-
Please try to select the correct prefix when making a new thread in this folder.
Discuss is for general discussions of a financial company or issues related to companies.
Info is for things like "Has anyone heard of Company X?" or "Is Company X legit or not?"
Compare is for things like "Which of these 2 (or more) companies is best?"
Searching is for things like "Help me pick a broker" or "What's the best VPS out there for trading?"
Problem is for reporting an issue with a company. Please don't just scream "CompanyX is a scam!" It is much more useful to say "I can't withdraw my money from Company X" or "Company Y is not honoring their refund guarantee" in the subject line.
Keep Problem discussions civil and lay out the facts of your case. Your goal should be to get your problem resolved or reported to the regulators, not to see how many insults you can put into the thread.More info coming soon.
I am having an issue with a company
Couldnt agree more.Metaphorically speaking if i had a piace of paper 50% based on facts,30% philosophy and 20% political opinion, i would dump it in a bin
We are all on the same page. As i mentioned above i am also drafting rather large file for Tresury Department,not just my case but along with others. This year or next year FSA might be subject to abolishment (rightly so)to take new form under Bank of England
The Treasury is set to be sued for around £9 million over the Financial Services Authority’s (FSA) handling of unauthorised investment scheme Cameron Farley, in which 800 investors lost £11.5 million.
Around 340 clients of Edinburgh-based investment firm Cameron Farley, which was wound up by the FSA in 2009, are preparing to submit claims against the Treasury and US-based foreign exchange platform Gain Capital, which was in a joint venture with Cameron Farley.
Solicitor Robert Morfee of Clarke Willmott, who represents the investors, said the claim centred on the FSA becoming aware in 2005 that Cameron Farley, in association with Gain Capital, promoted and arranged foreign exchange trading to UK investors in breach of European regulation.
Morfee alleged that despite this knowledge the regulator did not take any action until 2008.
‘[The FSA] knew what [Cameron Farley director Stephen Farley] was doing and they did nothing in effect to stop him until 2008, during which time my clients lost their money.’
The FSA is exempt from liability in damages, which is why the group cannot pursue the regulator directly and is instead suing the Treasury.
The Treasury, FSA, and Gain Capital all declined to comment on the case. The FSA has previously been criticised by the Financial Services Complaints Commissioner for failing to shut down the scheme sooner.
Around 340 clients of Edinburgh-based investment firm Cameron Farley, which was wound up by the FSA in 2009, are preparing to submit claims against the Treasury and US-based foreign exchange platform Gain Capital, which was in a joint venture with Cameron Farley.
Solicitor Robert Morfee of Clarke Willmott, who represents the investors, said the claim centred on the FSA becoming aware in 2005 that Cameron Farley, in association with Gain Capital, promoted and arranged foreign exchange trading to UK investors in breach of European regulation.
Morfee alleged that despite this knowledge the regulator did not take any action until 2008.
‘[The FSA] knew what [Cameron Farley director Stephen Farley] was doing and they did nothing in effect to stop him until 2008, during which time my clients lost their money.’
The FSA is exempt from liability in damages, which is why the group cannot pursue the regulator directly and is instead suing the Treasury.
The Treasury, FSA, and Gain Capital all declined to comment on the case. The FSA has previously been criticised by the Financial Services Complaints Commissioner for failing to shut down the scheme sooner.
According to both FSA & NFA One of the exceptional regulation with regards to UIS is, that any Financial Investment Firms Who is registered with FSA & NFA prohibited to involve with Unauthorised Investment Scheme!!!Let alone useing clients funds in to UIS.To this day Gain Capital has never been given/cautioned any disciplinary action by both Regulatory Authorities.
BigT1
Sergeant Major
- Messages
- 951
The key to that determination is "knowingly involved". The issue is under investigation; and as a large firm, Gain has a lot to lose and will be vigorously defended. If determined to have been knowingly involved, or it is deemed that they should have known under the requirement to "know your client", they will be sanctioned, heavily fined, and forced to pay restitution.
The wheels of justice grind slowly, but inevitably. This matter spans international boundaries, involves soverign legal systems, and multiple regulators. You will need patience on this one.
.
Anthony Ingrassia, CTA
NFA ID#: 0278164
Triantus Shango
Sergeant Major
- Messages
- 1,371
guys, please give us an update if you could. i was just looking at GAIN Capital UK wondering whether or not i should try them out. interestingly, their affiliate/subsidiary FOREX.com bluntly states on their site that they use the market maker model and they go even further in claiming that it is more advantageous to retail traders than using an ECN! can you believe this hubris?
BigT1
Sergeant Major
- Messages
- 951
Yes, there are proponents of the model. When a firm is large, well capitalized, and wants their legitimate business to grow, they have to offer something of value; otherwise, they will whither and die. Value in using a MM broker is individualized service, volume rebates, IB opportunities, and the possibility of having errant trades resolved by a management that is free to exercise discretion. An ECN trade must be passed through to the bank or other counterparty, and is often indisputable. Forming a good relationship with a well-regulated market maker firm can be useful for smaller investors, while larger accounts and professional firms usually go direct and pay a commission rather than a spread mark-up.
.
In the case of Gain Capital (Forex.com) I suggest you visit the NFA Backround Check website and review their disciplinary history, here:
BASIC Search
.
You will find there have been 2 Regulatory actions resulting in Fines over $559,000 paid to NFA, 5 Arbitration decision all in favor of the clients resulting in awards of $207,000, plus 14 other CFTC reparations cases, the details of which can be requested from CFTC if you so choose to do further research.
My check of UK- FSA and FOS shows no actions, but UK regulation is much weaker.
Financial Ombudsman Service
.
This firm has certainly had it's problems.
Many technical issues in years past caused me to close an account I had with them in 2009; however it is large and capable of performing. I believe most of their technical issues have been resolved by now.
Since they are regulated, issues regarding deposits and withdrawals, phoney bonuses, sketchy rules regarding turnover requirements, etc. are non-exisitent.
.
AI
Last edited:
Similar threads
