This article was nominated for deletion on 29 October 2009. The result of the discussion was delete. |
This page was proposed for deletion by an editor on 1 June 2017. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
A page for this company has been deleted twice before Wikipedia: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)
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)
Please edit accordingly as this entire article is misleading and bias to anyone unfamiliar with the company and is riddled with other inaccuracies as well.
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)
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)
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)
I have found large edit of 2017/04/26 done by user Smallbones ( talk · contribs) to be contentious due to:
Due to this I will be reverting the change. Please try to make incremental changes and use informative edit summaries as per Wikipedia:Good_editing_practices. Gouyoku ( talk) 03:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Gouyoku ( talk) 20:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Any editor who is being paid to edit this article needs to declare their paid status, and who is paying them, per the Terms of Use. See WP:PAID for details. WP:COI may also apply.
I think this is particularly important as FXCM (and its then-officers) have formally agreed with the CFTC that
"Respondents agree that neither they nor any of their successors and assigns, agents, or employees under their authority or control shall take any action or make any public statement denying, directly or indirectly, any findings or conclusions in this Order or creating, or tending to create, the impression that this Order is without a factual basis".
The order documents "fraudulent misrepresentations" by FXCM, giving about a dozen examples. In layman's terms, FXCM admitted to lying to its customers and to regulators. I'm sure that neither FXCM nor Leucadia would want to violate the CFTC's order.
Smallbones( smalltalk) 16:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I haven't had time to look closely at this article — to even call it an article is giving at the benefit of the doubt — it's not much more than a barely organized collection bullet points in sentence form. It's barely more than a timeline of events.
However, one sentence jumped out at me. At the moment at the closing sentence of the body: In each quarter of 2014, between 67% and 70% of FXCM open customer accounts lost money
While this is sourced, one has to question why it's included. What, if anything, should the reader take away from the sentence? It is in the section titled "industry criticism", so supposedly it represents some form of criticism. I can imagine some naïve readers might think these are large values. However, unlike retail equity markets, where a substantial portion of customers can make money over time (even though most do lag industry benchmarks), FX is a zero-sum game before considering commissions, and commissions do exist, so one would expect without doing any analysis, that the proportion of accounts losing money would be in excess of 50%. While hard numbers are elusive, one industry study Suggest the industry average of profitable client accounts is about 29%. That's from 2010, and only one study so let's not use two decimals a precision let's round to 30% make money and 70% lose money roughly speaking. In that context, the customers of this particular organization are either doing close to the industry average or slightly better depending on how carefully you wish to parse. That's hardly a notable fact worth mentioning and certainly not in the criticism section.I'm not to remove it, as it is sourced but I'll identify it as one example in support of getting some other experts to review this article, and see if it can be improved.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 20:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
S PhilbrickThe % of losing accounts is quite important. Anybody who is investing money wants to know what the chance is of making money. The chances for making money with this company are pretty low. The numbers were reported by FXCM to the CFTC so can be taken as official, though I suspect they can be manipulated a bit. One of the problems with the article is that FXCM can not be considered to be a reliable source on anything - it has admitted in a consent decree to lying to its customers so anything they publish now is suspect. Everything prior to Feb. 6, 2017 is essentially irrelevant. FXCM does not issue any new statements other than SEC forms. In accounting there's something called the "ongoing business assumption" - accountants assess a company based on the whole operating business being greater than the sum of the parts. One of the SEC forms says that next year they can't guarantee that this assumption will be met - it may not be an ongoing business. Given that, next year's accounting statements will likely be "qualified". That's a death sentence for any financial business - who would invest with a broker that's not going to be around? Sure this is OR to Wikipedians, but when we've got a lack of reliable info, we just can't assume that this is an actual operating business. Smallbones( smalltalk) 23:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not persuaded that the information about losing accounts is quite important. I don't disagree with the statement " Anybody who is investing money wants to know what the chance is of making money." But that's a forward-looking statements in virtually all financial firms are explicitly precluded from forward-looking statements. And that's not what's in play here, it is a statement about past performance which is permitted. If you modify your statement to "anyone who is investing money would like to know how well similar investments have performed in the past" then I'll agree.
However, while I think it might be useful to offer some general comments in a general article about FX trading — I suspect some of the general public may not be aware of fundamentally different effects is from stocks bonds and real estate, I think it would be unreasonable to include such data on each and every firm. It might be relevant and I'd say this is up for debate, if the particular firms results are meaningfully different from the overall industry. Based on the very limited numbers given that isn't the case here. I'm slightly surprised, given their checkered history but the numbers reported are almost identical to industry averages so what's the point of discussing them here? I repeat, the specific article about FXCM is not the right article to provide readers with general information about FX "investing". (I deliberately put investing in quotes because while FX can be used by corporations as part of prudent risk management, When carried out by individuals it is more likely to be naïve speculation, and closer to gambling than investing.)
I'm not responding to your subsequent statements about whether FXCM is reliable, as they don't bear on the question of whether this specific sentence deserves inclusion. It isn't the case, for example, that it is being used to refute misleading statements from the company (unless I missed something but if I did those statement should remove removed)-- S Philbrick (Talk) 20:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Sphilbrick: your complaint about the % of losing accounts has several problems.
So disregarding "who edited what for whatever reason," common sense, logic, and the facts, your argument might possibly have some potential.
Smallbones( smalltalk) 04:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
The owner of FXCM, Global Brokerage, Inc., states in its SEC 10-Q that
(W)e believe that the potential delisting raises substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern as at May 15, 2017, the date that our financial statements were issued.
— p.61 SEC 10-Q
Please note that there are no "ifs" "ands" or "buts" about this. Its a simple statement about "substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern." Reuters quotes them here.
While this is *not* an official statement that "it's all over", it is an official statement that (paraphrased) "We believe that it soon could be all over".
Obviously this is hugely important to anybody who could have anything to do with the firm. It's the most important thing of all for anybody who is not being paid by them with cash in advance. The article should be rewritten with this in mind, but it cannot be assumed that the company is "all but dead." It is quite clearly only "substantial doubt" that it will continue living. But let us not rewrite the article trying to deny this "substantial doubt." Smallbones( smalltalk) 15:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Five of my edits have been reverted by Smallbones ( talk · contribs) with a vague explanation that doesn't really apply to any of them. Can you please explain here why have you reverted them? Thank you. Gouyoku ( talk) 09:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Gouyoku: please stop just removing referenced material. Just because you don't like the facts, you can't remove them from the article. Please be aware that you've reverted 3 edits in the last 24 hours. See WP:3RR. Smallbones( smalltalk) 17:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Please watch yourself. Feel free to add material, but just reverting sourced material added by others does not work. Smallbones( smalltalk) 20:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the repetition in the first sentence that they trade other things than forex. It was already at the bottom of the 1st paragraph. I also removed the "joint ownership" mumbo-jumbo in the first sentence. Global Brokerage is the legal owner. Legal ownership is important because it determines in many cases who gets sued. The rather complicated corporate structure is explained in its own section.
