Proposed NFA Capital Requirement

The New CFTC numbers came out last week:
http://www.cftc.gov/files/tm/fcm/tmfcmdata0706.pdf

As a result it is time for another Dead Pool Update:

Poorly Capitalized Firms
Advanced Markets ($1,039,000)
American National Trading Corp ($2,159,000)
Bacera Corporation (Shutdown!)
Cal Finanical Corporation (Shutdown!)
Direct Forex ($1,458,000)
E FX Options ($3,158,000)
Forex Club ($2,873,000)
FiniFX (Not Accepting New Customers)
Forward Forex (Shutdown!)
FX Option1 Inc (Shutdown!)
GFS Futures & Forex ($2,995,000)
Hamilton Williams ($1,130,000)
MB Trading ($1,170,000)
Money Garden ($3,584,000)
Nations Investments (Shutdown!)
One World Capital ($2,308,000)
Performance Capital International (Vanished)
Royal Forex Trading ($1,171,000)
SNC Investments ($1,524,000)
Solid Gold Financial ($2,239,000)
Spencer Financial (Shutdown!)
Trend Commodities (Shutdown!)
United Global Markets (Shutdown!)
Worldwide Clearing (Shutdown!)
Wall Street Derivatives ($936,000)

Unregulated Firms (Buyer Beware)
GCI (?)
Cletus' Fishing & Forex (?)
Krusty's Currency Trading (?)

So far not a single firm in the dead pool has shown any signs they have the capital to potentially meet the proposed requirements. Of course, they are not required to put forth any additional capital yet since the rule has not passed but you would think that at least one or two of them would take the initiative and pony up the dough now to show the world they are in it for the long haul.

Although I must doff my cap to I Trade FX for their near $4 million in reported capital. Contrary to my earlier ribbing they are getting closer to making the $5 million barrier to entry and just may stick it to the savior in the end. They have replaced the firm that was, prior to the most recent report, the most likely firm to make it off the Dead Pool List- MB Trading. The month before MB Trading was showing $3,952,000 in adjusted net capital but now they are only showing $1,170,000 in adjusted net capital. That is quite a drop for MB Trading. It leaves them with only $171,000 in excess net capital. Of course, it could be a one month anomaly so I won't jump to any conclusions. But in light of the new NFA proposal and the increasing drumbeat from the media about the likelihood of this rule becoming law it seems to me MB Trading should be INCREASING their net capital, not decreasing it. It leaves one to wonder just what's going on over in El Sugundo...

 

Any word whether CFTC or any other regulator will add rules against requotes, misquotes, and the other pricing tricks by which the fx retailers swindle their customers?

 

Right now the Regulators are focused on the capital requirement issue. It isn't that the things you pointed out aren't important, they are. But with all these firms going out of business the NFA and CFTC are focused on flushing the bottom feeders out of the industry for the time being.

 

Hopefully after the bottom feeders are flushed they'll address the tricks that the big, sleazy and well capitalized bucket shops use.

"Forex brokerage FXCM has been the most vocal supporter of the rule, although they have received support from some other big firms." Currency Mag 8/07

 

Underwater Udo

The word "Bucket Shop" gets thrown around a lot in the retail forex business. But what exactly is a bucket shop?

www.traderslog.com describes a Bucket Shop as follows:

Describes a brokerage facility that books (takes the opposite side of) retail customer orders without actually having them executed on an exchange. The term comes from the practice of placing an order in a bucket rather than transmitting it to an exchange as a broker would normally do. Bucket Shops were popular during the 1920's at a time when many stocks traded at over $100 a share and the average salary was $1,000 a year, making investment in the stock market too expensive for most people. The most sophisticated bucket shops, known as bucketeers, were hard to distinguish from legitimate brokerage offices, having their own ticker tapes and chalkboards. The bucketeers would often take opposite positions in the market to ensure that their customers could not win.

Forex bucket shops essentially do the same thing and simply pocket the money right up front without even bothering to go into the market to offset customer trades. Instead, the firm simply creates dummy statements showing customers they are making money and that as a result they should send in more money. Then after they have milked the customer enough they'll send out another dummy statement showing them they have lost it all. Or they just fold up shop and run like the wind.

