If someone leaves a gun in your room and you use it in a killing are you guilty of anything? This is about the funniest thing I ever heard. So you are an analyst and an IB economic so you must have a 7 right? They are going to laugh you out of the room. You are held to a higher standard in the laws eyes. Now you are bitching about traders being so bad well I think by far IBâs are the lowest of the low. Look at the fines the major houses and there top analyst paid because of the bubble. There might even prostitute you on blackmail by the time this is all done.
If your story is true and you ran up losses at 8-1, knowing full well you didn't have the money, not only should you be made to pay, but you should be barred from trading for life. And that's for starters. I'd recommend prosecution for fraud as well.
i think u are givng traders too much credit that they know when bottoms and tops occur. while you didn't quite say it, i doubt that there are traders on this board who work for pump and dump shops. also you don't seem to have read the posts about contingency lawyers.. when arbitration finds out you work for an IB you will be held to a higher standard of knowledge and ethics.
You should just suck it up and take the losses. You will lose the arbitration. No lawyer will take your case on a contigency since they know you will probably lose. Look at the mirror and be more truthful to yourself. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote from kizzy: ur all traders in here and i've been working on the street since last july and till date, i haven't met an honest trader b/c those guys don't stay in business long, so don't tell preach to me about goodness and ethics, your jobs involve pumping in at the lows and dumping at the highs and screwing other ppl like an 'honest' IB economist like myself. i'm the angel here, ur the barbarians. on a lighter note. i'm planning on an starting the arbitration process on monday. is this wrong or should I go with the lawyer, i just came out of school and still making analyst dough, so i can't really afford a good one. i just feel that if im etrade i'd rather settle and keep it on the hush or end up paying 20K to the nasd. thats my stance, i know i made a mistake as much as i know they made a mistake, the results ought to be shared equitably....no? u all must think im a dirtbag... but thats okay. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just want to know why an analyst would choose "Etrade" of all people, as his broker. Then why would he be maxing out his buying power, even if it was bogus buying power? As an analyst, it seems to me he is a novice to the industry and acting like a typical living room daytrader...Is this all it takes to be an analyst? Michael B.
People should be very careful when reading Kizzy's economic projections and forcasts. It can be very dangerous. kizzy Registered: Feb 2005 Posts: 4 07-16-05 01:50 PM it's really not my problem if they can't get thier margin requirements str8. IF the nasd changed the margin rules, they are s'pose to apply that to thier accountholders. the fee for compliance is tied in with the commission on each trade. I'm an economist not a lawyer, so I don't have time to be doing the research to make sure my broker is in compliance. Kizzy Registered: Feb 2005 Posts: 4 07-16-05 01:50 PM it's really not my problem if they can't get thier margin requirements str8. IF the nasd changed the margin rules, they are s'pose to apply that to thier accountholders. the fee for compliance is tied in with the commission on each trade. I'm an economist not a lawyer, so I don't have time to be doing the research to make sure my broker is in compliance. kizzy Registered: Feb 2005 Posts: 4 07-16-05 01:50 PM it's really not my problem if they can't get thier margin requirements str8. IF the nasd changed the margin rules, they are s'pose to apply that to thier accountholders. the fee for compliance is tied in with the commission on each trade. I'm an economist not a lawyer, so I don't have time to be doing the research to make sure my broker is in compliance.
yeah teddy, thats a riot!! thanks for all ur input guys. i still think ill embark on a losing arbitration effort. my advice: don't waste your time with etrade go with ameritrade. I pulled out all my cash from etrade at the end of last week and alerted them about the discrepancy. logged on to my acct today and tried to place an order, it accepted it even though the price i was asking for was way too low for the order to be filled. ended up cancelling it. how incompetent must you be to allow someone to continue trading when there is no money in the acct and he has told you that your system is f'd up. amazing!!! i almost feel encouraged to trade. i would like to work for them b/c they obviously don't do much. For all your help, heres a tip. buy AHC and hold it for 10 months. some bad oil hedges they made will expire later this year, after that, the earnings from then on will make current earnings look like pocket money. come back in ten months and tell me how much you love me.
They have great ads. They run continuously on cnbc. Too bad they don't invest in systems (I know... execution .. too boring... had to let him go). From what I know of corporations, IT systems are probably on life support and out-sourced up the ying yang. Plenty of money for executive enrichment and the TV marketing budget, though.
you hit it on the head. Try to contact <any> American company for technical support.....if you get an answer...EVER, you're lucky !!! SUCKS.
