| Revision as of 10:42, 22 March 2017 editVgbyp (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,803 edits →Industry criticism section← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:31, 14 April 2017 edit undoSmallbones (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers59,541 edits →"Formerly based in the U.S.": new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| The phrase "currently undergoing severe regulatory problems" was removed (and called libel!). I think it is just calling a spade a spade. On February 6, 2017 the firm was kicked out of the US market by regulators. On March 20, yesterday, the firm states that they are cooperating with investigations in our countries and might not be able to pay off their bonds when they come due next year. In between times, they've sold their US accounts and changed the name of the holding company, but haven't made any other statements. If they made some other statements perhaps we could say something else, but right now it amounts to "currently undergoing severe regulatory problems" ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 02:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC) | The phrase "currently undergoing severe regulatory problems" was removed (and called libel!). I think it is just calling a spade a spade. On February 6, 2017 the firm was kicked out of the US market by regulators. On March 20, yesterday, the firm states that they are cooperating with investigations in our countries and might not be able to pay off their bonds when they come due next year. In between times, they've sold their US accounts and changed the name of the holding company, but haven't made any other statements. If they made some other statements perhaps we could say something else, but right now it amounts to "currently undergoing severe regulatory problems" ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 02:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC) | ||
| == "Formerly based in the U.S." == | |||
| This phrase was deleted again. Since the company was prohibited from trading with customers in the US it seems impossible to say that they are based in the US. The firm has not issued a statement on what operations are open since that time, which is of course their right, but we can't still include that information if we know that it is questionable. The link to the FXCM website, which presumably was meant to show they are still based in the US, is clearly out of date, e.g. it still includes their Australian operation. If they can't update the information they present to the public, then we have to eliminate the now unbelievable parts that were in the article. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 12:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:31, 14 April 2017
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 29 October 2009. The result of the discussion was delete. |
Previous Delete
A page for this company has been deleted twice before Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/FXCM, however FXCMs acquisition of ODL and the increasing market share of the company because of the NFA raising capital requirements, has in my opinion given it just enough notability for inclusion. It is one of the main companies in the margin forex industry and one that has driven some development. The other reason for delete last time was WP:SPAM and have tried to be balanced in this article and avoided spam type references. Sargdub (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
"Is" or "was"?
Yesterday I put in the lede that "FXCM was a US-based company" (approx) and it was reverted. It is banned from operating in the US or even from reapplying for registration, so we certainly can't say that it "is" a US-based company. If it even tries to solicit US customers, the direst consequences will ensue automatically, e.g. fines, prison, well-founded fraud lawsuits from any customer who lost money over a 5 year period. We also cannot say that they have branch offices in the US - what would those offices do? The founder and 2 others have been banned from associating with any US regulated broker and have resigned. The London office is reported to be closing see Reuters. They've admitted to lying to their customers (within the limits of CFTC action), so we can't assume that anything they say is true - i.e. no self-refs that make them look good. "Was" may not be the perfect phrasing here, but we need to do a whole lot more than just leave the article as it was. Let's get started on it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- You seem to be confusing the ban to act or to register as an RFED with CFTC/NFA and a ban to act as a company. They are still a public company legally operating from the United States and listed on NASDAQ. What they can no longer do is provide their services to the retail customers based in the USA. Enivid (talk) 08:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- 'Formerly based' is not quite correct because the company remains to be based in the USA. It is just that they now cater only to the foreign markets. It's like if Apple stopped selling phones in the USA, but would continue to sell them worldwide. It would still be a US company. Enivid (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Industry criticism section
their customers lost another $225 million or more
This can be rather misleading because what happened (and is stated in the source) is that $225 million is the total of negative balance accounts that occurred in the aftermath of the 2015-01-15 Swiss franc event. Although it may seem that it does imply that the customers had lost at least $225 of their funds, in reality, FXCM did not try to collect that "debt" due to their negative balance policy at that time. So, it was more of a loss for the company rather than for its customers.Enivid (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- So the customers had trading losses of everything in their accounts, plus another $225 million that FXCM could not collect, which means "their customers lost another $225 million or more" Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- When you phrase it like "their customers lost another $225 million or more", it implies that the customers had $225 or more and lost it. In reality, it was not so. Consider the extreme hypothetical case when all those customers had a total account balance of just $1 before Jan 15, 2015. After the event, when their total balance reached negative $225 million, it could still be described as "FXCM Inc. said clients owe $225 million on their accounts..." as it is stated in the cited source. However, would you still call that "their customers lost another $225 million or more" considering that FXCM could not collect any part of that $225 million negative balance? I believe that it is misleading to call a customers' loss what was in effect a loss for a company. Enivid (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
"currently undergoing severe regulatory problems."
The phrase "currently undergoing severe regulatory problems" was removed (and called libel!). I think it is just calling a spade a spade. On February 6, 2017 the firm was kicked out of the US market by regulators. On March 20, yesterday, the firm states that they are cooperating with investigations in our countries and might not be able to pay off their bonds when they come due next year. In between times, they've sold their US accounts and changed the name of the holding company, but haven't made any other statements. If they made some other statements perhaps we could say something else, but right now it amounts to "currently undergoing severe regulatory problems" Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
"Formerly based in the U.S."
This phrase was deleted again. Since the company was prohibited from trading with customers in the US it seems impossible to say that they are based in the US. The firm has not issued a statement on what operations are open since that time, which is of course their right, but we can't still include that information if we know that it is questionable. The link to the FXCM website, which presumably was meant to show they are still based in the US, is clearly out of date, e.g. it still includes their Australian operation. If they can't update the information they present to the public, then we have to eliminate the now unbelievable parts that were in the article. Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Categories: