Mate, I never had PFG as my broker, so I didn't lose my money. I started this thread since I wanted traders involved with PFG to have a specific place to talk about their situation, possibly getting their money back etc. away from the clutter that is to be found on many ET threads. To be honest, I never before considered the possibility of my broker going bankrupt seriously. But this twin episode of MFG and PFG, has really made me very very concerned. Few days back, I was on the verge of signing up with DeepDiscount guys, but have decided not to go with them and continue with a firm like IB after this PFG fiasco. This is bad for the industry.
They have proven to EVERYONE IN THE WORLD, they are not to be trusted and incompetance beyond belief. Somehow, They need to be reminded of this.
This is DEMOCRACY. Capitalism, Freedom, less government intervened prevailed DEMOCRACY. Business owners whether small, medium, and large do not want Government tell them what to do and U.S citzens as well Let the freedom ring More than 90% of small traders lose. They just lose!
lets put it this way. Small Traders have no power to have their say on how to regulate the financial market. When a Clearing goes liquidation bankrupt, bankrupt clearing's big clients (big trader and institution) will get their recovery money first, while small traders will get last or if they EVER Will. Big traders and institution have the edge, the power to regulate the government, while small traders have no edge at all. NONE Small Traders, u are at your OWN RISK. u have no edge to trade in the financial market at all. Keep in mind, the financial market is design for big traders and institution. It was never built for small traders. Small Traders, maybe u are on "Kool-Aid"
Do you have any case histories to back this up? It's my understanding that each client gets recoveries in proportion to the total amount of recovery available. If only 50% recovery possible, each customer gets 50% of what they had. So, basically, I don't think that your statement about the prioritization of big vs. small accounts is legally correct. If a person had $1 of a bond investment and someone else had $1 million in equity in that same company, the person who had the $1 bond would have priority. Unless Obama steps in, obviously.
h u will get your proofs as the mf global and pfg stories are unfolding. In the meantime, keep reloading your account or multiple accounts to stay in the game. reload
What information do you have that leads you to conclude that these cases will be different from the cases in the past, since you obviously can't find any historical evidence for your claim? Why do you have to insert your ignorant opinion into the matter at all? Just leave it be. You don't have to comment on everything.
Reality is when a big pool of money and disputes are turned over to attorneys serving as trustee they will bill to the end of time until they've depleted all of the assets. You may receive a postcard announcing a settlement that you have to expressly respond to decline. Or like the mf settlements you are agreeing to accept a partial payment with unlimited future clawbacks in exchange for a full release of all claims. This clawback is interesting because the terms shift personal liability on you beyond the amounts invested or paid out. ie. if the attorney fees exceed the assets of the trust .. you agree to pay them.. Absolute insanity. The more obvious issue that No ONE seems to focus on are the numerous conflict of interest and self dealing / profiteering issues of these trustees. How can they stand in the shoes of those defrauded while simultaneously indemnifying the corp and protecting the very officers who stole?