Discussion in 'Feedback' started by dbphoenix, May 19, 2004.



    BDT isn't either a broker or software provider, are they? How on earth would someone rate a service providing calls on stocks? I can see it now ... when the "sheep" are making money from the calls they'd all rate the service a "10". When they're losing their shirts they'd rate it a "1".
    #11     May 19, 2004
  2. dbphoenix


    No, they're not. Which is why I made the point.
    #12     May 19, 2004
  3. i certainly agree that many vendors could be somewhat smarter about how they choose to advertise.. BDT changed their banner, that is a good start imo..

    i dont recall anyone being called names or labeled as a fraud because of their advertising alone.. if you advertise something that you cannot deliver, that is fraud.. the name calling came after BDT refused to answer basic questions regarding the credibility of their claims.. their refusal to provide reasonable answers does not in itself mean that they are frauds, but it casts a dark cloud of suspicion..

    perhaps it might be wise to adopt a policy to warn new advertisers up front that claims in their banners will be questioned by ET members and not just accepted at face value..

    imagine if a new broker came in claiming to have the lowest rates in the world.. it saved "Chris from Columbus" 5000 dollars a week.. they have "auto trade" feature that allows the computer to trade for you if you are sick that day, so you dont miss out on profits.. but when you ask how much the rates are so you can compare, they say "open an account and place a trade and see for yourself".. when you ask how "auto trader" works they refuse to answer the question because its "not legitimate".. of course this person is going to be mocked and scolded.. deservedly so.. and they arent going to sue anyone for "libel" for the same reason that people dont sue them, its too much trouble and they wouldnt win..

    i think if members should be held to account (have proof) for what they say, the advertisers should be held to the same standard (show proof).. but, thats just my opinion..

    #13     May 20, 2004
  4. Quah


    What I don't understand is how these places can get away with advertising "potential" gains as the main part of their advertising. They all hide behind their disclaimers - the disclaimers that say they are just "potential" gains. They says "hey, there is a disclaimer..."

    But you know what? That line is such a crock. They know exactly what they are doing - and why they are advertising in such a manner. We all know (and even BDT admitted) that the "potential" gains were in fact impossible. Remember that? They said it was IMPOSSIBLE to get all of the potential gains. What a circular argument - it can't be both potential and impossible.

    I'd like to see a auto manufacturer advertise a gas using vehicle that uses absolutely no gas while travelling at 120 mph for over 20 miles.

    And then say "well, that is the potential. If you dropped the car from an aircraft at 100,000 feet".

    I'm just amazed that the regulators put up with this type of stuff.

    Note that I have no idea about their service. I only wish that they would advertise their service(s) in a noble and moral way - surely if they are that good they don't need to use these sorts of tactics. Why don't they choose to go the high road and treat their potential clients with respect instead of trying to BS them with insane claims?

    And re: what Baron said about calling the firm a scam - well, I'm not saying the firm is a scam at all - like you said, I can't say that without actually trying it. I'm saying their advertising methods are a scam - misleading, etc - even WITH the disclaimer. A disclaimer doesn't absolve a firm of the need to tell the truth and do the right thing. Note that the disclaimer doesn't say "potential gains that are impossible to actually achieve".
    #14     May 20, 2004
  5. dbphoenix


    Because they sell dreams, and they know it. It's partly a return to the days of Jan '00 (remember those brokerage ads of taking 10m at lunch to trade at the kitchen table and knock off a quick $10K?).

    I see no reason why members can't conduct the due diligence that ought to be done by whoever accepts this advertising. They may not be Boy Scouts about it, but so what?
    #15     May 20, 2004
  6. Quah


    Also, I wonder if the "testimonials" are covered under the disclaimer. Surely testimonials are offered as actual fact - not potential.

    Surely no firm would put these testimonials on their website without actually verifying them, right?

    Most testimonials are even more unbelievable than the "potential" results.
    #16     May 20, 2004
  7. dbphoenix


    The libertarians will squawk, and to a certain extent, I agree with them (I've never understood why people do the stupid things they do). But this is an area that is ripe for regulation. Conceptually, I don't see a whole lot of difference between this stuff and boiler rooms.
    #17     May 20, 2004


    Why some of you keep hammering away on this BDT nonsense is humorous. Do you believe everything you read? How about everything you hear? Do you NOT believe in doing your own due diligence before investing $$$? Sorry, but this type of advertising abounds ... ever been up late at night and flipped through the channels and seen the real estate infomercials? How to put no money down and walk away with $10,000 at the closing (or something similar). Do you believe all you hear in those infomercials? Bottom line with BDT is that they are offering a service to people who are traders or aspire to trade. No one is forcing anyone to join. To me trading is an individual endeavor and I need to feel comfortable with the trades I take on (and choose myself) ... to follow someone else's calls blindly can be a recipe for disaster.
    #18     May 20, 2004
  9. dbphoenix


    Once again, you miss the point.
    #19     May 20, 2004
  10. DHOHHI


    Once again, you post and waste more bandwidth. Hit your quota of posting for the day?

    And by the way ...no, I didn't miss the point. Next time perhaps you can read my post and maybe, just maybe .... comprehend it. It's not rocket science.
    #20     May 20, 2004