WP:CRYSTALBALL is the right policy to quote here, as is WP:Reliable source. Since FXCM was kicked out of the US for fraudulent misrepresentation on feb. 7, they are not a reliable source - they lie. Anything that was cited to them that's not reported in another source (since Feb. 7), or in an official SEC filing, has no reliable source. Moreover we cannot assume that FXCM is an ongoing business. Global Brokerage and Leucadia have both said in SEC filings that we can't assume that. So anything that seems to assume that they are an ongoing business is WP:CRYSTALBALL material.
I hope we're all clear on that. Now stop the obstruction. Smallbones( smalltalk) 01:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I have deprodded this article but my reasoning was too long for the edit summary so here it is. "No longer [being] a valid entity" is not a valid rationale for deletion. If this subject has ever met the notability criteria for inclusion, then it will always meet it. If the person who nominated this article for prod still wishes to pursue deletion then please feel free to open another deletion discussion by following the three-step process at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks, — KuyaBriBri Talk 20:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
References
appears to have removed info from the first paragraph, saying that the material there is only relevant to the US. That's complete nonsense. When a financial company is banned from trading in it's home country, it's a major event. When it happens because of fraud, it usually means that the company will be closed down everywhere. When the company says in its SEC reports that it is in danger of closing down, that is usually the most important fact about the company. Notice that we are doing our readers a great disservice by not informing them of the questionable underpinnings (financial and otherwise) of the company. Their customers could lose a lot of money trading with them. About 70%of them do.
Frankly I'm tired of all the short-term SPAs who have come here and tried to obscure the facts about this company. Is it 6 in the last few months?
If you can come up with some sort of dispute resolution procedure, I'd be glade to join in. Just one request - everybody involved in that should declare if they are paid editors (per ToU) and indicate how they got to be interested in the article.
If you don't want to use a dispute resolution process, I will proceed to edit to include verified facts in the article to the best of my ability.
Smallbones( smalltalk) 17:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Good morning Smallbones and John Nagle. I wanted to discuss the current state of the FXCM Wikipedia page with you in light of the ongoing discussions above. I am an independent PR agent who is working for FXCM on a contract basis and of course have an interest in this Wikipedia page from a professional perspective. I cannot speak to the previous contributors to this page but I am hoping that we can come to a resolution for the page moving forwards.
The main bone of contention seems to derive from the insistence that the regulatory issues FXCM are currently undergoing should form part of the very first two sentences of this piece. The previous individuals who have edited this page are as aware as you are, Smallbones, that Google will use the first couple of lines from Wikipedia to form their knowledge graph information when a user searches for an FXCM branded term.
I am in no way here to suggest that the information relating to FXCM's current predicament shouldn't be thoroughly covered - it is information the Wikipedia readership have a right to know about - but to repeatedly insist that it needs to appear in Google for branded searches seems excessive and not befitting with the way recent news is treated on the rest of Wikipedia. Let me provide some examples:
Admittedly the BP reference is somewhat older but the other two are very recent (a myriad of other examples exist too i'm sure). So I'm curious why it is that the FXCM page should include the reference to their investigation when other pages do not comply to those same criteria? I'd like to refer to some of the points made in your previous statement:
"When it happens because of fraud, it usually means that the company will be closed down everywhere" Smallbones
Usually? FXCM have not been shut down everywhere - they can no longer service customers only in the United States. I'm not convinced that Wikipedia is the place for speculation and so don't understand how this argument can stand?
"Notice that we are doing our readers a great disservice by not informing them of the questionable underpinnings (financial and otherwise) of the company" Smallbones
Doing Wikipedia users a disservice by denying them information is of course a huge disservice. But insisting that the ongoing regulatory action is a foregone conclusion leading to FXCM being shut down globally is just your opinion. Advertising this on the first two lines of the FXCM page is highlighting FXCM's issues to the extreme, in particular when other pages don't follow the same format.
Following on from your message to Aglassofprosecco ( talk · contribs), I will be flagging this page now for further moderation here and appreciate your response in advance. Many thanks. LQDR Lqdr ( talk) 00:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Note that Effex was not mentioned in this article until you put it here. The relevant ruling is in the CFTC v. FXCM, in which FXCM agreed with the allegations (for the purposes of the court order) and then agreed to the court order. They waived their right of trial and or appeal. So there is nothing "alleged" here. It's the finding of the regulatory agency and the US court. So Effex suing somebody other than the CFTC is irrelevant. FXCM agreed to the charges and the penalty. End of story. Smallbones( smalltalk) 22:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
The sentence you changed to "FXCM has been banned from trading in the United States for alleged "fraudulent misrepresentation" to its customers[4], which is now being challenged in court.[5][6]" is obviously wrong. Nobody is challenging FXCM's banning in the US. Nobody is challenging "fraudulent misrepresentation" by FXCM. A 3rd party has filed a lawsuit against a 4th party. FXCM has signed away their right to appeal and agreed to the settlement (being kicked out of the US, so there is no "alleged" about this. I'll change this back if you can't come up with a reference to the banning being appealed. Smallbones( smalltalk) 04:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
The inclusion of qualifiers on "FXCM has been banned from trading in the United States for "fraudulent misrepresentation" to its customers."are just wrong. Adding "alleged" or "charges of alleged" is just nonsense - the legal matter has been fully decided, no appeal is possible. FXCM does not dispute "fraudulent misrepresentation." Adding "which are now being challenged in court" is further nonsense nobody is challenging the order against FXCM. The fact that Effex has filed a lawsuit against the NFA is just "other stuff". Filing a lawsuit in itself means nothing and nothing has happened yet. A 3rd party filing a lawsuit against a 4th party means less than nothing.
Lqdr has addressed this all above. Re: "FXCM has been banned from trading in the United States for "fraudulent misrepresentation".
So to reiterate the point I made in the 2nd paragraph again, there is no contention whatsoever surrounding the factual accuracy of what has been added to the page. The only contention from our side is with regards to the use of that information in the 2nd sentence of the article. .... Our only possible contention is regarding the positioning of the second sentence, "FXCM has been banned from trading in the United States for "fraudulent misrepresentation" to its customers." It's been almost 6 months now since the US FXCM ban and the placement of this info and subsequent visibility from a branded search in Google [2] seems excessive and not befitting the history or broader offering FXCM provides.
So from his point of view, it's all about moving the sentence down and off Google graph.