Such were the sales practices of such prominent dead forex firms walking as Forward Forex, Trend Commodities Limited, Worldwide Clearing and FX Option1 Inc. Add to this list another con-man, and newly baptized convict, Udo Rotmistrenko. Udo was a licensed Commodity Trading Advisor registered with the CFTC. The NFA granted him his license in March of 2000:
http://www.nfa.futures.org/BasicNet/Details.aspx?entityid=0300565

Udo was the sole proprietor of Rittmeister Capital Management and his specialty was managed forex funds. But by June 2, 2004, the only thing he would be managing was how to find enough spare change to make his lone phone call from prison. For on that day he would be arrested by the feds for forex fraud. The details of Udo's case can be found here: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/June07/rotmistrenkosentencingpr.pdf

For the condensed version here is essentially what Udo did; courtesy of the Fraud Digest: http://frauddigest.com/fraud.php?ident=3485

On March 31, 2005, Rotmistrenko pled guilty to twelve counts of wire fraud and twelve counts of mail fraud. During his guilty plea, Rotmistrenko admitted that, from 1999 to 2003, as then-CEO and president of Rittmeister Capital Management in New York City, he fraudulently induced investors to wire and mail him funds by giving the investors inaccurate information regarding his company’s profit history. Rotmistrenko did so by giving the investors account statements that falsely inflated the profits the investors were earning and by using investor funds to pay his personal expenses without disclosing those expenditures to the investors. According to the Indictment, Rittmeister held itself out to the investing public as a brokerage firm that managed investments for retail customers in the foreign currency exchange (“forex”) market.

In order to induce potential customers to invest funds through Rittmeister, Rotmistrenko and Rittmeister sales representatives made false and fraudulent representations regarding Rittmeister’s trading history in the forex market. Specifically, they falsely represented to retail customers that Rittmeister historically generated large profits, as high as in excess of 43 percent per year, for its customers through forex trading. In fact, Rittmeister generated little or no profits for Rittmeister’s customers through trading in the forex market. Furthermore, sales representatives told retail customers that Rittmeister’s customer investment funds were used to invest in the forex market, when, in fact, the company failed to transfer a large majority of investor funds to any forex trading firm for the purpose of executing forex trades. Rather, a substantial amount of investor funds were diverted to pay Rotmistrenko's personal expenses, and to pay Rittmeister’s operating expenses. To hide the fact that a large portion of the customer funds Rittmeister received was being diverted to pay Rittmeister’s operating expenses and for Rotmistrenko's personal benefit, Rotmistrenko created and sent clients false and fraudulent account statements that represented trading activity and profits and/or losses incurred on trades in client accounts. In truth, Rittmeister failed to generate any trading profits for the customer accounts. Rotmistrenko diverted customer funds from Rittmeister’s bank accounts in various ways, including the following: (i) approximately $319,000 was withdrawn in cash; (ii) approximately $146,900 was paid to an associate; (iii) approximately $24,900 in checks was made payable to Rotmistrenko; (iv) in excess of $30,000 was used for car payments and other car expenses; (v) approximately $38,000 was used to pay college tuition for Rotmistrenko's wife; and (vi) funds were used to pay for numerous hotel, motel and restaurant bills, wedding expenses, and gym memberships.

In fact, Udo is quite the sportsman. Not only did he use customer funds to bankroll his trips to the gym but he used them to pay for scuba diving lessons too! A simple googling of old Udo shows him to be a member of the "2001 Rec Scuba Rogues" http://www3.sympatico.ca/johnfrancis/rogues.htm. You can see his mugshot under the name "chaoswolf." Wonder how many pips all that scuba gear cost his investors? And boy could I spend hours and hours coming up with appropriate metaphors for Udo's membership in a club titled "Scuba Rogues..."

