Correct on all three counts... with luck, a violation of segregated funds isn't the next shoe to drop over the weekend.
Oldtrader, you wrote that Apex didn't lie about me, and that he specifically quoted me. If you re-read this thread, more carefully, you will see that what you said is not true. Apex did quote me, but he also told lies which were not supported by his quotations of me. Apex, for example, posted a quote in which I stated, many months ago, that I am not trading futures. The fact was that I had previously traded futures, although I didn't mention this because it wasn't relevant at the time of my statement. Apex then lied by stating that I had admitted that I had never traded a futures contract in my life. He posted, This was an out and out lie, which was NOT supported by any of Apex's quotations of me. I hope you will take another look. I also have difficulty understanding why you would commend Apex, after he falsely stated that segregated customer funds in futures accounts are guaranteed. His statements are particularly dangerous, because he argues that he is far better informed than the other participants on ET. You are a respected contributor on ET, and yet, you are encouraging reliance upon the very dangerous misinformation spewed by Apex. I have particular respect for your opinion, so I am disappointed to conclude that in this particular case, you just haven't looked as closely as you should, before you advise others who respect you. Your confidence in Refco futures is unfounded. Your confidence is based on pure speculation, about a company which has already, in the past few days, officially announced that none of its own financial statements, released in recent years, can be trusted. A company which just this week saw its CEO arrested and released on $50 million bail. This means we have no idea what is going on, and its just plain irrational to risk your funds and other people's funds on such a delinquent outfit. You are speculating about a company which was fined by the CFTC, in 1998, for embezzling segregated customer funds from its futures brokerage (not the holding company!), and then temporarily using those funds to cover debts. The removal of those funds was criminal theft, and placed customers at risk of loss, regardless of the fact that the funds were later returned. It is well established, in law, that one remains guilty for theft, even if one returns the stolen property. You are certainly way off base to say that the problem is confined to the holding company. Numerous Refco companies are in deep trouble. It sounds like you aren't paying attention to the headlines about the specific things which have happened to Refco companies, other than the holding company, in just the past few days. Refco was also carrying a receiveable of several hundred million dollars. We haven't been told the origin of this huge loss, which was apparently made good by Bennett just this week, but only because he got caught. The only hypothesis I have heard is that this was a huge customer loss originating in the futures brokerage, which was then concealed. I think it is unwise to have confidence in such a futures brokerage, without an official explanation of the origins of that loss carried on the books of a company related to the futures brokerage. What if there are even more concealed huge losses originating from the futures brokerage? Don't you realize that segregated customer funds, on deposit at Refco, can be seized in order to cover losses arising from other segregated customer accounts? This risk arises when the futures brokerage fails to exercise adequate risk control. Do you trust embezzlers to manage risk? It cannot be disputed that segregated customer funds were embezzled from Refco's futures brokerage in the 1990s. I think it is unreasonable to assume that we can possibly know the full extent to which thieves, running a futures brokerage, have already looted segregated customer funds. Theft can be disguised as trading losses in accounts controlled by the criminals, which losses must then be covered by seizing the segregated funds of legitimate customers. If segregated customer funds are again embezzled, but this time not returned, then anybody who relied on your assurances, and those of Apex, will suffer. My bottom line, Oldtrader, is that I have long respected your opinions, but I just can't imagine how you can be so trusting and optimistic in the face of the specific facts known, and the specific facts NOT known, about this company. I can't imagine why you don't share in what I think is a perfectly appropriate and necessary sense of outrage as to companies like Refco.
Wow that was a lot of words to express a very simple concept Here it is: Bennett and De Los Santos got greedy. They formed a business "entity" to park uncollectable debts (and in the process make themselves quite a bit of money). They obtained the cooperation of several other parties, and in the end, they got caught. One has to point out that these are the charges and as of today, they are not proven. However I observe the following: 1. Bennett has been arrested 2. Both gentlemen are going to be charged 3. In my opinion, they will be found guilty and they will serve time (probably a lot of time in a federal prison) and pay substantial fines. 4. Chances are quite good that Refco will either disappear or will be bought outright by another competitor. 5. Some of Refco's customers (clearing, prop, etc) are screwed and because they didnt get out soon enough, they will lose money. I think thats about it. Steve
Sure. Did you expect this fiasco with Refco ? If so then why ? I dont expect companies that get through the IPO stage to uncover this type of revelation well after the pre-IPO due diligence was completed and signed off by multiple parties. Moreover, although I knew in gut after the second day revelations came to light that the company was largly finished, I didn't expect it to unfold in three days. So, yes, unanticipated, and extraordinary. While I appreciate your efforts to enlighten the community with respect to the settlement and clearing process, I really dont see much of a point to your postings except to try to preserve your business - which is of course perfectly OK. Refcos business will most likely be picked up by somebody but I am sure there will be a lot of re-organization of many customers and that is only to be expected in this type of incident. Post all you like. It wont stop cutomer defections or scale backs.
