limit the maximum loss. This did not happen, several accounts were destroyed entirely.
Money management was not existent. The statements showed that lot size was fixed even in decimated accounts, most likely because the managers were too greedy to take less than their maximum commissions even when accounts were being put at risk. At some point they went as far as doubling the lot sizes and risk, without contacting customers about the dangers.
Thus accounts were damaged or destroyed by overtrading and increased spread to maximize their commission, as well as a lack of a consistent and viable system. Best strategy would be closing an account with them even at a loss, as long as any money is left there to be saved.
Answers to questions were evasive or not forthcoming, and several false statements were made. A reply by Jason Drenston was that he had no time dealing with the issues because he was too busy saving other accounts.
Conclusion: Unethical, unprofessional, dangerous.
Names and websites associated with this scam:
www.hsnna.com, www.hsnna.org
Jason Drenston
Yves Theunissen
Stanley Stamos
ANSA bgb N.V., Doorgangsweg 13, 3920 Lommel, Belgium, BTW: BE 460-578-269, Traderegistration: HRH 108199
Derrek May
Results of my managed account
Example, on their increasing spread:
FAQ on Website: 'Is the performance fee based on new high-watermark realised profits earned? Yes. Do you only charge the performance fee? Yes.'
From ANSA: 'We are aware of this, the technic we use is compared by the brokers as a scalpingtechnic. This is acceptable for them, only when the market is low liquid then they loose money on positions traded like that.
To compensate that they increase the spread. (...) The whole system can only work when every party involved is satisfied, the investor, the traders and the broker. I think everything is in reasonable proportions devided on this way.'
From MIG: 'Ansa is charging an additional pip because of the service that they are providing you.'
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
