Binary Options Con/Scam

davidfielder

Active member
Sep 28, 2012
185
0
26
www.whyoptions.com
#61
GFT and IG <---- Market Makers. Is that ok with you?
Is it ok with you that they are legally allowed to pay out IBs with customer losses?
That's ok?
I don't understand you people
Seriously I don't
Regulation is just a costly license to do EXACTLY what the unregulated brokers did do and will can continue to do. You win on the insurance. But nothing else is any different. And not everyone wants the limitations of the regulated broker. Don't argue about that one - it's a can of worms. Stick to the product argument.
 
Oct 11, 2006
8,072
1,300
223
#62
Movie theaters are also designed to relieve people of their money, as are supermarkets, comic book shops, gambliong parlors, hair dressers, arcades, computer stores, car parks, banks, brokers.............
At least when you go to the supermarket you get something for your money, like food. As far as I know food is not exactly a gimmick.

Trade binary options and you get nothing for your money, of course all your binary broker friends are telling people they'll make 100% in 2 minutes or some other nonsense, but we all know that's just a lie.
 

tar

Well-known member
Nov 18, 2006
10,441
1,308
223
#63
GFT and IG <---- Market Makers. Is that ok with you?
Is it ok with you that they are legally allowed to pay out IBs with customer losses?
That's ok?
I don't understand you people
Seriously I don't
Regulation is just a costly license to do EXACTLY what the unregulated brokers did do and will can continue to do. You win on the insurance. But nothing else is any different. And not everyone wants the limitations of the regulated broker. Don't argue about that one - it's a can of worms. Stick to the product argument.
You said we only have unregulated brokers and there are no alternatives i gave you some regulated brokers i am not arguing with you if they are market makers or not not the point you said there are no alternatives and i gave you some , not to mention when your money with a FSA regulated broker you are protected by the FSCS up to 80K pounds ...
 
Oct 11, 2006
8,072
1,300
223
#64
GFT and IG <---- Market Makers. Is that ok with you?
Is it ok with you that they are legally allowed to pay out IBs with customer losses?
That's ok?
I don't understand you people
Seriously I don't
Regulation is just a costly license to do EXACTLY what the unregulated brokers did do and will can continue to do. You win on the insurance. But nothing else is any different. And not everyone wants the limitations of the regulated broker. Don't argue about that one - it's a can of worms. Stick to the product argument.
..and your unregulated brokers are not market makers? I'm afraid Mr Stone has already let slip the details of how these companies work.
 
Jun 8, 2012
68
3
18
#65
GFT and IG <---- Market Makers. Is that ok with you?
Is it ok with you that they are legally allowed to pay out IBs with customer losses?
That's ok?
I don't understand you people
Seriously I don't
Regulation is just a costly license to do EXACTLY what the unregulated brokers did do and will can continue to do. You win on the insurance. But nothing else is any different. And not everyone wants the limitations of the regulated broker. Don't argue about that one - it's a can of worms. Stick to the product argument.
David, I have agreed with a lot of what you say to be honest but your quote here is BS. Market maker or not regulation brings a great deal to the party.. such as efficient withdrawals, qualified brokers or at least no hard sell brokers and segregation of client funds.

People are attracted to binaries and so they should be... a great tool to use but use them in the correct way with real business' and you have no-one to blame but yourself if you take a loss.

The way I see it, the unregulated companies in certain areas of the world are on to a winner. If they have great sales people encouraging clients to deposit they will make decent money because if you deposit £10k and lose it, it is theirs... if you deposit £10k and turn it into £20k its still theirs because you will never get the withdrawal processed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Oct 11, 2006
8,072
1,300
223
#66
David, I have agreed with a lot of what you say to be honest but your quote here is BS. Market maker or not regulation brings a great deal to the party.. such as efficient withdrawals, qualified brokers or at least no hard sell brokers and segregation of client funds.

People are attracted to binaries and so they should be... a great tool to use but use them in the correct way with real business' and you have no-one to blame but yourself if you take a loss.