you are making slanderous claims. No evidence of embezzlement has been found nor were they found in the 90's. They were fined for "borrowing" from segragated accounts which is a far different thing. Probably that means they didn't collect variation margin from losing customers quickly enough. The ironic thing here is that Refco has a long history of bailing out their customers and other firms when they have had problems. Also Bennet has not been accused of profiting from the concealed losses at all except that he had been fraudulently hiding the related party nature of the receivable owed to Refco since 1998. He fraudulently misrepresented and for that I'm sure he'll spend a long time in jail. If anyone has lost money on the Rfx stock or had their accounts frozen you have reason to be pissed. If you have futures accounts their reveiw your options and move your accounts if you want. Otherwise shutup.
Quote from slackeral: Beg to differ. Unlawful, unauthorized, undisclosed "borrowing" from segregated customer accounts is EXACTLY the same thing as embezzlement. Embezzlement includes the unauthorized USE of money later returned. Embezzlement is a broader concept than that of taking and keeping. "To 'embezzle' means wilfully to take, or convert to one's own use, another's money or property, of which the wrongdoer acquired possession lawfully, by reason of some office or employment or position of trust." (quoting from Black's Law Dictionary). Refco was likely in financial distress, if, to cover debts, it invaded segregated customer funds in futures accounts. If Refco had gone bankrupt, at the time, then it would have been unable to return the customer funds, and the customers would have been stuck with the loss. This is not ony pure speculation, it is also incorrect. "Back in 1994, Refco was fined $1.25 million for dipping into customer accounts to pay loans, borrowing as much as $123 million from the funds on an ``almost daily basis,'' the Commodity Futures Trading Commission said at the time." (quoting from Bloomberg website on 13 Oct 2005). So Refco used the embezzled funds to pay loans. This was not about tardy or erroneous margin calculations. This was about taking and using and risking, and therefore also embezzling segregated customer funds from futures accounts. You are making it sound like Bennet is really a wonderful guy. You are suggesting that he didn't perpetrate this enormous fraud for his own selfish material gain. You are suggesting that he did it for the benefit of others. A real stand-up guy. Recall that one need not profit in order to commit embezzlement. All one need do is to use the embezzled funds or property. Refco, L.L.C., in using customer funds to cover debts, embezzled even if it did not profit; and Refco certainly placed those customer funds at risk of being irretrievably lost, even though they appear to have been returned. I wasn't financially injured by Refco, but I do have reason to be pissed. One of Refco's business associates, Apex Capital, has spearheaded Refco's defense on these bulletin boards. He has, for example, repeatedly posted false claims that segregated customer funds in futures accounts are guaranteed against loss. He has also, in the course of his efforts, posted false statements personally attacking me. I think I have the right to defend myself. I will make you an offer, slackeral. If you can persaude me that there was a difference between embezzlement and Refco's mishandling of segregated customer funds, then I will apologize, and if Apex then additionally stops telling lies about me, then I will shutup.