Let's just wait for Lqdr to weigh in. I think we'll be able to agree with what he wants to do. But the nonsense has to stay out. Smallbones( smalltalk) 03:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
References
@ Smallbones:, why did you remove [12] the full legal name of FXCM [13] from the lede? First sentence should include alternative names. Are you attempting SEO? Please do not engage in disruptive editing and remember you do not WP:OWN the article, so arguments that you "don't want" something are invalid. Gouyoku ( talk) 18:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: this has been discussed in an RfM [15]. Gouyoku ( talk) 22:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Smallbones:, you are repeating the same flawed argument again. The ban case is not limited to FXCM and CFTC but also includes NFA and Effex. This is not an opinion but a fact that can be backed up by direct quotes from secondary sources, for example: [16]
(...)the litigation involving FXCM after the broker had to leave the US retail Forex market following settlements with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the National Futures Association (NFA).
Why is this Preliminary Injunction Motion so important? Of course, if the NFA takes down the publications, this will be a win for Effex Capital and its CEO. More importantly, however, the claims made in these publications serve as the basis for a number of legal cases launched against FXCM, Global Brokerage Inc (NASDAQ:GLBR), previously known as FXCM Inc, Drew Niv, William Ahdout and other (former and current) principals of FXCM, as well as Effex Capital.
Notability of this is well established, and to give it due weight, must be included with the mention of "fraudulent misrepresentation" allegations. Do not remove it just because you do not like it. Gouyoku ( talk) 18:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I hope everyone had some good rest. Since our last encounter, FXCM made a statement about the allegation: "Global Brokerage Inc., which changed its name from FXCM Inc. earlier this year, said it did not admit to any allegations as part of its February settlements with the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the National Futures Association." [18]. As we had no chance to talk about this case in the course of our mediation, I will add it again. Since FXCM made a statement, previous arguments against this are no longer valid. Gouyoku ( talk) 22:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Four registered editors, including a declared representative of FXCM, were blocked as sockpuppets at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gouyoku/Archive and then an IP address traceable to the company made 2 disruptive edits. All the socks were blocked after making similar edits to @ Gouyoku: and the IP, which Gouyoku repeated several minutes ago. Pinging @ Courcelles:, the blocking admin for the socks, to see what he'd like to do.
I'm frankly tired of SPAs+ messing with this article. Gouyoku has taken me to ANI, Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/FXCM, and Dispute Resolution without proving anything except that he can get his friends blocked. Smallbones( smalltalk) 01:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The following was put in the lede "Although it was banned from providing services to traders in the United States for defrauding its customers, the company still operates out of the USA but targets international clientele." Is this supposed to mean that FXCM has traders or customer support people in New York who are in contact with their clients? if so, we'd need to see a reference, since the reference we do have says:
"The entire FXCM operation is now run out of London, with FXCM Group LLC now being headed by CEO Brendan Callan, who has run FXCM’s European operations including FXCM UK out of London for most of the company’s history.
"The US operation has been effectively reduced to a holding company, whereby the formerly named FXCM Inc – now called Global Brokerage Inc (NASDAQ:GLBR) – manages its 50.1% stake in the operating company."
Meanwhile, we should be thinking about what happens when GLBR is delisted from NASDAQ. Smallbones( smalltalk) 03:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Note that GLBR filed for bankruptcy reorganization on December 11, 2017 as previously announced. I'd put reliable sources in for the expected bankruptcy, but now only have a a company press release to confirm the actual bankruptcy (republished by NASDAQ). I don't think this should be a problem, but please do check it out if you have your doubts.
There's a certain amount of BS that is accompanying the previous bankruptcy intention announcement. It goes something like this: GLBR will benefit from the bankruptcy, its creditors will also benefit, the operating subsidiary FXCM Group will not be affected, so everything is just hunky-dory. That's not how bankruptcies work. The plaintiffs in the various lawsuits are being left out of that equation. The Group will have a new owner most likely, the only question is who? Since we don't have any reliable source about what is likely to happen in bankruptcy, I'll suggest we leave it alone until we do have RS. Smallbones( smalltalk) 17:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Parking this link, might be useful in the future. Smallbones( smalltalk) 02:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I am from FXCM and would like to request edits with the page. I realize that there are requirements I need to follow since I am from the company. Prior to making any request, I want to make sure that I am doing things correctly by disclosing my affiliation. In addition to declaring here on the talk page of the article, is there any other location I need to do so?-- Formilds ( talk) 02:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Propose to update the first paragraph of the history section to reflect the early history more accurately. The early name of Shalish Capital is not in the sources currently in the article or the others. It also removes the terminology of "one of the largest US futures brokers at the time" as this is not specific to FXCM. The new version also includes five additional sources for verification. The second paragraph also includes information about the results of the bankruptcy proceedings from Refco.
Current version:
Forex Capital Markets was founded in 1999 in New York, and was one of the early developers of online forex trading. Initially, the firm was called Shalish Capital Markets, but after one year, rebranded as FXCM. In January 2003, FXCM entered into a partnership with Refco group, one of the largest US futures brokers at the time. Refco took a 35% stake in FXCM and licensed the FXCM software for use by its own clients. Refco filed for bankruptcy on October 17, 2005, a week after a $430 million fraud was discovered, and two months after its initial public offering of stock. Refco's CEO Phillip R. Bennett was later convicted of the fraud.[38] FXCM became entrenched in the Refco bankruptcy proceedings for several years.
Proposed version:
Forex Capital Markets was founded in 1999 by Drew Niv and five other associates. In 2003, the company sold a 35% equity stake to Refco, a U.S. futures broker. [1] As a part of the agreement, FXCM allowed Refco to license the FXCM software for use by Refco clients. By 2005, FXCM's platform had 70,000 customers and a revenue of roughly $260 million. [2] In October 2005, Refco filed for bankruptcy protection after it was revealed that its CEO, Phillip R. Bennett, had failed to disclose $430 million in debt. [3] Bennett was later convicted of fraud in 2008. [4]
In November 2005, Refco agreed, in part, to sell its 35% stake back (which included 15,000 customer accounts) to FXCM for $110 million. [5] In March 2006, however, Refco's creditors disallowed the deal and, later, denied a separate $130 million bid by FXCM. [6] Refco's stake in FXCM was eventually sold to a consortium of buyers, including Lehman Brothers Holdings. [2]
References
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
Your edit request could not be reviewed because it is unclear in portions of the request which references are connected to which claim statements. When proposing edit requests, it is important to highlight in the text which specific sources are doing the referencing for each claim. Note the example below, which mirrors the first half of your edit request:
INCORRECT
The sun is pretty big, but the moon is not so big. The sun is also quite hot. [1] [2] [3]
References
1. Sjöblad, Tristan. The Sun. Academic Press, 2018, p. 1.
2. Duvalier, Gabrielle. "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 51(78):46.
3. Uemura, Shū. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2018, p. 2.
In the example above there are three references provided, but they are all placed at the end of the passage. This placement fails to indicate which reference applies where. Your edit request similarly does not specify where the references you have provided are to be placed, and which particular claims they cover. These links between material and their source references must be more clearly made, as shown in the next example below:
CORRECT
The sun is pretty big, [1] but the moon is not so big. [2] The sun is also quite hot. [3]
References
In the example above, the links between the provided references and their claim statements are made clearly. In the second half of your request, the references are spaced more appropriately, as in the example above. The same cannot be said for the first half in which references are bunched together. This should not be the case, especially when there is plenty of room and lots of claims in this first part for them to spread out to.
