'We lost everything gambling on shares'

ChesterDog

The account wasn't leveraged.

It allowed the couple to use leverage if they wished.

It did not force them to do so.

They chose to do so.

(And round we go again...)

That's the last on this from me.

cloud_dog

Whilst its very sad that people put themselves in these positions, it is actually people who actually make the choices. Read my tag.

Taking this to a different scenario... Are they going to complain that shops shouldn't allow them to purchase items unless the shops certify they have the funds to cover the purchases?

mvarrier

broke4good wrote: »

It was the Market Master, a simple share dealing account on execution only that the couple was advised to use when they called Barclays to buy some shares for retirement.
If the ATI margin facility was not included, together with the BARX platform which was given for free if clients put a certain amount of trades, they could have not lost their money. They would have kept the shares they had at a loss and wait for better days. They had never invested before and allowed to overtrade to their death. They bought and sold £16 MILLION worth of shares using borrowed money ONLY, not buying and selling their own stock.
The platform was giving the wrong price and the quote and deal facility was always blocked, not to allow selling shares bought with the borrowed money until the losses accumulated. Every single transaction ended up with selling shares owned as collateral to repay the shortfall. The account was never blocked and allowed to borrow to 800% leverage. IF THEIR ACCOUNT WAS NOT LEVERAGED, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE THEIR MONEY. This is the reason why the account was moved to the high risks investment in January 2014.

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

I think you need to watch Disney's Frozen and 'let it go'.

Luz

ChesterDog wrote: »

The account wasn't leveraged.

It allowed the couple to use leverage if they wished.

It did not force them to do so.

They chose to do so.

(And round we go again...)

That's the last on this from me.[/QUO

Nothing was true,but they need to corrupt the adjudicator to get away with it, still they were not able to.From the Treasure,to the Bank of Ingland plus FCA, Fraud office,Barclay's BOD,. They all know the adjudicator works for them. Beautiful . Make you lot proud .

Luz

mvarrier wrote: »

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

I think you need to watch Disney's Frozen and 'let it go'.

The article DID a lot of damage to the ( CON ARTISTS) OF THE FINANCIAL MARKETS .

mvarrier

Luz,

You're meant to be on holiday. Get off the internet and on to the sun lounger.

And turn off your data roaming. I don't want you blaming EE when you get a £5000 phone bill

masonic

mvarrier wrote: »

And turn off your data roaming. I don't want you blaming EE when you get a £5000 phone bill

Does you'r phone company credit you'r account with 5k?,,,,,, why are EE forward 5k to a customer who only makes few calls ? ,,,,, I thought the only peoples who were allowed to lend money was banks ,and only after a good credit check .So why phone comapny,or this comapny was different ?

bowlhead99

Wat you are ta'lking of is Fruad by the company, which is not only posible /when you have the, ombudsmen in your poket but it is Easy for pnoeh copmany destroy lives and the phone bill stops them ,getting food to look after sick animals and it did'nt stop the head man getting another job at another phnoe co when they know whathe did corrupt the good people who just wanted PAy AS YOUG,O ,now it is pay as you gone isnt it with the 16 millions phone bill. The 16 millions pound a of phone calls was why the bill was ,£5000. All you are just helping the (CORRUPTED" ENGINER you RACIST ;

redux

"Be warned in time, James, and remain, as I do, incomprehensible: to be great is to be misunderstood."

Oscar Wilde, in a letter to Whistler

Luz

ChesterDog wrote: »

The account wasn't leveraged.

It allowed the couple to use leverage if they wished.

It did not force them to do so.

They chose to do so.

(And round we go again...)

That's the last on this from me.

Go and explain this to the student,who lost 17.000 pounds in 10 days,on signing the account he got 7.500 pounds just signing a direct debit,with this money he bought the first lot of shares,on the third day he had another 7.500 pounds credit on the account,he bought more ,at a lower price, 3 days after another 7,500 credit ,,At this stage all those shares were only worth 8.000 pounds .

And all of this without ever selling the first lot, what did he leverage? is signature of a direct debit ? to give him all this money without ever deposit a pound on the account, they are or were running a risky business ,if the company were he bough the shares go under or delisted, how was the broker going to get the money
from him ? you right no leverage, is credit to buy shares,.
Amazing generosity from this broker,you should be around at the time to help him out, others were trying to work out how he got there, and could not understand how this broker worked.