The way I see it, the unregulated companies in certain areas of the world are on to a winner. If they have great sales people encouraging clients to deposit they will make decent money because if you deposit £10k and lose it, it is theirs... if you deposit £10k and turn it into £20k its still theirs because you will never get the withdrawal processed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Regulation doesn't guarantee segregation of funds, some brokers just ignore the law. The point is when it goes wrong you get your money back. When it goes wrong with an unregulated broker you don't get a penny.

It's like trying to argue that its better to use an illegal uninsured taxi rather than a legal insured one, its really quite ridiculous.
 

safvan

Active member
Oct 22, 2010
515
34
38
#67
The word "Broker" should be criminalized for the Binary Options gaming product.

Its an online gambling entertainment game and should exactly be printed off like that.

Licenses should come under the supervision of the Gambling Commissions and the rules pasted along with them.

That is it. It is that simple to fix this disease.h
 
May 6, 2012
12
0
11
#68
Hey guys , what about BetOnMarkets ?
its really important to me because i like so much their platform and website and i think i have found a good strategy which im testing with demo account,

Does it worth to make a real account with them ?

thank you .
 

moka2

Active member
Aug 9, 2012
529
13
28
#69
Get regualted in more respected jursdictions and offertrue risk protection , take away broker risk and then the same product you may get soem respect
Until then lot of red flags..
 

Vasco da Banana

Well-known member
Oct 25, 2012
699
119
53
#70
Movie theaters are also designed to relieve people of their money, as are supermarkets, comic book shops, gambliong parlors, hair dressers, arcades, computer stores, car parks, banks, brokers.............
Congratulations, you win T2W's Silliest Comment of the Week award. The prize is $10m of Bank of Goptions credit.
 

rsh01

Well-known member
Nov 12, 2010
1,184
299
93
#71
Congratulations, you win T2W's Silliest Comment of the Week award. The prize is $10m of Bank of Goptions credit.
its the most competitive award in the trading industry going. its being fought across most t2w threads every minute of every day.
 

davidfielder

Active member
Sep 28, 2012
185
0
26
www.whyoptions.com
#72
I don't get what you all are saying. Go back to the facts: Binary options can be made using vanilla options so by that logic Vaniall options are gambling. As such, vanilla options available via "exchanges" should be regulated by a gmaing comission. Um ok - if that's what you want. You still get the same damn result whereby 90% of retail traders lose.

None of you have ANY problem with market makers making their money off of YOUR losses. So the fact that they have a rubber stamp, ahem, excuse me, licesne to do so and even pay out IBs based on those losses directly and in writing and with the FSA's blessing is all cool. But these unregulated binary options companies - yes - they're the problem

My god ! You guys are seriously with your heads in the sand.
So let me straighten it out for you.
1. regulation is good. Unfortunately, it doesn't CURRENTLY do very much to protect customers from fraud. It creates an insurance plan ONLY if the broker goes bankrupt and files for chapter 11, or similar dissolution clauses in the country of incorporation+regulation. HOWEVER, this means jack #$%# to your cash when it comes to what the broker can and WILL do to your account if you start winning. Anyone to say different is either (1) trading with a bank/anonymous ECN or (2) is deceiving themselves because a market maker CAN NOT make money if you win (PERIOD). Please don't try to tell me otherwise, I am a little too well versed on the subject (have traded with for and against the banks with options, forex, unlisted stocks and others).

2. Binary options WILL be covered by all these niceties you people want to see in financial products (insurance and corporate oversight) and it's starting with CYSEC (and moving into all of MIFID countries thereafter including France, Germany, Italy, etc...). To label this a joke makes no sense to me as the same rules apply in CYSEC as they do in the FSA but with a lesser level of protection in terms of bankruptcy protection.All other marketing, sales, capital requirement and other restrictions are comparable.

3. The fact is, many people do not want regulation on products like BO because it's a pain in the **** to open an account, the company can hide behind more draconian terms and conditions as allowed by the regulators and actually don't need to return money all that fast if the customer was deemed to have "abused the system". Sound familiar - oh yeah, cause it's the same damn huey we hate about unregulated brokers. Yes, regulation mitigates a great deal of this but not by that wide a margin.

So for the last time - I am not against regulation. I am for it. But I want it there to protect ME and YOU. Not the damn tax authorities or the regulators themselves. What the NFA/CFTC in the US did for FINRA is a travesty . A damn abomination. I do agree that the FSA is far far far better for the trader. But, it comes with a massive and problematic caveat that only people who have actually dealt with the FSA know:
There are only very rough guidelines provided by the FSA. 95% of them are NOT abided by.
Ill give a quick example of one i love to hate:
It is required by the FSA that a risk warning appear at EYE level on every company's marketing documentation; digital or otherwise. In my time on the net, i have found 1-2 companies who abide by this fully. Show me a web site of a broker that has a risk warning above the fold (so that you DO NOT need to scroll to find it). Why don't the brokers abide by this? It's simple - there's stuff that's open for interpretation. Why is this, probably the most crucial and problematic aspect of the business, the fact that people can lose buttloads of cash, hidden from view at the bottom of the screen if it's required to be at EYE level?
I am just trying to open your eyes. Stop eating this doctrine of regulation being better than nothing. Cause even if it is, it's light years from being good for you directly. It's only via indirect means that you gain very much from this. So to shoot down binary options is preposterous -- at least as it pertains to the industry being regulated by MIFID. It simply makes no damn sense.
 

davidfielder

Active member
Sep 28, 2012
185
0
26
www.whyoptions.com
#73
Congratulations, you win T2W's Silliest Comment of the Week award. The prize is $10m of Bank of Goptions credit.
As for that comment. Thanks !!! I am proud to be the recipient of an award given by a dude with a banana in his name :) bless your soul.
But just tell me if I am wrong. Sure it's a truism - but I am NOT wrong.

:clap::clap::clap:Bananas for everyone at the bar !!!!:clap::clap::clap:
 
Sep 7, 2012
12
0
11
#75
The word "Broker" should be criminalized for the Binary Options gaming product.

Its an online gambling entertainment game and should exactly be printed off like that.

Licenses should come under the supervision of the Gambling Commissions and the rules pasted along with them.

That is it. It is that simple to fix this disease.h
Yes agree with you.
 

safvan

Active member
Oct 22, 2010
515
34
38
#76
I don't get what you all are saying. Go back to the facts: Binary options can be made using vanilla options so by that logic Vaniall options are gambling. As such, vanilla options available via "exchanges" should be regulated by a gmaing comission. Um ok - if that's what you want. You still get the same damn result whereby 90% of retail traders lose.

None of you have ANY problem with market makers making their money off of YOUR losses. So the fact that they have a rubber stamp, ahem, excuse me, licesne to do so and even pay out IBs based on those losses directly and in writing and with the FSA's blessing is all cool. But these unregulated binary options companies - yes - they're the problem

My god ! You guys are seriously with your heads in the sand.
So let me straighten it out for you.
1. regulation is good. Unfortunately, it doesn't CURRENTLY do very much to protect customers from fraud. It creates an insurance plan ONLY if the broker goes bankrupt and files for chapter 11, or similar dissolution clauses in the country of incorporation+regulation. HOWEVER, this means jack #$%# to your cash when it comes to what the broker can and WILL do to your account if you start winning. Anyone to say different is either (1) trading with a bank/anonymous ECN or (2) is deceiving themselves because a market maker CAN NOT make money if you win (PERIOD). Please don't try to tell me otherwise, I am a little too well versed on the subject (have traded with for and against the banks with options, forex, unlisted stocks and others).

2. Binary options WILL be covered by all these niceties you people want to see in financial products (insurance and corporate oversight) and it's starting with CYSEC (and moving into all of MIFID countries thereafter including France, Germany, Italy, etc...). To label this a joke makes no sense to me as the same rules apply in CYSEC as they do in the FSA but with a lesser level of protection in terms of bankruptcy protection.All other marketing, sales, capital requirement and other restrictions are comparable.

3. The fact is, many people do not want regulation on products like BO because it's a pain in the **** to open an account, the company can hide behind more draconian terms and conditions as allowed by the regulators and actually don't need to return money all that fast if the customer was deemed to have "abused the system". Sound familiar - oh yeah, cause it's the same damn huey we hate about unregulated brokers. Yes, regulation mitigates a great deal of this but not by that wide a margin.

