My complaint about change of definition of term “Forex Trading” from “on exchange” to “off exchange”

My complaint is against the NFA and or whichever agency authorized the change in definition of the word FOREX from it’s globally known meaning of: Transactions conducted ON the Foreign Exchange, to its new meaning, as written on the NFA website as OFF-exchange transactions. Further more, their rules indicate that it no longer includes on-exchange transactions.

The word FOREX is the short for Foreign Exchange. (FX as well)

All but one on line dictionary still defines FOREX to exclusively mean On-Exchange trading

Changing the meaning of such a global word to its opposite meaning is the root cause for the trade industry fraud problem. Customers believe they are trading on the real foreign exchange. According to the NFA rules- “person with less than 10 million in assets and most small businesses are referred to as “customers” and that they trade “OTC” on the “retail market”.

Retail market = simulated trading done on gaming platforms accessed thru the internet. They’re programs the brokerage creates.They’re  separately accessed by each customer. They play against the program. The broker is legal counter party cuz  they control the program (some firms partner with other firms to act as “an outside bank” to support claim to trade with “financial institutions”)

The programs combines the current stock market movement with algorithms to produce charts that appear to be following the real market, while simultaneously responding to the trading patterns of the customer- adjusting the market as needed to cause them to loose their money.

There have been hundreds of cases regarding accurate order execution, slippage, program freeze. All the complaints have the same core issue- The trading does not behave as expected. As it should. As it used to. And they are correct. Over the last few years- electronic trading was shifted from being real to being simulated.

The industry regulator, NFA, shifted the term FOREX along with it. allowing brokers to continue calling what they offered “Forex Trading”. It allowed the entire industry to delude customers  into thinking they’re  trading  real accounts.

The NFA’s advertising rules don’t address the use of the word FOREX in any way .. They have abused their position of authority to the determent of the public., there is no defense to switching the definition of a word that could not be switched without deluding people! The only possible reason to switch it was to delude the public. It was done intentionally to defraud the public. By who’s authority can any country change the meaning of a globally established word? To allow it would cause obvious confusion in other countries.

The NFA says its a not-for-profit, yet benefits from a thriving market 3 fold. 1)They collect .002%  of all off exchange transactions they monitor (and all transactions require monitoring) which I just read is 1 trillion a year.  2) annual membership dues that range from 125k to 1 million 3)sanction fines (non disbursed money) which average 30k- 125k

I strongly recommend auditing their financial records because their public financial record shows conflicting numbers- claiming to take in less than 200 million- and ending the year with the almost the same 7mil surplus they started the year with. .002% of 1 trillion plus the membership dues- not counting the sanction fees is already over 1 billion a year. This doesn’t include the .005% they get from institutional accounts.

All the data above was collected off their website and the other regulating authorities of the forex market. Laws and rules are from the Trade commission website. NFA financial records were obtained via google search.

Action taken so far: I filed complaints with the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission , The office of consumer affairs, with the NFA (against their actions), The consumer protection agency and the US Attn General. I  also started a White House Petition to have the definition restored. link to petition: http://wh.gov/VSjV  The petition isn’t likely to get enough signatures unless someone does a story on it. I reported about it to both CNN and FOX11 in LA. No response from either. Did all this in the last few days- after discovering the altered definition on the NFA’s website. The CFTC responded saying they got my report and don’t usually update complainers unless, and when it goes to court. The US Attn General said to report it to you.______________

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s