Kindly reformulate your edit request so that it aligns more with the second example above in its entirety, and feel free to re-submit that edit request at your earliest convenience. Regards, spintendo 03:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
"In November 2005, Refco agreed,"). Adding the section to the article in the location which you've specified would have the sentence immediately following your addition beginning with events which occurred in 2003 (e.g.,
"In 2003, FXCM expanded overseas when it opened an office in London "). This is a full 2 years before the events covered at the end of your proposed section (2005). Reading the information in this way may be slightly disorienting, as the reader would find themselves being told about events in a backwards fashion. A better proposal would have this text more integrated into the overall flow of the text surrounding it. Please feel free to rewrite this section as needed in your proposal, taking care to include other sentences around it, altering them as needed, and then submit that proposal here to see if we can get it to fit better. When ready to proceed, go ahead and create a new level 2 heading at the bottom of the talk page and below that add a new edit request template. Also, wanted to thank you again for taking care of the filling-out of your disclosure, that was much appreciated! Regards, spintendo 06:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Based on the discussion and advice in the section above, I would propose updating the history section with the following information. The first two paragraphs would be replaced with the new proposed paragraphs.
Current version:
Forex Capital Markets was founded in 1999 in New York, and was one of the early developers of online forex trading. Initially, the firm was called Shalish Capital Markets, but after one year, rebranded as FXCM. In January 2003, FXCM entered into a partnership with Refco group, one of the largest US futures brokers at the time. Refco took a 35% stake in FXCM and licensed the FXCM software for use by its own clients. Refco filed for bankruptcy on October 17, 2005, a week after a $430 million fraud was discovered, and two months after its initial public offering of stock. Refco's CEO Phillip R. Bennett was later convicted of the fraud.[38] FXCM became entrenched in the Refco bankruptcy proceedings for several years.
In 2003, FXCM expanded overseas when it opened an office in London which became regulated by the UK Financial Services Authority.[39]
Proposed version:
Forex Capital Markets was founded in 1999 by Drew Niv and five other associates. In 2003, the company sold a 35% equity stake to Refco, a U.S. futures broker. [1] As a part of the agreement, FXCM allowed Refco to license the FXCM software for use by Refco clients. By 2005, FXCM's platform had 70,000 customers and a revenue of roughly $260 million. [2] In 2003, FXCM expanded overseas when it opened an office in London which became regulated by the UK Financial Services Authority. [3]
In October 2005, Refco filed for bankruptcy protection after it was revealed that its CEO, Phillip R. Bennett, had failed to disclose $430 million in debt. [4] Bennett was later convicted of fraud in 2008. [5] In November 2005, Refco agreed, in part, to sell its 35% stake back (which included 15,000 customer accounts) to FXCM for $110 million. [6] In March 2006, however, Refco's creditors disallowed the deal and, later, denied a separate $130 million bid by FXCM. [7] Refco's stake in FXCM was eventually sold to a consortium of buyers, including Lehman Brothers Holdings. [2]
References
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
In order to keep things in more chronilogical order, I would propose moving the "Pre-bankruptcy corporate structure" section under the history section, just after the "financial issues" section. -- Formilds ( talk) 02:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
I transposed two sentences in the above request, but these events happen in the same context. I have now corrected so that things are in the correct chronological order. Based on the discussion and advice in the section above, I would propose updating the history section with the following information. The first two paragraphs would be replaced with the new proposed paragraphs.
Current version:
Forex Capital Markets was founded in 1999 in New York, and was one of the early developers of online forex trading. Initially, the firm was called Shalish Capital Markets, but after one year, rebranded as FXCM. In January 2003, FXCM entered into a partnership with Refco group, one of the largest US futures brokers at the time. Refco took a 35% stake in FXCM and licensed the FXCM software for use by its own clients. Refco filed for bankruptcy on October 17, 2005, a week after a $430 million fraud was discovered, and two months after its initial public offering of stock. Refco's CEO Phillip R. Bennett was later convicted of the fraud.[38] FXCM became entrenched in the Refco bankruptcy proceedings for several years.
In 2003, FXCM expanded overseas when it opened an office in London which became regulated by the UK Financial Services Authority.[39]
Proposed version:
Forex Capital Markets was founded in 1999 by Drew Niv and five other associates. In 2003, the company sold a 35% equity stake to Refco, a U.S. futures broker. [1] As a part of the agreement, FXCM allowed Refco to license the FXCM software for use by Refco clients. In 2003, FXCM expanded overseas when it opened an office in London which became regulated by the UK Financial Services Authority. [2] By 2005, FXCM's platform had 70,000 customers and a revenue of roughly $260 million. [3]
In October 2005, Refco filed for bankruptcy protection after it was revealed that its CEO, Phillip R. Bennett, had failed to disclose $430 million in debt. [4] In November 2005, Refco agreed, in part, to sell its 35% stake back (which included 15,000 customer accounts) to FXCM for $110 million. [5] Bennett was later convicted of fraud in 2008. [6] Refco's stake in FXCM was eventually sold to a consortium of buyers, including Lehman Brothers Holdings. [3]
References
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Formilds ( talk • contribs) 02:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A consensus could not be reached. |
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
I am back to propose changes to the page. I know you want sentence by sentence changes but there is so much content on the page that it is difficult to do. When one sentence is changed, it changes the context of the paragraph and ultimately results in the moving of other sentences. However, I did it both ways so that it will be easier (hopefully) for those reviewing. These changes are applicable to the first four paragraphs of the page.
CURRENT VERSION
(Here is the current version as it exists on the page as of October 15, 2018) FXCM, also known as Forex Capital Markets, is a retail foreign exchange broker, now run from London after being banned from United States markets for defrauding its customers.[2][3][4] Its former parent company, Global Brokerage, Inc. filed for bankruptcy on December 11, 2017.[5][6][7] The operating company, known as FXCM Group, is now owned by Jefferies Financial Group,[8] which changed its name from Leucadia National Corporation in 2018.[9]
FXCM allows retail clients to speculate on the foreign exchange market and provides trading in contract for difference (CFDs) on major indices and commodities such as gold and crude oil. Global Brokerage shareholders lost over 98% of their investment since January 2015.[10]
On February 6, 2017 the firm agreed to pay a $7 million penalty to settle a suit from the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) involving fraudulent misrepresentation by FXCM to its customers and to regulators. FXCM withdrew its CFTC registration and agreed not to re-register in the future, effectively banning it from trading in the United States.[11] Three top managers resigned under regulatory pressure and the majority owner of the firm changed its name to Global Brokerage Inc., effective January 27, 2017.[12][13][14][15]
A Managing Director of Leucadia National Corp, which before the bankruptcy held a 49.9% equity stake in the operating company,[16] was appointed chairman of the FXCM Group board.[17] Its U.S. accounts were sold to Gain Capital. About 40,000 customer accounts were sold at about $375 each.[13][18]
PROPOSED VERSION (Here is the proposed final version as outlined line by line below)
FXCM, also known as Forex Capital Markets, is a retail foreign exchange broker currently based in London. [1] FXCM allows retail clients to speculate on the foreign exchange market and provides trading in contract for difference (CFDs) on major indices and commodities such as gold and crude oil. [2] [3] The exchange's operating company, FXCM Group, is owned by Leucadia. [4]
In February 2017, the firm agreed to settle a suit with the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) after FXCM was accused of fraudulent misrepresentation involving its customers and regulators. [5] Its parent company changed its name to Global Brokerage, Inc. (formerly FXCM, Inc.) that month. [6] [7] The parent company and three founding partners were ordered to pay a $7 million penalty and withdraw their CFTC registration, effectively ending the exchange's U.S. operations. [5] Its U.S. accounts (around 40,000 in total) were sold to Gain Capital for $375 apiece. [8]
Global Brokerage filed for bankruptcy in November 2017, but officially reorganized in February 2018. [4] [9] While the company technically owns a 51% equity stake in FXCM Group, its agreement with Leucadia and FXCM about future distributions of cash flows places its real economic interest in FXCM at 10 to 50%. Leucadia remains the de facto parent company of the FXCM Group. [4] [9]
References
SENTENCE BY SENTENCE
NOTE - Above I went through line by line and hopefully got it right. However, I put everything into what the actual opening paragraphs would be like with the changes above so that you can see it all laid out. Let me know if there are any questions or you need additional clarification for any of the changes. -- Formilds ( talk) 03:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Notes
Spintendo, I am confused as the response above does not address all of the requests. What I am looking to do is have someone review all of the proposed edits that are in my sandbox. The current article does not list the history correctly as there seems to be a confusion of ownership throughout the years. The copy in my sandbox better defines it and also reads more neutral than the current article, including the opening paragraphs. I was looking through recent requests for COI edits which led me to find another similar request which was handled without all the need to break down each and every section. I would request that the draft article in my sandbox be reviewed and the changes updated to the live page. -- Formilds ( talk) 00:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Formilds, with all due respect, this company has a ton of legal issues and they are very difficult to wade through. The current page is difficult to decipher but so is the draft you presented. I am going to wait for feedback from others on the bankruptcy section below prior to doing any further edits. Even though you have a COI, you are welcome to engage in the discussion as long as you do not make edits to the article itself. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 17:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Going through the page, I found a few publications which I am not sure about reliability. They appear to be industry publications so hopefully someone can opine about their use. I will search and can likely find better sources but would like to know just in case.-- CNMall41 ( talk) 16:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I placed this here for discussion. I replaced the COI users request for the bankruptcy wording as it does indeed make thing clearer. The wording below looks like a court transcript of the play by play of the bankruptcy. Not sure what, if any, of the below should be worked back into the section but leaving it here for discussion.-- CNMall41 ( talk) 17:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Prior to the bankruptcy in the US, the parent company, Global Brokerage Inc (formerly called FXCM Inc.) was publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange until early 2017, and then on NASDAQ until its delisting in December 2017, soon after it announced its bankruptcy filing. Global Brokerage owned a 74.5% interest in Global Brokerage Holdings, which owned 50.1% of FXCM. Leucadia National Corp owned the other 49.9%, plus debt worth $123 million as of March 31, 2017. FXCM owned all the operating companies including FXCM UK. Leucadia did not own any shares in Global Brokerage. [1] [2]
Ken Grossman was CEO of Global Brokerage. Drew Niv, who had earlier resigned the position, was interim Chief Executive Officer of Global Brokerage until about May 15, 2017. Grossman had an unusual contract to pay him $600,000 in base salary plus a bonus of $1,000,000 if he stayed in the position for a full year, but with his tenure to terminate in one year. [3]
At FXCM Group Brendan Callan was the CEO and Jimmy Hallac of Leucadia was Chairman of the Board. COO David Sakhai receives base compensation of $600,000 per year plus a $1,000,000 bonus. Eduard Yusupov, the head dealer, received $600,000 in base pay. Global Brokerage, Inc. had a market capitalization of about $12 million in May 2017. [4] [5] Cash generated by FXCM was first applied to pay off the debt owned by Leucadia, which had the right to force a sale of FXCM in January 2018 if the debt was not paid. [1] [2]
FXCM owned about 34.5% of the ECN FastMatch which was sold to the Euronext exchange for $153-$163 million. FXCM realized about $55.6 million on the sale. [6] [7]
At least three sets of lawsuits were filed against the parent firm, Global Brokerage, Inc. Shareholders contend that they were misled by the company's initial public offering prospectus or otherwise defrauded by management. Former customers contend that they were defrauded by the claim that they were trading on a "no dealing desk" system. [8] [9] In the UK Daniela Shurbanova filed a suit claiming that trades that resulted in $460,000 in profits for her were simply cancelled. FXCM said that the trades were cancelled because the prices they quoted were changed more slowly than actual market prices, and that Shurbanova was trading to take advantage of the price discrepancies. [10]
FXCM reported negative earnings of $28.2 million for the quarter ending March 1, 2017 and held $141.7 million in cash. They owed $121 million to Leucadia. [11] [12] Global Brokerage owed another $163 million to convertible note holders. [9]
The market capitalization of Global Brokerage, Inc. (known as FXCM, Inc. until 2017) fell by 90% in 2015 and an additional 58% in 2016. [13] On February 7, 2017 it fell by another 50% with the stock price ending at $3.45. [14] The share price continued to drop to $2.00 on May 25, 2017 with a market capitalization of about $12 million. citation needed Before Global Brokerage declared their intention to seek bankruptcy protection in November, 2017, its shares were trading at about $1.30, and then fell another 27% to $0.95 by November 22. [15] On July 25, 2018 Global Brokerage shares traded at $0.07, giving the company a market capitalization of less than $600,000. [16]
The prepackaged bankruptcy was scheduled to be officially closed on June 14, 2018, but proceedings continued until about August 1. Noteholders were expected to be issued new securities as previously agreed. Provisions releasing managers and directors of the company from liability in civil suits are not expected to be adopted. [17] [18] [19]
References
GB10Q3312017
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The company has quite a bit of negative information to include, but not sure the current lede is reflected of the page history, especially after the implementation of several COI request (above). Here is the proposed wording by the COI editor. I would rather get a consensus on this prior to implementing any on the actual page. Note that I copied and pasted directly from User:Formilds/sandbox.-- CNMall41 ( talk) 01:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
FXCM, also known as Forex Capital Markets, is a retail foreign exchange broker currently based in London.[2] FXCM allows retail clients to speculate on the foreign exchange market and provides trading in contract for difference (CFDs) on major indices and commodities such as gold and crude oil.[3][4] The exchange's operating company, FXCM Group, is owned by Leucadia.[5]
In February 2017, the firm agreed to settle a suit with the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) after FXCM was accused of fraudulent misrepresentation involving its customers and regulators.[6] Its parent company changed its name to Global Brokerage, Inc. (formerly FXCM, Inc.) that month.[7][8] The parent company and three founding partners were ordered to pay a $7 million penalty and withdraw their CFTC registration, effectively ending the exchange's U.S. operations.[6] Its U.S. accounts (around 40,000 in total) were sold to Gain Capital for $375 apiece.[9]
Global Brokerage filed for bankruptcy in November 2017, but officially reorganized in February 2018. While the company technically owns a 51% equity stake in FXCM Group, its agreement with Leucadia and FXCM about future distributions of cash flows places its real economic interest in FXCM at 10 to 50%. Leucadia remains the de facto parent company of the FXCM Group.[5][10]
I removed this for a second time in as many days since it is not related to the company. Just because the CEO makes a statement about the industry doesn't mean that it is about the company or belongs on the company page. Would be happy to discuss and get a consensus if there are people who feel otherwise. Also, if we are including CEO quotes about the industry, why we would include this one in particular and not others?-- CNMall41 ( talk) 07:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Smallbones, I understand your want to make sure that negative information about this company is covered in Wikipedia. However, it is covered extensively. There is also a process for discussing edits and you seem to cross the line of WP:5P2 and WP:5P4. The edits I made were discussed not only on this page but also in detailed edit summaries. The edits I implemented were not as-is from the company and if you actually look, you will see that all the negative information about the company is in there (in fact, there is very little positive other than a few facts). However, you reverted them all saying "revert to last Alaney2k, per discussion at WP:COIN." Your revert caused the re-introduction of WP:SYNTH and edits that were not WP:NEUTRAL.
The discussion you mention was a report filed by you, basically stating that edits requested by a COIN editor are tainted if implemented by me since they originated from a company you are "running out of patience" with. The most relevant statment I see from the COIN report is from an admin who said - "Since the COI issue was previously flagged, and since Formilds is going through all the correct steps, there is nothing left for this board to resolve. User:CNMall41 is doing just what they are supposed to do in handling requests from a COI-affected editor. The material is not forever 'tainted' by originating from a proposal by User:Formilds. It is to be reviewed like any other proposed content."
There has bee NO policy base reason you have given for your reverts and NO discussion from you about the edits. I have reverted you a final time prior to filing an ANI report and ask that you discuss here. Please start to WP:AGF and not use Wikipedia to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
michael should be replaced as www.forexwolf.in 111.223.2.232 ( talk) 17:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 29 October 2009. The result of the discussion was delete. |
This page was proposed for deletion by an editor on 1 June 2017. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
A page for this company has been deleted twice before Wikipedia: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)
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)
Please edit accordingly as this entire article is misleading and bias to anyone unfamiliar with the company and is riddled with other inaccuracies as well.
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)
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)
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)
I have found large edit of 2017/04/26 done by user Smallbones ( talk · contribs) to be contentious due to:
Due to this I will be reverting the change. Please try to make incremental changes and use informative edit summaries as per Wikipedia:Good_editing_practices. Gouyoku ( talk) 03:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Gouyoku ( talk) 20:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Any editor who is being paid to edit this article needs to declare their paid status, and who is paying them, per the Terms of Use. See WP:PAID for details. WP:COI may also apply.
I think this is particularly important as FXCM (and its then-officers) have formally agreed with the CFTC that
"Respondents agree that neither they nor any of their successors and assigns, agents, or employees under their authority or control shall take any action or make any public statement denying, directly or indirectly, any findings or conclusions in this Order or creating, or tending to create, the impression that this Order is without a factual basis".
The order documents "fraudulent misrepresentations" by FXCM, giving about a dozen examples. In layman's terms, FXCM admitted to lying to its customers and to regulators. I'm sure that neither FXCM nor Leucadia would want to violate the CFTC's order.
Smallbones( smalltalk) 16:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I haven't had time to look closely at this article — to even call it an article is giving at the benefit of the doubt — it's not much more than a barely organized collection bullet points in sentence form. It's barely more than a timeline of events.
However, one sentence jumped out at me. At the moment at the closing sentence of the body: In each quarter of 2014, between 67% and 70% of FXCM open customer accounts lost money
While this is sourced, one has to question why it's included. What, if anything, should the reader take away from the sentence? It is in the section titled "industry criticism", so supposedly it represents some form of criticism. I can imagine some naïve readers might think these are large values. However, unlike retail equity markets, where a substantial portion of customers can make money over time (even though most do lag industry benchmarks), FX is a zero-sum game before considering commissions, and commissions do exist, so one would expect without doing any analysis, that the proportion of accounts losing money would be in excess of 50%. While hard numbers are elusive, one industry study Suggest the industry average of profitable client accounts is about 29%. That's from 2010, and only one study so let's not use two decimals a precision let's round to 30% make money and 70% lose money roughly speaking. In that context, the customers of this particular organization are either doing close to the industry average or slightly better depending on how carefully you wish to parse. That's hardly a notable fact worth mentioning and certainly not in the criticism section.I'm not to remove it, as it is sourced but I'll identify it as one example in support of getting some other experts to review this article, and see if it can be improved.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 20:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
S PhilbrickThe % of losing accounts is quite important. Anybody who is investing money wants to know what the chance is of making money. The chances for making money with this company are pretty low. The numbers were reported by FXCM to the CFTC so can be taken as official, though I suspect they can be manipulated a bit. One of the problems with the article is that FXCM can not be considered to be a reliable source on anything - it has admitted in a consent decree to lying to its customers so anything they publish now is suspect. Everything prior to Feb. 6, 2017 is essentially irrelevant. FXCM does not issue any new statements other than SEC forms. In accounting there's something called the "ongoing business assumption" - accountants assess a company based on the whole operating business being greater than the sum of the parts. One of the SEC forms says that next year they can't guarantee that this assumption will be met - it may not be an ongoing business. Given that, next year's accounting statements will likely be "qualified". That's a death sentence for any financial business - who would invest with a broker that's not going to be around? Sure this is OR to Wikipedians, but when we've got a lack of reliable info, we just can't assume that this is an actual operating business. Smallbones( smalltalk) 23:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not persuaded that the information about losing accounts is quite important. I don't disagree with the statement " Anybody who is investing money wants to know what the chance is of making money." But that's a forward-looking statements in virtually all financial firms are explicitly precluded from forward-looking statements. And that's not what's in play here, it is a statement about past performance which is permitted. If you modify your statement to "anyone who is investing money would like to know how well similar investments have performed in the past" then I'll agree.