But alas Udo won't be breaking out his wetsuit anytime soon because on June 17, 2007, Udo was sentenced to 51 months in prison by Judge Deborah Batts. Ouch. Rarely do forex fraud criminals get such harsh prison sentences. What gives? Well, this was not your typical clumsy regulatory action. This case was initiated and prosecuted by the United States Attorney of the Southern District of New York. This was the office that gave America Rudy Giuliani. In short, these guys don't mess around. And that is an important thing to remember because prior to Udo's being arrested he had been given a clean bill of health by the NFA. What does that mean? It means that doing a background check is no guarantee that you're dealing with a legit firm.

In short, there is only one way to avoid the bucket shops and that is to avoid any and all unregistered firms and to avoid anyone that isn't showing a healthy balance sheet. Am I saying that firms with just a couple million dollar are bucket shops? Of course not. But since we know forex fraud is primarily taking place with smaller firms why take the chance? In short, until the industry gets flushed by regulators investors should be wary of any firm that isn't showing a healthy balance sheet else you stand a chance of being eaten alive by the Chaoswolves of the world.

 

"Forex brokerage FXCM has been the most vocal supporter of the rule, although they have received support from some other big firms." Currency Mag 8/07

 

Meanwhile, back at the Dead Pool. The NFA appears to be wrapping up the closures of CFG and UGMFX. They released the following two press releases today regarding the regulatory actions they took against said firms. Once again both firms were very poorly capitalized and were not able to keep their books straight. Once again this is one of the reason regulators want to raise capital requirements. Once again if regulators share these concerns the trading public should as well.

NFA permanently bars Virginia forex firm, Forefront Investments Corporation
August 13, Chicago - National Futures Association (NFA) has permanently barred Forefront Investments Corporation (Forefront), a Futures Commission Merchant and Forex Dealer Member located in Richmond, Virginia, from NFA membership. The Decision, issued by NFA's Business Conduct Committee, is based on a Complaint filed in April 2007 and a settlement offer submitted by Forefront.

The Complaint charged that Forefront used misleading promotional material. In addition, the Complaint charged that Forefront failed to comply with NFA financial requirements, file financial statements within a timely manner, and implement an adequate anti-money laundering program. Further, the Complaint charged that Forefront failed to have a principal also registered as an associated person (AP).

NFA permanently bars United Global Markets LLC and orders firm to pay $40,000 fine
August 13, Chicago - National Futures Association (NFA) has permanently barred United Global Markets LLC (UGM), a Futures Commission Merchant and Forex Dealer Member located in Boston, Massachusetts, from NFA membership. Additionally, NFA ordered UGM to pay a $40,000 fine. The Decision, issued by NFA's Business Conduct Committee, is based on a Complaint filed in August 2007 and a settlement offer submitted by UGM.
The Committee found that UGM failed to maintain the required minimum adjusted net capital.

The Decision follows a recent enforcement action taken against UGM. In June 2007, NFA issued an emergency Member Responsibility Action against UGM. See previous press release.

 

Corrections

First, the link for the Udo Scuba Rogues is incorrect. This is the correct link:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/johnfrancis/rogues.htm

Second, I made some incorrect statements regarding Trend Commodities Limited:
http://www.nfa.futures.org/BasicNet/Case.aspx?entityid=0358048&case=07MRA00006&contrib=NFA

In regards to the bulk transfer of accounts from Forward Forex to Trend this was an incorrect assumption on my part. Let me correct the record. I assumed since they were sharing the same office and Forward Forex was going under and the principal of forward forex is drawing cheques on Trend’s bank account this is where the transferred accounts came from. But neither Trend nor the NFA can confirm where these accounts came from at this time. (Page 6)

Second, I made a mistake regarding the NFA ordering funds be sent back. It appears Trend did this voluntarily after being pressured by the NFA as to the status of the funds in one of their bank accounts.

Apologies – The Savior

 

For the Critics

I have received some complaints from other forum users that my "Dead Forex Firms Walking Dead Pool" amounts to nothing more than scare tactics since the rule hasn't passed and since no one is yet required to meet the proposed $5 million capital requirement. In short, these little firms are being given a bum rap.