Under general common law legal principles, and ignoring any written contractual agreement between yourself and Etrade, the following legal theories arise: Negligence. A person has a duty of care to avoid the unreasonable risk of harm to others. If the person breaches that duty, and is the actual and proximate cause of injury to another, such that the other person is damaged, negligence is proved. Duty. Here, Etrade, as regulated by the SEC, has an ordinary duty to construct its trading system so as to prevent customers from inadvertently violating obvious SEC regulations, such as borrowing margin beyond the lawful limits. On the other hand, if the margin was created by losses incurred after the trades were made, that would be something entirely beyond the control of Etrade. Breach. Assuming that Etrade's system did permit you to directly borrow beyond the legal limits imposed by the SEC, therefore Etrade likely breached its duty of ordinary care, by permitting said borrowing. Actual Cause. You could argue that "but for" Etrade's computer system, you would not have been able to borrow 8/1 margin on your account, and therefore that Etrade is the actual cause of your injury. Etrade could argue that you were the person doing the borrowing, so you contributed to the cause of your own injury. In some jurisdictions, such proof would be sufficient to eliminate Etrade's liability. In other jurisdictions, you would be found to have comparatively caused some percentage of your own injury, and so Etrade would not be liable to the extent that you were the actual cause. Proximate Cause. Etrade's actions in creating a trading system with such a glaring defect brings into question whether the cause of the injury is sufficiently proximate for it to be fair to hold Etrade responsible. It's reasonable to think that Etrade helped to create this problem and it's therefore fair that Etrade help to compensate you for your losses. Compensatory Damages. These are damages to compensate for your pain and suffering. Because this is a pure economic injury, you really don't have any compensatory damages, therefore none will be awarded. Consequential Damages. These are damages that flow as natural consequence of the injury and are a reasonably foreseeable in advance. Here, although you have not identified exactly how much money you lost, it's reasonable to assume that it was substantial, or you wouldn't be complaining, therefore you were damaged and consequently you are entitled to recovery of your losses, to the extent that they were actually caused by Etrade. This amount would be left for a trier of fact to determine, which in the case of a dispute with a brokerage house, is likely to be an arbitrator. Counterclaim. Etrade could conceivable counterclaim that you were equally negligent with its money. On similar theories in each area above described, Etrade could assert that you owed Etrade a duty to not trade extraordinarily and unusually large sums of money that you couldn't cover, that you breached this duty by trading those sums, that but for your actions, Etrade would not have been damaged, that you actions in trading the account beyond your reasonable means is proximate to Etrade's injuries, and that Etrade suffered damages as a result. Your defense, would be that you do not have a duty to enforce the SEC's margin regulations against Etrade, but that Etrade has an independent duty to enforce those regulations, as much as is practicable, against you, because Etrade is in control of the trading system, and the kind of margin that you were permitted to trade would not have occurred in the absence of Etrade's negligence. This is known as the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur, i.e., "the thing speaks for itself." I believe that you would prevail on this theory, and that Etrade could be found sufficiently negligent to be forced to cover some portion of your losses. HOWEVER, there is this little thing called "proof" that bears on this sort of case. Can you prove to a court with credible, documentary evidence, that the computer system actually permitted you to trade 8/1 margin? If you can, then you have a case -- if you can't then you don't, and it doesn't matter one whit what the truth of things are, because if you can't prove something happened in court, then it didn't happen, as far as the court's concerned. Remember, my analysis here is based on common law negligence, and doesn't account for your brokerage contract. You undoubtedly released Etrade from liability for ordinary negligence under that contract, so you will probably have to prove that Etrade's actions were a gross deviation from the standard of care required by a brokerage firm on behalf of its clients. This may bring in issues of Etrade's fiduciary responsibilities to its customers, i.e., what level of duty does Etrade actually owe you, and how far from that duty did Etrade deviate by allowing you to trade 8/1 margin? All questions for the arbitrator. In summary, it's a total crap shoot. If you make a case like I just described, Etrade will be forced to pay out some serious bucks to an attorney to write up a defense, and maybe that will cause them to settle rather than fight. But, more than likely you will not recover any more of your losses than the part suffered as the result of your being able to trade beyond 2/1. This could be a lot, but you will still end up a loser. Good luck.