However, while I think it might be useful to offer some general comments in a general article about FX trading — I suspect some of the general public may not be aware of fundamentally different effects is from stocks bonds and real estate, I think it would be unreasonable to include such data on each and every firm. It might be relevant and I'd say this is up for debate, if the particular firms results are meaningfully different from the overall industry. Based on the very limited numbers given that isn't the case here. I'm slightly surprised, given their checkered history but the numbers reported are almost identical to industry averages so what's the point of discussing them here? I repeat, the specific article about FXCM is not the right article to provide readers with general information about FX "investing". (I deliberately put investing in quotes because while FX can be used by corporations as part of prudent risk management, When carried out by individuals it is more likely to be naïve speculation, and closer to gambling than investing.)
I'm not responding to your subsequent statements about whether FXCM is reliable, as they don't bear on the question of whether this specific sentence deserves inclusion. It isn't the case, for example, that it is being used to refute misleading statements from the company (unless I missed something but if I did those statement should remove removed)-- S Philbrick (Talk) 20:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Sphilbrick: your complaint about the % of losing accounts has several problems.
So disregarding "who edited what for whatever reason," common sense, logic, and the facts, your argument might possibly have some potential.
Smallbones( smalltalk) 04:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
The owner of FXCM, Global Brokerage, Inc., states in its SEC 10-Q that
(W)e believe that the potential delisting raises substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern as at May 15, 2017, the date that our financial statements were issued.
— p.61 SEC 10-Q
Please note that there are no "ifs" "ands" or "buts" about this. Its a simple statement about "substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern." Reuters quotes them here.
While this is *not* an official statement that "it's all over", it is an official statement that (paraphrased) "We believe that it soon could be all over".
Obviously this is hugely important to anybody who could have anything to do with the firm. It's the most important thing of all for anybody who is not being paid by them with cash in advance. The article should be rewritten with this in mind, but it cannot be assumed that the company is "all but dead." It is quite clearly only "substantial doubt" that it will continue living. But let us not rewrite the article trying to deny this "substantial doubt." Smallbones( smalltalk) 15:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Five of my edits have been reverted by Smallbones ( talk · contribs) with a vague explanation that doesn't really apply to any of them. Can you please explain here why have you reverted them? Thank you. Gouyoku ( talk) 09:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Gouyoku: please stop just removing referenced material. Just because you don't like the facts, you can't remove them from the article. Please be aware that you've reverted 3 edits in the last 24 hours. See WP:3RR. Smallbones( smalltalk) 17:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Please watch yourself. Feel free to add material, but just reverting sourced material added by others does not work. Smallbones( smalltalk) 20:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the repetition in the first sentence that they trade other things than forex. It was already at the bottom of the 1st paragraph. I also removed the "joint ownership" mumbo-jumbo in the first sentence. Global Brokerage is the legal owner. Legal ownership is important because it determines in many cases who gets sued. The rather complicated corporate structure is explained in its own section.
WP:CRYSTALBALL is the right policy to quote here, as is WP:Reliable source. Since FXCM was kicked out of the US for fraudulent misrepresentation on feb. 7, they are not a reliable source - they lie. Anything that was cited to them that's not reported in another source (since Feb. 7), or in an official SEC filing, has no reliable source. Moreover we cannot assume that FXCM is an ongoing business. Global Brokerage and Leucadia have both said in SEC filings that we can't assume that. So anything that seems to assume that they are an ongoing business is WP:CRYSTALBALL material.
I hope we're all clear on that. Now stop the obstruction. Smallbones( smalltalk) 01:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I have deprodded this article but my reasoning was too long for the edit summary so here it is. "No longer [being] a valid entity" is not a valid rationale for deletion. If this subject has ever met the notability criteria for inclusion, then it will always meet it. If the person who nominated this article for prod still wishes to pursue deletion then please feel free to open another deletion discussion by following the three-step process at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks, — KuyaBriBri Talk 20:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
References
appears to have removed info from the first paragraph, saying that the material there is only relevant to the US. That's complete nonsense. When a financial company is banned from trading in it's home country, it's a major event. When it happens because of fraud, it usually means that the company will be closed down everywhere. When the company says in its SEC reports that it is in danger of closing down, that is usually the most important fact about the company. Notice that we are doing our readers a great disservice by not informing them of the questionable underpinnings (financial and otherwise) of the company. Their customers could lose a lot of money trading with them. About 70%of them do.
Frankly I'm tired of all the short-term SPAs who have come here and tried to obscure the facts about this company. Is it 6 in the last few months?
If you can come up with some sort of dispute resolution procedure, I'd be glade to join in. Just one request - everybody involved in that should declare if they are paid editors (per ToU) and indicate how they got to be interested in the article.
If you don't want to use a dispute resolution process, I will proceed to edit to include verified facts in the article to the best of my ability.
Smallbones( smalltalk) 17:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Good morning Smallbones and John Nagle. I wanted to discuss the current state of the FXCM Wikipedia page with you in light of the ongoing discussions above. I am an independent PR agent who is working for FXCM on a contract basis and of course have an interest in this Wikipedia page from a professional perspective. I cannot speak to the previous contributors to this page but I am hoping that we can come to a resolution for the page moving forwards.
The main bone of contention seems to derive from the insistence that the regulatory issues FXCM are currently undergoing should form part of the very first two sentences of this piece. The previous individuals who have edited this page are as aware as you are, Smallbones, that Google will use the first couple of lines from Wikipedia to form their knowledge graph information when a user searches for an FXCM branded term.
I am in no way here to suggest that the information relating to FXCM's current predicament shouldn't be thoroughly covered - it is information the Wikipedia readership have a right to know about - but to repeatedly insist that it needs to appear in Google for branded searches seems excessive and not befitting with the way recent news is treated on the rest of Wikipedia. Let me provide some examples:
Admittedly the BP reference is somewhat older but the other two are very recent (a myriad of other examples exist too i'm sure). So I'm curious why it is that the FXCM page should include the reference to their investigation when other pages do not comply to those same criteria? I'd like to refer to some of the points made in your previous statement:
"When it happens because of fraud, it usually means that the company will be closed down everywhere" Smallbones
Usually? FXCM have not been shut down everywhere - they can no longer service customers only in the United States. I'm not convinced that Wikipedia is the place for speculation and so don't understand how this argument can stand?