Rockford: Well I have to say I'm surprised to see such an extensive post in response to mine, coupled with another extensive post on another similar thread elsewhere. I'm sorry to see that I have not lived up to your prior opinion of me. First, you state the following: You know, "lie" is a pretty strong word. Personally I reserve it for times when I think there was some type of "malicious" or "evil" INTENT involved in a misstatement. Because of course, a misstatement could be a result of an "error of knowledge", or a simple "mistake", or a "hasty conclusion". For instance, in your original post you state that your RAM is of a certain size, which Apex then pointed out. This was one of the original areas that you claimed he "lied". Come to find out, you had posted that specific RAM, and evidently had made an error in posting it. Now, by your definition perhaps someone could say that you were "lying", except that most of us probably don't think that your "misstatement" rises to the level of "malicious intent". Likewise, when you make the statement about your lack of activity in futures, it's easy to see how one could arrive at a conclusion that you had not traded them. Frankly this doesn't strike me as a "lie", I think that's way too strong of a statement for something which appears to be a misinterpretation of what you said. I've read what you said several times at this point, and would not know from the statement that you had ever traded futures before. So no, the conclusion I come to is that Apex was not lying in his statements. He made one statement that turns out to have been a misstatement. The other statements appear to be true. None of the statements or your response have much to do with the main topic at hand. Perhaps at the heart of the remainder of your response is the following: I suppose one might wonder how there could be a "fact NOT known"...your words....upon which one could base a conclusion, an opinion, or a feeling. How logical does it seem to arrive at a certain conclusion based on "facts NOT known"? Sorry Rockford, but in my world I base conclusions on "known facts". Everything else to me is fancy guesswork. Now, here's a fact: segregated funds in a futures account can be used to offset a large loss from a single customer. But in this case we do not know that it applies. Therefore, it is not a fact in this particular case. It's just something that happens to be true about all futures accounts. Yet, you seem to draw certain conclusions based on this idea. You seem to believe that I am "optimistic and trusting" based on the limited post I made. But let me say this: I don't think "optimism" or "trust" are a part of this at all. I think this is about looking at the "known facts" and then acting accordingly. I think you have drawn yet another conclusion that is unwarranted by the post I made. Instead of drawing all these unsuported conclusions, perhaps what you should have done is asked me a few questions. For instance, had I maintained a futures account at Refco I would have wired the money out. Not because of any of the idea that you have expressed though. I think you'll find that when this is all settled out that no one in the futures area will have lost a dime. However, I could see they could lose the ability to trade for a period of time, and that would have been the reason I would have wired the money out. Now, notice this isn't based on "optimism", "trust" or "outrage". It simply a business decision. However, I don't have an account at Refco. There's a reason. I have most (not all) of my money at IB. The reason is that they are well-capitalized and more importantly, they have a "Universal Account" where my money is swept nightly into a securities account where it is insured on two different levels, with the exception of any funds left in the futures account as overnight margin. This situation is one that I thought about years ago. I have always kept smaller amounts of money (for me) in futures accounts, and when I finally had an opportunity to keep money in a "Universal Account", I took it. I know I could get cheaper fees elsewhere, but this is one of the prices I am willing to pay to get security. At one point Rockford you accused me of "speculating" about Refco. You are 100% wrong here. "Speculation" would not describe it at all. I prefer to stick to the facts. For instance, one fact that we know pertaining to the futures acounts is that the exchanges such as CME, CBOT, and NYMEX have all issued statements that the segregated funds are correct and intact at this point. This would seem to contradict YOUR "speculation" regarding the possible "large losses" in the regulated futures area. Hopefully this will clear up some of this. OldTrader
Oldtrader, You misunderstand. My opinion of you is not diminshed by our current disagreement or by your criticisms of me. I mentioned "facts not known" because, as Socrates learned from the Oracle at Delphi, what we don't know is more important than what we do know. We can't rely on a futures broker's capital to protect its customers, if that broker's books have been cooked, or if they were kept by swindlers. This is because, in such a situation, it is a fact that we don't know the broker's capital, so that our decisions must be based on the fact that we don't know certain facts. I can't believe you would reason that since we don't know anything about the broker's financial condition, it is safe to stay there because there are no facts indicating a problem. I think you would agree that the absence of known facts would be the basis for leaving. If you were blindfolded, would you recklessly cross the street, because you had no awareness a car was coming? No, you would recognize that you don't know whether it is safe, and so, you would not cross the street wearing a blindfold. Sound decisions are based, not just on the facts, but also on what we don't know. It is a fact that our ability to know the facts is limited, and that we must make decisions based, in part, on the extent to which we don't know the facts. Apex made more than just the one misstatement about whether I ever traded futures in my life. Another example is that he stated that I blame IB for bad fills in SPY and QQQQ, when in fact, that was true over a year ago, but is no longer true in the present, because I was proven right that IB was at fault, and then IB stopped those bad fills by improving its order execution logic. I already explained this once, so I guess you missed it, maybe because these little slanders must be boring to anyone other than myself. Perhaps Apex's misstatements were not intentional lies, and perhaps I jumped the gun when I said they were. I still believe that his motives were malicious, and that he should have stuck to meaningful issues, rather than resorting to untruthful, retaliatory, ad hominem attacks, based on irrelevant trivia, with the sole intent of causing harm.
You are really making yourself look foolish overall. You should stop. Your already behind so I can't say to do it while your ahead, but you are obviously talking about something tthat is just over your head and under your feet. You don't have a clue and you have not been helpful to anyone here. Brandon
Brandonf, I'm sorry you don't find my postings helpful. But maybe this will help you. You, like Apex Capital, in various threads, have incorrectly and repeatedly posted that segregated customer funds, deposited with a futures broker, are guaranteed, by the exchanges, against bankruptcy of the clearing broker. Here is confirmation from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, at http://www.cme.com/clearing/set/fs/finsafsys10241.html, that you are wrong: