Cameron Farley, FSA & Grant Thornton

wantanswers

This post is COPIED from elsewhere but I believe DOES sum up the feelings of a lot of people caught up in this situation.

We are NOT blaming the FSA for not saving us, we are blaming the FSA for LOSING OUR MONEY THEMSELVES.

If they had kept their regulatory/profiteering beaks out of the business of CFL whether it was a Ponzi scheme or not, and we have no evidence either way thanks to the silence and ignorance of the FSA - then if it had failed i would not blame the FSA at all. i would do what i think others should do in that situation and just take it on the chin. I took a chance on a non regulated investment, it went wrong, tough luck. You takes your chances. However one chance CF clients did NOT knowingly take when they invested in a non regulated investment was the chance of the financial regulator sticking its nose into CFL, TAKING CONTROL, and WATCHING THE MONEY DRAIN AWAY on a trading platform which they were FULLY AWARE OF for YEARS before the injunction but DID NOT MAKE ANY EFFORT TO SHUT IT DOWN TO PROTECT OUR FUNDS.

Either the FSA should afford us NO protection and in such circumstances should 'butt out' altogether and let us take our chances, OR if they insist (which none of us asked them to) on wading in guns blazing and taking control of the company 'seizing its assets' as they allegedly did according to their statement referred to in article above, then AT THAT POINT they volunteer themselves into a role and a duty of CARE towards the clients of the company they took a stranglehold on.

If CF clients lost their money in a ponzi scheme, we would not be doing what we are doing. It is precisely BECAUSE we don't know what happened and BECAUSE the company was being controlled fully by the FSA when countless millions of pounds disappeared down a route the FSA knew about but did nothing to 'seize' that little chunk of the company. THAT IS WHY we blame them, because they are to blame! Not because we want a scapegoat or an excuse but because they are the ones to blame - FACT.

The next stage is bringing this wonderful customer focussed organisation to court to see if we can find a judge fair-minded enough to agree. That is no easy task but its a task we are prepared to fight long and hard to achieve.

At an unannounced site visit on 4 April 2007, the second respondent (SF) initially advised the petitioner's (FSA) officers that all foreign exchange dealing for clients was organised through a US company called Gain. The second respondent subsequently admitted that the first respondents carried out some foreign exchange dealings on behalf of clients.

dunstonh

I believe DOES sum up the feelings of a lot of people caught up in this situation.

Their feelings are misplaced then.

We are NOT blaming the FSA for not saving us, we are blaming the FSA for LOSING OUR MONEY THEMSELVES.

As has been stated time and again, the FSA didnt lose the money. Cameron Farley did that.

If they had kept their regulatory/profiteering beaks out of the business of CFL whether it was a Ponzi scheme or not, and we have no evidence either way thanks to the silence and ignorance of the FSA - then if it had failed i would not blame the FSA at all. i would do what i think others should do in that situation and just take it on the chin. I took a chance on a non regulated investment, it went wrong, tough luck. You takes your chances. However one chance CF clients did NOT knowingly take when they invested in a non regulated investment was the chance of the financial regulator sticking its nose into CFL, TAKING CONTROL, and WATCHING THE MONEY DRAIN AWAY on a trading platform which they were FULLY AWARE OF for YEARS before the injunction but DID NOT MAKE ANY EFFORT TO SHUT IT DOWN TO PROTECT OUR FUNDS.

So, on that basis, the police should let burglars continue to steal as long as they dont steal from you.

Either the FSA should afford us NO protection and in such circumstances should 'butt out' altogether and let us take our chances, OR if they insist (which none of us asked them to) on wading in guns blazing and taking control of the company 'seizing its assets' as they allegedly did according to their statement referred to in article above, then AT THAT POINT they volunteer themselves into a role and a duty of CARE towards the clients of the company they took a stranglehold on.

The FSA have saved many more consumers from being ripped off. The minute you paid that money to CF you had lost the bulk of it. It wouldnt have mattered if the FSA got involved or not.

The next stage is bringing this wonderful customer focussed organisation to court to see if we can find a judge fair-minded enough to agree. That is no easy task but its a task we are prepared to fight long and hard to achieve.

So, you would like the FSA to pay your money back because they went to court to stop a company trading illegally and the court agreed with them. Your argument being that the FSA should have allowed the company to continue acting illegally and let more consumers be duped into losing their investments. Good luck with that.

wantanswers

Dunstonh

This debate has gone as far as it can so as Reaper said no point in continuing it until the full facts come out.
My view of the FSA is they have made a mess of the Cameron Farley Issue bureaucracy - I'll get back to you when I remember!!!! Just about sums it up. I do agree with you regarding companies trading illegally and to that end maybe they should have closed it down in 2005 which you did refer to, however with evidence required, and again in 4 April 2007, 10 May 2007, 20 June 2007, 15 October 2007, and so on which would have been more sensible. However it wasn’t to be and the suffering of ordinary people goes on mainly because of their arrogance and negligence, in my view, and MAYBE when/if proved the company that took our money for wrongdoing.

Just on another subject re


The FSA have saved many more consumers from being ripped off.

I think a lot of people would say otherwise!!! But that’s another issue where they got it wrong.

Bye for now.

wantanswers

Dunstonh

If maybe you can answer me a query pleases:

$10,551,375 lost between 23 September 2008 & 1 October 2008 (provisional report)
$6,597,585 lost between 12 August 2008 & 6 October 2008. (provisional report)

Freezing order 2 September 2008 and Mr Farley/Cameron Farley ltd being restrained by the order.

You stated;
“As has been stated time and again, the FSA didn’t lose the money.
Cameron Farley did that”.

What do you base that assumption on ie Cameron Farley did that? I'm interested in your opinion.

agsnu

wantanswers wrote: »

Dunstonh

If maybe you can answer me a query pleases:

$10,551,375 lost between 23 September 2008 & 1 October 2008 (provisional report)
$6,597,585 lost between 12 August 2008 & 6 October 2008. (provisional report)

Freezing order 2 September 2008 and Mr Farley/Cameron Farley ltd being restrained by the order.

You stated;
“As has been stated time and again, the FSA didn’t lose the money.
Cameron Farley did that”.

What do you base that assumption on ie Cameron Farley did that? I'm interested in your opinion.

Cameron Farley made the bad bets - you remember, those inappropriate, ridiculously leveraged forex trades. Not the FSA.

wantanswers

Agsnu.

Thanks for your opinion and you MAY be correct but do you have any FACT to substantiate your answer? Because at the moment I have not seen any so I have to sit on the fence on that one, but I would presume the answer is known?...... hopefully by the authortities. However I’m also interested in Mr. Dunstonh opinion because it does appear that considerable funds (fact) were available up to the point of the Freezing Order (fact) when CFL’s assets were frozen and I would presume a restraining order (?) was placed on Mr. Farley.

RayWolfe

I'm beginning to suspect that Mr Wantanswers is, or has been driven, more than slightly mad by this incident.
Black does not mean white no matter how much it is asserted.

wantanswers

Mr Raywolfe
I thought they were quite reasonable questions.
Oh by the way seems strange for a four FOUR STAR GENERAL to allude to personal conditions?

dunstonh

What do you base that assumption on ie Cameron Farley did that? I'm interested in your opinion.

You didnt invest with the FSA. You invested with Cameron Farley. So, any losses incurred are due to their activities. That is not an assumption but a fact.

turbobob

wantanswers wrote: »

Agsnu.

Thanks for your opinion and you MAY be correct but do you have any FACT to substantiate your answer? Because at the moment I have not seen any so I have to sit on the fence on that one, but I would presume the answer is known?...... hopefully by the authortities. However I’m also interested in Mr. Dunstonh opinion because it does appear that considerable funds (fact) were available up to the point of the Freezing Order (fact) when CFL’s assets were frozen and I would presume a restraining order (?) was placed on Mr. Farley.

I doubt anyone here has any FACTS that are not in the public domain!

What is known is that large trades were open from the 12 August 2008 - these had no "stop losses" set (really a sign of a shoddy trader) and were at the mercy of the market. As these trades were opened before the 2 September would you agree they were opened by CF?

If I remember rightly (the report is not online anymore) this was long Euro short Dollar. In which case it was against the trend and would have been losing pretty much from day one. But what followed was some of the most volatile markets ever. This was around the time Lehman collapsed. If he'd got away with not using stops in the past and was able to "ride it out" he was not going to get away with it this time, as the Euro collapsed against the Dollar between August and November 08.

New even larger trades were opened on 22 September (long Pound short Dollar if I remember rightly) which again would have gone against him from day one. Again no stops. The market moves a few percent but because of the massive trade size, the account is emptied and positions are closed..

Did someone at the FSA take it on themselves to log into CF's forex account and open these new trades out of spite? Perhaps they fancied teaching these clients a lesson for going to an unauthorised investment company. Or was it a desperate all or nothing gamble by CF to try to win back the money that was in the process of being lost on the other trades? I know what I think.