But those critics are missing the big picture. The Dead Pool is not meant to be fair. It is meant to single out those firms that have a low probability of meeting the proposed capital requirement (keep in mind Currency Trader Magazine said the proposal could possibly “wipe out 90% of the industry.”) The counter argument to that is some of those firms have additional capital they aren’t showing in the CFTC Capital Reports. That may be so but how is the average trader to know that absent firms showing us their company financials? My critics insist the onus of responsibility to find this out is on me because I am putting these firms on the Dead Pool list but I say the onus of responsibility is on the firms because it is they who are soliciting customers to trade at their firms.

Why the Dead Pool? Because traders should be aware of the very precarious state these firms may find themselves in should the rule pass. The time to know this information is BEFORE a firm goes under, not after it has gone under. That is why I have included so many stories in this thread detailing the demise of so many poorly capitalized firms. The CFG case in particular is an instructive one I encourage everyone to read.

True, CFG was undercapitalized while the firms in the Dead Pool are currently meeting their capital requirement. But the NFA was taken by surprise when they checked CFG’s books, who as late as January of this year showed they were meeting their capital requirement too. My point is “low capitalization” can quickly lead to “undercapitalization.” And while the firms on the dead pool are not undercapitalized (I take back any comments to the contrary regarding undercapitalized firms on the dead pool), they are poorly capitalized and thus a lot more likely to go out of business should this rule pass.

Finally, I want to make clear I'm not saying all these firms will be going out of business should the new capital requirement be adopted. Surely some will survive. And it should also be noted that a firm’s month to month Adjusted Net Capital on the CFTC’s website can change radically from one month to the next. While I joked about I Trade FX with the line “Run Forrest Run” after they posted negative capital for one month I never stated I Trade FX was bankrupt and their current Adjusted Net Capital figure shows them to have close to $4 million which means they are one of the most likely firms to survive the proposed capital increase. So the CFTC capital requirement figures are not the end all be all in this debate. That I will grant my critics.

But at the moment, that report is the only independent source for checking a firm’s financial health. As such it carries tremendous weight and needs to be closely followed by the trading public in addition to the many other things a trader should do when checking on a firm before they open an account.

 

Euro Money Comments on the Capital Requirement

Euro Money has just published an article on the rule proposal that backs up everything I have been saying. Furthermore we are now seeing a lot of other Industry players offering their comments. Here are some choice quotes from some industry titans: http://www.euromoney.com/article.asp?PositionID=14&ArticleID=1398928

Todd Crosland, Interbank FX's founder chief executive, says: "The NFA has proposed to raise the minimum net capital requirement to $5 million. If you offer greater than 100:1 leverage, you would have to maintain two times that amount, or $10 million. We believe that by the end of the year the NFA will have fully implemented the new minimum net capital requirements. Our current net capital is [now] in excess of $25 million."

Gain chairman Mark Galant says: "Making sure all FDMs are well capitalized is a positive for the industry. The management at many of the smaller FDMs have no real FX market experience and have never managed a 24/5 trading operation. Besides being able to cover your financial obligations to your customers, you also need sufficient capital to post collateral with bank liquidity providers. An FDM that does not have good credit lines can get in trouble pretty quickly if they are unable to lay off their risk as needed.

The Euromoney article is also quoted as saying,

"If, as expected, US regulator the National Futures Association implements a proposal it has sent out to its 43 forex dealer members (FDMs), the result will be that many firms will have to attract fresh funding or close down. The proposal is due to be discussed by the NFA's board in August. If ratified, it will then go to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which effectively acts as the NFA's gatekeeper. The CFTC will almost certainly rubber stamp it."

"In its proposal, the NFA points out that the under-capitalization of many FDMs is the main cause of many of the problems that have plagued the sector, It is therefore looking to raise FDM's net capital requirements from $1 million to $5 million. Two other proposed changes to the NFA's concentration charges and its accounting requirements are likely to result in FDMs being obliged to have a minimum of $10 million in adjusted net capital to stay in business."

"The majority of FDMs do not have this much free capital available, so unless they receive fresh funding, they will almost certainly go out of business if the proposal is passed."