'We lost everything gambling on shares'

redux

Luz wrote: »

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.

The word leverage refers to the use of borrowing to enhance returns, by using borrowed money as well as one's own.

Unfortunately for some it enhances the downs as well as the ups.

Giving us more (possibly hypothetical or apocryphal) examples of that happening is hardly likely to persuade us that we are the people failing to understand the concept.

Luz

redux wrote: »

The word leverage refers to the use of borrowing to enhance returns, by using borrowed money as well as one's own.

Unfortunately for some it enhances the downs as well as the ups.

Giving us more (possibly hypothetical or apocryphal) examples of that happening is hardly likely to persuade us that we are the people failing to understand the concept.

You cannot understand, if you belong to the same World,have the same ethics and values, and would do exactly the same, if this would make you a living .

jimjames

Luz wrote: »

You cannot understand, if you belong to the same World,have the same ethics and values, and would do exactly the same, if this would make you a living .

I've been given a credit card by my bank with a limit of nearly £20,000.
That doesn't mean I should go out and spend all that money with no means to pay it back.

redux

Luz wrote: »

You cannot understand, if you belong to the same World,have the same ethics and values, and would do exactly the same, if this would make you a living .

The facility you are complaining about seems to provide £7500 very short term, for settlement in 3 days.

The hypothetical student case you mention sounds like there would be no intention to settle that £22,500 by funding the account within those required deadlines.

It would be somewhat hypocritical for someone deliberately undertaking to abuse an account's terms and conditions to then start complaining about ethics, like a bank robber complaining about the failure of equipment he misappropriated and misused in order to cut into the vault.

So although I belong to the same world, kindly don't accuse me of having the same over-flexible values. I know this is not a way to make a living.

silverwhistle

Luz wrote: »

You cannot understand, if you belong to the same World,have the same ethics and values, and would do exactly the same, if this would make you a living .

Obviously we have different values. I'm not greedy and I keep the shares I do have for the long term. Those are MY ethics and values. I would NOT do the exactly the same to make a living from purely financial manipulation by buying and selling. If I did, I would make sure I understood what I was doing, and would understand the potential downsides as well as the potential benefits.

You sir, have no ethics, no values and above all no understanding.

Luz

redux wrote: »

The facility you are complaining about seems to provide £7500 very short term, for settlement in 3 days.

The hypothetical student case you mention sounds like there would be no intention to settle that £22,500 by funding the account within those required deadlines.

It would be somewhat hypocritical for someone deliberately undertaking to abuse an account's terms and conditions to then start complaining about ethics, like a bank robber complaining about the failure of equipment he misappropriated and misused in order to cut into the vault.

So although I belong to the same world, kindly don't accuse me of having the same over-flexible values. I know this is not a way to make a living.

Amazing, as you find nothing wrong either than say abusing terms and conditions, is this how brokers run their business, anyone can abuse the accounts, no terms no conditions in place, at least to prevent them from losing money, as in this case could had been as the student had only a credit of 700 pounds a month they took a a gamble to lose the money. Well then the FCA counts for nothing.

As brokers can do what they like, but ONLY on the market master, at one point Mrs Freitas tried to go back to the certeficate account, bought shares, send in the check to pay, for some reason they lost it, sold her shares again at 1,700 pounds loss without even calling, or informing her about it, and found the check again and credited it on the market master. They did not let her keep the shares, or allowed to buy more without paying, on the certeficate account .
I don't know if this young man got out alive, or ended up pay for losses he had or the broker took them up .

What I do know, this information was very valuable to David Atkins, the adjudicator, when he was given this proofs, HE SAID IF THEY FUND ANY MORE OR ARE AWARE OF ANY MORE CASES, TO SEND IT TO HIM .Look where is now, BARCLAY'S WEALTH ....A senior job was given to him .
To end, you lot so far have not said this, this two idiots were stupid to lose that money ,but this Broker, is ,and was doing something NOT right, otherwise why employ the adjudicator after what went on ,so many complains about him to his manager, to the top peoples inside ombudsman, to the FCA , newspaper,.
Simple they could not afford to lose this case.

colsten

Luz wrote: »

To end

Hope you mean it.

Luz

silverwhistle wrote: »

Obviously we have different values. I'm not greedy and I keep the shares I do have for the long term. Those are MY ethics and values. I would NOT do the exactly the same to make a living from purely financial manipulation by buying and selling. If I did, I would make sure I understood what I was doing, and would understand the potential downsides as well as the potential benefits.

You sir, have no ethics, no values and above all no understanding.

The money was there's they did not robed it from anyone, or abused account's, manipulate rules, that money paid tax on it when was earned, most of they played clean all along, they went to the ombudsman on the broker advise, they gave the correct information to the ombudsman unlike the broker who provided lies after lies, peoples lie out of fear, a tape that took 7 months to arrive after being manipulated, and twisted.

And to prove this,[TEXT REMOVED BY FORUM TEAM] IS A MEMBER OF STAFF AT BARCLAY'S, WEALTH ,after little more than 3 Years in the ombudsman. A place were he was trusted to help peoples,he helped himself getting a carrier at others costs and health damage as the case took so long, till he was in place to play into his own advantage .Is a crook, a rotten one,.he advised them to go to the Samaritans,and he went to Barclay's Wealth .
Now have some shame,or sense and accept corruption SHOULD NOT BE TOLERATED IN YOU'R COUNTRY .

redux

Luz, I suggest you study some laws about defamation.

You and this website may be held to be liable if the allegation you make is untrue and can be shown to have caused damage.

Paradoxically it might even help your potential defence if you can argue that because of the way you have written this nobody would actually believe everything you are saying anyway, so damage would not necessarily be caused to one person's reputation.

However, this post of mine does not constitute qualified legal advice. My remarks here may be as fanciful as yours.

If someone has worked for a variety of employers, then it would be dubious whether they can be said to have secretly been working on behalf of more than one at once. In this instance there is a substantial gap between the two employers you mention, so I and most people would think your allegation unsupportable. Your wording tends to imply a move direct from one to the other, and this is untrue.

Luz

redux wrote: »

Luz, I suggest you study some laws about defamation.

You and this website may be held to be liable if the allegation you make is untrue and can be shown to have caused damage.

Paradoxically it might even help your potential defence if you can argue that because of the way you have written this nobody would actually believe everything you are saying anyway, so damage would not necessarily be caused to one person's reputation.

However, this post of mine does not constitute qualified legal advice. My remarks here may be as fanciful as yours.

If someone has worked for a variety of employers, then it would be dubious whether they can be said to have secretly been working on behalf of more than one at once. In this instance there is a substantial gap between the two employers you mention, so I and most people would think your allegation unsupportable. Your wording tends to imply a move direct from one to the other, and this is untrue.

Redux .

You have a point he was laundry washed at Delloit first. I believe you my be an intelligent person, deep down you know nobody would make such an accusation without being able to sustain it. He already been tould he was corrupted.
So he knows why... Let him sue them. Would be interesting to find out what his manager found about him, while still working at ombudsman .The manager who recorded a tape conversation to show to him on his return, and the same manager who asked MRS Freitas if she thought he was on Barclay's side then recorded the tape to show him, wonder why .
No manager would do that IF, he had trust on the staff his running, he would not ask that question, neither would he accept such a comment.
This will come to him in time, justice of God will take care of it, he will pay for the unnecessary pain he caused on them for 8 months.
I wonder if would get way with it IF HE HAD DONE THIS TO ONE OF HIS OWN .