You keep on asking this question to everyone who says the identically same thing about your attitude towards her and her wrongdoing. Perhaps it is you who gives such impression away but is not aware of it?
She just agreed with the government that she perpetuated a fraud. And disclosures and agreements are worthless when one party is defrauding the other. Her paying a fine to the SEC in no way shields her from client litigation.
And so what is your insinuation? That her crimes are justified? As long as one can extract enough money out of a get rich quick scheme that involves lying to investors, covering up loses and committing federal crimes? By the way all your numbers are just imaginary ballpark estimates. You don't know anything about her lawyers fees and nor do you even know whether any of her prior years stated funds under management or reported profits are not also made up and doctored. Stop defending and glorifying a swindler and poser.
Do the math. 100m times 30% times times her perhaps 15-20% share of profits. Does that sound fucking rich to you? That is before any sort of taxes, fees, and other cost. Perhaps we live in different socioeconomic spheres and have a different understanding of the term rich. And how again do you know that her performance numbers are in any way legit? Trusting a convicted liar and swindler. How does that usually end up? Not good from my experience. PS. And perhaps you should re-do your math. Factoring in all the money she lost her clients do you honestly believe that it is morally or ethically justify able that she gets to keep her performance share off her reported gains, even if we assume for a second they are accurate, completely ignoring the money she lost and that she then retires and lives life big? 50m times 20% share amounts to 10m she should be morally (not legally) on the hook for. I am not questioning your interest in facts but I wonder about your moral compass.
Everest capital was the most prominent. FXCM didn't blow up because they were the counterparty to their clients' positions. So the clients had credit balances to FXCM. FXCM just tore the trades up - because they knew they couldn't collect anyway (without involving bill collectors and repo men) and they could win some goodwill.
Well they did win a lot of goodwill in banana republics, and Europe (I think they are still allowed to operate in Europe for whatever strange reason). Fxcm was and always will be a bucket shop and the response by some user on this site the morning after they got kicked out of the US was epic.
They proved that bucket shops were more reliable than real brokers who were powerless to absolve their users from extreme losses.