Please read my post and then draw your own conclusions: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...ost+carefully+and+in+its+entirety#post1007920 In view of all the information that is available on Larry Williams, I believe that thinking people can draw their own intelligent conclusions. As for those who are naive enough to to buy into his schtik, I think that they well and truly deserve anything and everything that they have coming to them. The only question I have for the latter group is: just how funky does something need to smell before you decide not to eat it?
Thunderdog: I read your post. Note that I didn't post that Williams was a great trader. I don't really know whether he is or he isn't. What bothers me though is when someone starts to make allegations which seem to be unsupported. Especially those which would be quite serious if true...like those made above about Williams. Now, I note that in your post you make a series of what you call "hypothesis". In other words, to you it evidently is not believable that a guy could make money in his own account, and then lose money in a pooled account that he was managing. And therefore you come up with an "hypothesis" which in essence indicates tlhat Williams somehow put the losing trades in the pooled account, and the winning trades in his own account. The problem I have with your post is that it a "hypothesis". It was not something the CFTC or the NFA charged Williams with. Or, for that matter, Robbins Trading, the broker. Let me explain something to you. One of my early jobs in this business was first as a stock broker, both retail and later institutional. And at one point I was a commodity broker. I also was on the floor briefly. Now, I mention this because I do have an insight on how brokerage is done, how accounts operate, etc etc. I have seen every shabby little trick (I think), to include trades put into different accounts, etc etc. So let's start there. My understanding is that Williams managed a pooled account at the same time as he was trading his own account. One of your facts is that this pooled account was not segregated. Frankly, I find that difficult to believe. I would need to see some type of proof of that, and I note you did not provide any evidence. I would say that Williams own account and the pooled account would by definition be segregated. In any case, provide me the proof of that statement. It makes no sense at all. What might have been the case though is that Williams could have lumped orders together when he placed the order with the broker. In other words, perhaps he wanted 10 contracts for himself, and another 100 for the pooled account. So he might place an order for 110 contracts with the broker. Now let me tell you one thing....a broker can accept orders like this, but would want to have some prior agreement on how the split would work. The don't execute an order and then let the customer dictate a split of some type. As a commodity broker I time stamped all of my orders. I had a time clock sitting on my desk next to the order line. Orders were not necessarily time stamped in the pit. But you better believe they were time stamped at the broker level. Floor brokers might be able to play some games with an order, and did. Alot of guys were caught doing that. OK, so your hypothesis is that Williams gives an order to Robbins for 110 contracts, which Robbins timestamps, and then call Williams back with an execution. And you think then that Williams doesn't specify the split and Robbins willingly agrees to this, so that the execution sits there unallocated until enough time goes by to decide whether this will in fact be profitable or not??? I gotta tell you my friend, this would not have happened at the firms I worked with, and it would not have later happened with the firms that I traded with. Further, you're claiming this took place not just once, but for an entire year! And that later, the NFA and the CFTC were not able to sift through records and find any evidence of such an action. I gotta tell you. Your hypothesis does not hold water with me. I do understand where you're coming from. But the fact that an hypothesis gives you one possible reason for the events that transpired, does not make it true. I can't tell you why Williams had such a good record in his own account, and such a poor record in his managed accounts. But I feel no need to come up with any reason either, especially a reason that in essence accuses someone of fraud, when he was already investigated and not charged with that. I have managed other peoples money. I didn't like it. I traded my own money differently. I was too cautious with managed money. I cared more about there money than my own. And guess what...my record with managed money was not as good as my own because I was way too careful. In any case, again, I understand your hypothesis. I just don't think that based on the way brokerage accounts work, that it is very likely to have happened that way. As far as I know, Williams was charged with not disclosing his track record fully, as it applied to the managed accounts. That's what they fined him for. OldTrader
Not "then" but simultaneously. Hypothetically speaking, how could any outsider prove anything if Williams and the broker were in collusion with one another? Together, they were in charge of all the paperwork. The best you could do in such a case is consider the smell of the outcome: his account flourishes while client accounts are simultaneously decimated. We are talking about a black and white contrast in outcomes here. Both Williams and the broker were charged with minor misconduct together, so we do know they were not above holding each other's hands. Did they ever prove Al Capone killed anyone? As I understand it, the best they could do was convict him of tax fraud. (Oh, my...) In Larry's case, the best that could be done was for the NFA to to take full notice of a particularly unusual discrepancy in performance, as I noted in my post in that other thread. Of course, these are all hypotheticals I raise, eh? If you think that serious time stamp irrregularities were not an issue in those days, then I invite you to contact an enforcement attorney at the NFA. Apparently, the hypothesis that I presented in that other thread is not that novel. It is something that the agency had to deal with on a number of occasions with a number of different people. This is not pie in the sky stuff. The fines were in connection with certain disclosure documents and pieces of promotional material. The complaint against Williams was that he allegedy violated NFA Compliance Rules 2-9, 2-13, 2-29(b)(1), (2) and (3) and 2-29(e) in connection with certain disclosure documents and pieces of promotional material. He paid a fine of $13,000. Robbins Trading Company was alleged to have violated NFA Compliance Rules 2-29(b)(1), (2) and (3) in connection with promotional materials used by that company. It paid a fine of $15,000. Hypothetically speaking, I'd say someone(s) got off cheap. OldTrader, I appreciate your considered response, but when all is said and done there is an undeniable odor that seems to follow Mr. Williams wherever he goes, metaphorically speaking, of course. I just find it surprising that otherwise thinking people would not raise their guard to someone with his colorful history.
First and last post in this neverending idiocy... 1. Larry was actually in a 50% DD when the year ended. Why didn't he cheat the same way, or was he just messing with us, showing that he could lose too??? 2. His daugther's record is still #3 overall best, achieved years later. Was the defective system still in place? Oh, nevermind...
Pekelo, you couldn't smell a flower garden if your nose was immersed in it. You and Larry deserve one another. You readily swallow his daughter's performance at face when it is clear that she is at best a trading dilettante, whereas there have been articles posted on ET wherein devoted students of his who had been to several of his seminars and devoted years of their lives to his methods and teachings and were in the hole for tens of thousands of dollars. True, it comes down to a question of acumen, but come on! Where's your judgment?
Larry Williams has a mixed reputation on this board to say the least. The irony of course is that after his all time % return in Robbins cup which is speculated upon ad nauseum, the second greatest return was done by his daughter following her fathers bond hotline. In fact alot of guys followed the same hotline trade for trade as she did but dont have a chalice on their mantle. Why not? Think about it. More to trading results than just taking signals Indeed, Larry's results while impressive are also an object lesson. He did not take 10k to 1.1 million in 12 months. He took 10k to 2.4 mil in 10 months than lost 1.7 mil in 1 month then finished up Nov/Dec up another 400k. He let more than 100 % of his equity slip through his fingers unrealized. Remember this was 1987. October ring any bells? This is when his/clients accounts were decimated. In fact I think he was in Africa of all places on Black Monday. After that kick in the nuts what equity they still had in their accounts they swept out. Scared money. Typical behavior. Larry stayed in. There is no magic to Larry Williams. He'd be the first to tell you he's no guru. But at least he trades. I've learned a lot from him and Im grateful for it. Would I use any of his techniques? No. Is there a little bit of PT Barnum in him? Yes. Does he have some interesting ideas you can use as a starting point in your own thinking? Absolutely Caveat emptor. To the OP, did you have a specific question regarding MDC? I attended the very first MDC seminar so while I do not know anything about this cd, I can comment on the seminar.
Against my best intentions... I appreciate the tender personal attack. I take it you didn't have a valid argument... Where's your judgment? Obviously I left it behind, because I lowered myself to debate you... :eek: Now have a great day, sunshine!
Tdog, with all due respect, your agenda and bias here is very clear. please post FACTS instead of bizzare correlations between LW and AL Capone. I know you you know the facts, and KNOW that they don't match up with your conjecture. Classic bias case. regards, surf