Been trying to figure that out as well man. This guy is seriously obnoxious and I can't figure out why he keeps adding his worthless two cents. And monstercat- I have had my S7 for 9 years and if I were still with Tuco I would be right there with everyone else getting screwed. Or maybe you should tell the thousand WorldCo traders who had their S7 and did not get their money. Maybe you are the twit that filed the complaint that basically got the thieves involved in the first place? Don't know what your deal is, but just go ahead and STFU on these threads. You aren't adding a damn thing and just pissing off people who are pissed off to begin with.
Who's whining? All I can see from here is a guy who's taking the time to speak out against injustice.
I agree with RM... injustice is injustice... and its important to confront it when it is right in front of you... I would suggest that its also important for the Tuco traders to get PUBLICITY for how they have been treated... Just like trial lawyers have info leaked to effect the press which effects their trial... Maybe a uTube video... (+) An article in a trading magazine... (+) A signed petition from a large group disagreeing with how this is unfolding... I as a part of ET would put my sig on such a petition... Publicity brings light to the issue and usually shames those who abuse their positions of power into doing the right thing... <img src="http://www.enflow.com/p.gif">
I absolutely agree, these guys are feeling no heat and that's unacceptable, aside from this thread, there is really no publicity of this. Take action ppl, it can't hurt.
great idea... Trader Daily seems like one that would pursue this story: http://www.traderdaily.com Founder Magnus Greaves mgreaves@doubledownmedia.com
i'm not going to stfu. tuco and the rest of the 100's of non licensed llc's broke the law by offering over 4-1 margin period.the law is the law. why they went after tuco nobody knows. but obviously several other broker dealers had to have been contacted as why would assent have come up with a disclaimer that has to be signed by all llc's within 1 week after all this started?MY WHOLE THESIS IS IF YOU WANT YOUR MONEY INSURED GO RETAIL OTHERWISE YOU HAVE RISK.
Yes, we understand your "thesis". But didn't your "thesis" just include a S7. Got news for you sparky- Assent could close up shop tomorrow and your S7 wouldn't help you in the least. You could still lose all your money. Now if your problem is with people getting leverage- then so be it. Haven't a clue why you need to throw a hissy fit with people getting leverage. And its not making much sense to me anyway. When you were bothering me with PMs you were pimping Anvil. So you used to be with Assent and then traded on Sterling, assuming you are back with Assent now. Are you under the delusion your money is insured? If they were to close up shop and get ripped- are you going to be on an Assent thread telling yourself to stop whining about losing your money???
ummmm... monsterturd? please cite the code you reference. a little hint here... the 34 exchange act only deals with brokers inducing the public to buy stocks INTERSTATE by means of fraud. it has absolutely nothing to do with Trading LLC's.
Neither Doug nor Tuco broke any laws. Please show me where he pleaded guilty to anything. Please show me where there was a criminal prosecution.
sd trader the only reason i pm'ed you is i thought you were affilaited with tuco which i'm not to sure you're not. as far as leverage i have nothing against it and if people want to get it then its up to them. yes you're correct wether s 7 or not any shop can close up. the whole pt is when you count on others for leverage and don't have your own sipc retail insured account you have risk, many on et have made millions using prop leverage and i'm sure if they lost there deposit tommorrow they'd say they knew the risk and are ok with it. and i'm not prop nor have i ever been a prop trader. i have nothing further to comment on this subject The SEC charged Tuco Trading, LLC, and its principal, Douglas G. Frederick, with violating broker-dealer registration and antifraud provisions of the securities laws. According to the SEC's complaint, the defendants provide securities day-trading capability to Tuco's more than 250 traders who had approximately $10.2 million invested in Tuco. They permitted traders to day-trade securities in Tuco's own brokerage accounts at registered broker-dealers through sub-accounts created at Tuco for each trader. The defendants enticed traders with services unavailable at a registered broker-dealer. As alleged in the complaint, they allowed traders to day-trade without meeting the $25,000 minimum equity requirement under NASD regulations for such trading. The SEC's complaint also alleges that for each $1 in the trader's sub-account, Tuco and Frederick allowed the traders at Tuco to use up to $20 of Tuco's equity, which has been invested by other traders, to purchase securities (20:1 buying power). NASD and NYSE regulations, however, only allow a day-trader to have 4:1 buying power. "Tuco provided traders with trading capability not permitted at registered broker-dealers," said Linda Chatman Thomsen, Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement. "This case warns investors that the additional trading capability comes at a steep price â the safety of their money."