This is the most absurd logic that I have ever encountered here on ET. I guess because Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby was indicted on 5 counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to a Grand Jury and that he and VP Cheney rode to work together each morning in the Secret Service limo . . . this also makes VP Cheney a criminal, which then makes President Bush a criminal as well . . . because they both work in the Oval Office.
Let's focus on this history for a minute. You've have also stated this "embezzlement" was to help pay Refco's debts and thus stop it from going bankrupt. Let me just seize on the offence they were fined for in 1996, the offence was commited during a period 1989 to 1992 where REFCO were found "guilty" for moving monies between segregated accounts where they had the SAME PARENT COMPANY, to offset that parent companies debits against its credits. I haven't looked at the other 3 cease and desist orders from 1983/88/90 to comment and yes, as REFCO didn't have the required paperwork in place, the segregation rules were broken but this is far cry from REFCO helping themselves to client segregated cash to keep afloat/PB in cigars etc , is it? I recommend a tone down in the rheotoric. It's a shame you can't find the time to comment on one of your other statements concerning FXCM.
Agreed. It is amazing to me that someone can be so childish and hypocritical. Jim Rockford rants and raves about how several posters on ET are attacking him and being abusive, anti-social, and disruptive to the ongoing discussion, and yet he has NO problem turning right around and doing the very same thing that he is complaining of, to Old Trader. To this day, he has yet to answer my simple question of why he did not come onto ET to warn everyone of REFCO, before the holding company imploded. How pathetic.
red herring n. A smoked herring having a reddish color. Something that draws attention away from the central issue. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [From its use to distract hunting dogs from the trail.] red herring Something that draws attention away from the central issue, as in Talking about the new plant is a red herring to keep us from learning about downsizing plans. The herring in this expression is red and strong-smelling from being preserved by smoking. The idiom alludes to dragging a smoked herring across a trail to cover up the scent and throw off tracking dogs. [Late 1800s] === This is a phrase that constantly comes to mind on here. People don't answer questions they obfuscate the issues that are the topic of this thread.
You mean like the way in which you never answered my question posted earlier on Page 34 about why it is that you have posted 62 consecutive times on ET concerning REFCO and NOT one single post on any other thread or topic? Why is that?
No, thewoodcutter, your history is incomplete and incorrect. The CFTC, in 1994, found that Refco transferred well in excess of $100 million dollars from segregated customer futures trading accounts, moved the money to non-segregated accounts, and then used those funds to pay Refco's debts, temporarily, until other financing enabled Refco to return the funds to the segregated customer accounts. So, contrary to your view, this was in fact a case of keeping Refco afloat in cigars, horse farms, hookers, cocaine, etc. If Refco had gone bankrupt before the money had been returned to the segregated accounts, then the customers would have suffered a loss. The CFTC found that this had been done over and over again, on an almost daily basis. Refco consented to the findings and neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing. The worst offenders, within the CFTC's jurisdiction, never admit or deny wrongdoing when they strike their deals with CFTC, and this is a sign of the CFTC's weakness as a regulator. We can also perceive, in the 1994 matter, yet another example of the classic Refco move of concealing deficits by shuttling them back and forth between various entities. This same modus operandi was apparent in the sham transactions which later helped conceal the CEO's related party receivable, which in turn generated the spark which triggered Refco's collapse. I haven't seen the 1996 order, but your explanation of it doesn't make any sense to me. Your description makes me suspect that the offending conduct may have been much worse than you seem to think it was, and may have been yet another case of embezzlement, so I would like to see it. Don't you think such info would be more valuable than personal attacks? I didn't have to think much or to organize much for the preceeding paragraphs, because prior discussions have given me some preparation for them. But the FXCM stuff would require me to do a lot of homework, for which I just don't have time, because I waste so much time denying the constant stream of false accusations from Apex Capital and Oldtrader. I can't just continue to give and to give to this board, if I will not be treated with minimum level of respect. If you guys want to discuss and to debate with me on the real topics, you must demand that Baron put a stop to the off-topic abuse I am getting.
donaq7, You should do something about it. You should complain to Baron. You should send him a PM, explaining that you lost money with Refco, and you see people trying to have a productive discussion regarding what we can learn from the Refco scandal, but that Apex Capital and Oldtrader are overwhelming the thread with off-topic personal attacks. You should ask Baron to protect this thread from off-topic personal attacks. You should also show your support, in this thread, for a meaningful discussion, instead of a collection of personal attacks and lies.