IB or Cybertrader for E Minis?

Discussion in 'Retail Brokers' started by Dominic, May 16, 2006.

  1. Is there some reason why we should believe a broker offering $500 E-mini margins is as safe as a more conservative broker? Do not these low margins increase the chance of large customer losses collapsing any broker in an unusual market event, so that the other customers won't get their money back? Can you support your assertions with evidence, or with rational arguments, to counter the information already offered in this thread? Or are you just making unsupported assertions, and expecting people to believe them, as though they were little more than mindless sheep?

    I believe your claim that RCG segregates each customer's futures trading account from the accounts of other customers is totally false. I believe it is not permitted by United States futures regulators. US regulators mandate that the funds and property, in your futures trading account, must be pooled with those of other customers, and must be seized, if necessary, to cover the losses incurred by other customers in your pool, in the event the broker goes bankrupt. These pooled customer accounts are called "segregated" because they are segregated from the broker's assets, and cannot be used to pay the broker's debts, except for covering losses incurred by other customers in the same pool. Assets of customers, however, are not segregated from assets of other customers; they are instead pooled. I have already posted a CME link confirming this information.

    I therefore challenge you to provide proof that RCG's "segregated" accounts provide the type of segregation between individual customers you claim, instead of the different and far weaker type of segregation which I have explained.
     
    #31     May 20, 2006
  2. Hopefully nobody will have to never deal with their broker going bankrupt and having to worry about how to get their money out or if they even get it out.
     
    #32     May 20, 2006
  3. Ebo

    Ebo

    Which moderator CENSORED my honest post?

    Be a man, not a mouse and send me a PM please.

    This is getting out of control.
     
    #33     May 20, 2006
  4. Here is the link to show they are segregated customer funds. Look on page 3 of the .pdf account application.
    http://www.globalfutures.com/documents/RCG/RCG-IndividualJointAcct.pdf

    Now where is your link proving that it is not permitted by the US regulators? Are you just making stuff up? Or are you just making unsupported assertions, and expecting people to believe them, as though they were little mindless sheep? Where is your proof link?
     
    #34     May 20, 2006
  5. I challenge all of you to challenge NFA Manual, where it states...

    To view this online...
    http://www.nfa.futures.org/nfaManual/entireManual.asp

    This section of the rules are in the "View Entire Manual" link
     
    #35     May 20, 2006
  6. osorico,

    the material you posted is not relevant to our discussion. We are talking about futures contract trading. The material you posted does not govern futures contract trading. It applies, instead, to securities futures contracts, which are not the same thing, and are covered by a different set of laws. Securities futures contracts, furthermore, have extremely small volume and are traded by only an extremely small minority of traders.
     
    #36     May 20, 2006
  7. Ummmm? The link he posted is from the "NATIONAL FUTURES ASSOCIATION". I think the material he posted is very relevant to this discussion. Emini contracts are considered futures. Emini future brokers should be listed on that website, along with customer complaints which is viewable to the public also. If your futures broker is not listed on that website, then I would not sign up with that futures broker.
     
    #37     May 20, 2006
  8. #38     May 20, 2006
  9. Well well, you are correct, regarding THIS blurb. Reading glasses need cleaning.

    Your segregated funds challenge stands, for now... you will be proven wrong. :p
     
    #39     May 20, 2006
  10. goodfellow,

    I am surprised by the persistently misleading character of your posts in this thread.

    I first raised the issue of "segregated" futures customer accounts, by explaining the meaning of the word "segregated". It means that customer accounts are pooled, and they are not "segregated" from each other, but that the pool of customer assets is "segregated" from the broker's assets. If margin deposits don't cover losses by other customers in your pool, and your broker is bankrupt, then your account assets must be siezed to cover the losses of other customers in the pool. Your assets cannot, however, be used to pay the broker's OTHER obligations. This definition of the term "segregated" is standard for the futures industry, and is confirmed on the CME website.

    You then gave false information. You falsely stated that RCG segregates each customer's account assets from those of all other customers. You falsely stated that this is contained in the RCG account agreement, for which you provided a link. The truth is that no such information is in the agreement to which you linked, which states only that customer accounts are "segregated".

    You then claimed that since the account agreement does confirm that customer accounts are "segregated", this supports your position and disproves mine. The truth is quite the opposite. The RCG agreement merely states that customer funds are "segregated", but nowhere does it contradict my definition of the term "segregated".

    Our disagreement centers on our two conflicting definitions of the term "segregated". You are now misleading people to think that I was claiming that customer funds are not segregated at all, and that this was the focus of our disagreement. Of course I agree that customer accounts are segregated! The question is what does "segregated" mean? It does not mean what you falsely claimed it means. "Segregation" does not provide the level of protection which you claimed. Please admit that you were wrong on this question, so that others will not be misled by your misinformation.
     
    #40     May 20, 2006