Lots of stuff doesn't add up here. When you are living a life of destitution, then maybe we'll start to pretend to care. Why don't you gofund me? Give me 80K, and I'll do exactly what my sim account did, which was double from 100K to 200K in 11 months because I had enough capital to work with to absorb overnight margins. Fascinating, Cap'n. Until then, bite our chodes.
I think thats the song they played 24/7 on the cell loudspeakers at Gitmo to break those Al-Queda f'rs.
Very sad, I idealize traders and despite the insensibility of some recent posts I strongly believe in planet Earth's rebirth through the blooming of successful individual traders. Please, make yourself a favor - stop posting here if you wish to kid, it is not appropriate, it is a tragedy and sacrifice for the respect towards all Individual traders to be or who are already successful. We are living in this tragedy. This is a real thread and real war for the rights of all individual traders. Good night.
So if I have this right, I understand that - * you were trading with borrowed money and making a profit, with which you were able to meet your loan repayment requirements * you lost 30% of your total accumulated profits to that date in one day, 18 September 2013. * after that you did no more trading and so of course you were unable to meet the loan repayment requirements. At this point in one sense it doesn't matter who caused you to stop trading, whether you decided to stop or UBS decided to freeze your trading. The conclusion from 18/09/13 is that your trading was high risk. There is therefore some probability that you would eventually make further large losses and that would not help you or the lender. It is not relevant that you made profits before this date, as a record of a series of profits does not indicate that the level of risk attached to a strategy is low. Alright, maybe late execution did turn a small loss into a large loss, so maybe that was indeed UBS's fault. But it remains the case that because a few minutes delay caused you to experience an increase in loss from 5% of total profits to 30% of total profits, this indicates a very high risk strategy. It was the right thing that you stopped (or were stopped) using it, you would probably have gone broke anyway. Also relevant is that your entire business model was high risk - i.e., locating in a low regulation jurisdiction, selecting trading as a means of income, borrowing capital to fund trading, using your own residence as security on the loan. All exceptionally high risk decisions. So from 08/10/13, your trading is over. You should not have been trying to trade via UBS or anyone else, with borrowed money or your own capital. However, you still had a legal obligation to repay the loan plus interest to the lender. At this point you adopt a further high risk strategy, which was the legal one - you keep the borrowed money and stop the repayments while you fight the case against UBS. High risk because - a) resorting to the law is to some extent resorting to a lottery - even experienced lawyers lose cases they thought were sound b) you risked losing the security on the loan, your main residence c) you laid yourself open to counter-claims, which you could not fully predict or quantify d) you would be at a disadvantage in proceedings, through your adversary being able to secure greater and better quality legal support than you could afford e) by withholding repayments you breach the contract that you are now trying to seek enforcement for. It might be that most legal cases never come to court Surely at some point did UBS offer to settle? Or you must have had the opportunity to offer to settle? I am now mixing my opinions with my understanding of your case, but leaving aside what I think, are the facts correct?
Do you have written proof or anything to back it up? If you called UBS and they just went "sure, in the future", that's not something that holds up in court nor is it binding in any way. If you were had an e-mail saying trades happen within 20 seconds, then why don't you complain to US authorities? UBS is licensed in US as a broker I believe. Quite easily solved if they are really at fault. I had a very similar case and the broker compensated me for it. No court drama required. If the US authorities already denied your claim then I think you're probably at fault. You wanted the collaterized loan, you have to accept their terms. Otherwise, why didn't you just go to another broker, problem solved. If what you said is true, you're in the right but again, why did UBS single you out? If you have contracts showing fees as X and you were charged Y, the case is simple and straightforward. Sounds more like you misunderstood their commission schedule and now are upset about it.
After completing a education trading course, this person thought with divine intervention they were going to financial paradise. Instead they are in financial hell. One would need to question what they worship.