So for the last time - I am not against regulation. I am for it. But I want it there to protect ME and YOU. Not the damn tax authorities or the regulators themselves. What the NFA/CFTC in the US did for FINRA is a travesty . A damn abomination. I do agree that the FSA is far far far better for the trader. But, it comes with a massive and problematic caveat that only people who have actually dealt with the FSA know:
There are only very rough guidelines provided by the FSA. 95% of them are NOT abided by.
Ill give a quick example of one i love to hate:
It is required by the FSA that a risk warning appear at EYE level on every company's marketing documentation; digital or otherwise. In my time on the net, i have found 1-2 companies who abide by this fully. Show me a web site of a broker that has a risk warning above the fold (so that you DO NOT need to scroll to find it). Why don't the brokers abide by this? It's simple - there's stuff that's open for interpretation. Why is this, probably the most crucial and problematic aspect of the business, the fact that people can lose buttloads of cash, hidden from view at the bottom of the screen if it's required to be at EYE level?
I am just trying to open your eyes. Stop eating this doctrine of regulation being better than nothing. Cause even if it is, it's light years from being good for you directly. It's only via indirect means that you gain very much from this. So to shoot down binary options is preposterous -- at least as it pertains to the industry being regulated by MIFID. It simply makes no damn sense.

Slept half way through. Please construct a vanilla option model for the following scenario

1. WiseButtHair Options has 1000 customers.

2. On Monday a big market news is about to come.

3. The first 500 customers bet $100 each and the return for the correct direction would water their pockets with $1000 each.

4. The remaining 500 customers do not choose to bet and waste their time watching the lame episodes of "Two and Half Men" on their Ipads instead.

5. Bang! all 500 customers are right. Broker now owes $500,000 to the 500 customers while it managed to steal only $50,000 off of them.

6. How is the broker now going to pay up $450,000? Stewie Griffin wanted to extract money off of Brain!

7. Note this is just Monday and one fanatical news event.

Using your brilliant mathematical skills, please generate the magical formula that protects the bank accounts of the brokers.

Please also smooth out the exotic details of the party taking this risk on the other end with "Binary Options" gambling product.

If you cannot figure out the correct answer, watch the video below

Australian idiot talks about whale death FUNNY - YouTube
 

wackypete2

Well-known member
Sep 24, 2008
10,134
2,012
323
New Jersey
#77
What the NFA/CFTC in the US did for FINRA is a travesty . A damn abomination.
(y)(y)

Most people don't understand the "updated" forex/futures regs in the past few years does nothing to protect traders or fx only type brokers. They were done to stop money moving out of the US futures industry. Retail traders were bent over and given an enema.

Peter
 

Vasco da Banana

Well-known member
Oct 25, 2012
699
119
53
#78
As for that comment. Thanks !!! I am proud to be the recipient of an award given by a dude with a banana in his name :) bless your soul.
But just tell me if I am wrong. Sure it's a truism - but I am NOT wrong.

:clap::clap::clap:Bananas for everyone at the bar !!!!:clap::clap::clap:
You're welcome. Just make sure you spend all that virtual money wisely.
 

moka2

Active member
Aug 9, 2012
529
13
28
#79
Bash the regulator's as you like but the following facts remains and Mr Fielder or any other supporters refuses to talk about them
It is futile talking to you becasue rather than answering factual question reg How BInary Options are better in Every aspect to anything that is exchange traded you just keep going round and round about Regulator's have done no good blah blah blah
We all know whos head is in the sand

.. where as many times I have already acepted a postive side of this product
+Ve:
1) Easy to understand ( except some weird defination of teh underlying)
2) User friendly platform

Now the -Ve
- Direct Conflict of interest - Exchange and Counterparty the same
You keep brining teh subjetc of MMs in aregulated markets.. everybody in the Exchange is a MM in a way
The POint is In a true exchnage the Exchaneg soes not have conflict of interest with the ounters... where as in teh pure OTC MM there is.. nad that alone is a big issue
- Limited "assets to " Bet on

- Defination of "Underlying" is not always easy to independently check
- LImited outcomes ( strikes etc)
- Client money safety is only up to 30K ( MIFD claimed) as comapred to 250K with SIPC ( Exchange Tarded Option not Futures or Fx so don;t bring them in to equation)
- Low barrier of entry to operators Due to less stringent regulatory requirements many "Questinable"
organisations can get in to the business