"Notice that we are doing our readers a great disservice by not informing them of the questionable underpinnings (financial and otherwise) of the company" Smallbones
Doing Wikipedia users a disservice by denying them information is of course a huge disservice. But insisting that the ongoing regulatory action is a foregone conclusion leading to FXCM being shut down globally is just your opinion. Advertising this on the first two lines of the FXCM page is highlighting FXCM's issues to the extreme, in particular when other pages don't follow the same format.
Following on from your message to Aglassofprosecco ( talk · contribs), I will be flagging this page now for further moderation here and appreciate your response in advance. Many thanks. LQDR Lqdr ( talk) 00:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Note that Effex was not mentioned in this article until you put it here. The relevant ruling is in the CFTC v. FXCM, in which FXCM agreed with the allegations (for the purposes of the court order) and then agreed to the court order. They waived their right of trial and or appeal. So there is nothing "alleged" here. It's the finding of the regulatory agency and the US court. So Effex suing somebody other than the CFTC is irrelevant. FXCM agreed to the charges and the penalty. End of story. Smallbones( smalltalk) 22:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
The sentence you changed to "FXCM has been banned from trading in the United States for alleged "fraudulent misrepresentation" to its customers[4], which is now being challenged in court.[5][6]" is obviously wrong. Nobody is challenging FXCM's banning in the US. Nobody is challenging "fraudulent misrepresentation" by FXCM. A 3rd party has filed a lawsuit against a 4th party. FXCM has signed away their right to appeal and agreed to the settlement (being kicked out of the US, so there is no "alleged" about this. I'll change this back if you can't come up with a reference to the banning being appealed. Smallbones( smalltalk) 04:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
The inclusion of qualifiers on "FXCM has been banned from trading in the United States for "fraudulent misrepresentation" to its customers."are just wrong. Adding "alleged" or "charges of alleged" is just nonsense - the legal matter has been fully decided, no appeal is possible. FXCM does not dispute "fraudulent misrepresentation." Adding "which are now being challenged in court" is further nonsense nobody is challenging the order against FXCM. The fact that Effex has filed a lawsuit against the NFA is just "other stuff". Filing a lawsuit in itself means nothing and nothing has happened yet. A 3rd party filing a lawsuit against a 4th party means less than nothing.
Lqdr has addressed this all above. Re: "FXCM has been banned from trading in the United States for "fraudulent misrepresentation".
So to reiterate the point I made in the 2nd paragraph again, there is no contention whatsoever surrounding the factual accuracy of what has been added to the page. The only contention from our side is with regards to the use of that information in the 2nd sentence of the article. .... Our only possible contention is regarding the positioning of the second sentence, "FXCM has been banned from trading in the United States for "fraudulent misrepresentation" to its customers." It's been almost 6 months now since the US FXCM ban and the placement of this info and subsequent visibility from a branded search in Google [2] seems excessive and not befitting the history or broader offering FXCM provides.
So from his point of view, it's all about moving the sentence down and off Google graph.
Let's just wait for Lqdr to weigh in. I think we'll be able to agree with what he wants to do. But the nonsense has to stay out. Smallbones( smalltalk) 03:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
References
@ Smallbones:, why did you remove [12] the full legal name of FXCM [13] from the lede? First sentence should include alternative names. Are you attempting SEO? Please do not engage in disruptive editing and remember you do not WP:OWN the article, so arguments that you "don't want" something are invalid. Gouyoku ( talk) 18:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: this has been discussed in an RfM [15]. Gouyoku ( talk) 22:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Smallbones:, you are repeating the same flawed argument again. The ban case is not limited to FXCM and CFTC but also includes NFA and Effex. This is not an opinion but a fact that can be backed up by direct quotes from secondary sources, for example: [16]
(...)the litigation involving FXCM after the broker had to leave the US retail Forex market following settlements with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the National Futures Association (NFA).
Why is this Preliminary Injunction Motion so important? Of course, if the NFA takes down the publications, this will be a win for Effex Capital and its CEO. More importantly, however, the claims made in these publications serve as the basis for a number of legal cases launched against FXCM, Global Brokerage Inc (NASDAQ:GLBR), previously known as FXCM Inc, Drew Niv, William Ahdout and other (former and current) principals of FXCM, as well as Effex Capital.
Notability of this is well established, and to give it due weight, must be included with the mention of "fraudulent misrepresentation" allegations. Do not remove it just because you do not like it. Gouyoku ( talk) 18:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I hope everyone had some good rest. Since our last encounter, FXCM made a statement about the allegation: "Global Brokerage Inc., which changed its name from FXCM Inc. earlier this year, said it did not admit to any allegations as part of its February settlements with the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the National Futures Association." [18]. As we had no chance to talk about this case in the course of our mediation, I will add it again. Since FXCM made a statement, previous arguments against this are no longer valid. Gouyoku ( talk) 22:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Four registered editors, including a declared representative of FXCM, were blocked as sockpuppets at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gouyoku/Archive and then an IP address traceable to the company made 2 disruptive edits. All the socks were blocked after making similar edits to @ Gouyoku: and the IP, which Gouyoku repeated several minutes ago. Pinging @ Courcelles:, the blocking admin for the socks, to see what he'd like to do.
I'm frankly tired of SPAs+ messing with this article. Gouyoku has taken me to ANI, Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/FXCM, and Dispute Resolution without proving anything except that he can get his friends blocked. Smallbones( smalltalk) 01:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The following was put in the lede "Although it was banned from providing services to traders in the United States for defrauding its customers, the company still operates out of the USA but targets international clientele." Is this supposed to mean that FXCM has traders or customer support people in New York who are in contact with their clients? if so, we'd need to see a reference, since the reference we do have says:
"The entire FXCM operation is now run out of London, with FXCM Group LLC now being headed by CEO Brendan Callan, who has run FXCM’s European operations including FXCM UK out of London for most of the company’s history.
"The US operation has been effectively reduced to a holding company, whereby the formerly named FXCM Inc – now called Global Brokerage Inc (NASDAQ:GLBR) – manages its 50.1% stake in the operating company."
Meanwhile, we should be thinking about what happens when GLBR is delisted from NASDAQ. Smallbones( smalltalk) 03:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Note that GLBR filed for bankruptcy reorganization on December 11, 2017 as previously announced. I'd put reliable sources in for the expected bankruptcy, but now only have a a company press release to confirm the actual bankruptcy (republished by NASDAQ). I don't think this should be a problem, but please do check it out if you have your doubts.
There's a certain amount of BS that is accompanying the previous bankruptcy intention announcement. It goes something like this: GLBR will benefit from the bankruptcy, its creditors will also benefit, the operating subsidiary FXCM Group will not be affected, so everything is just hunky-dory. That's not how bankruptcies work. The plaintiffs in the various lawsuits are being left out of that equation. The Group will have a new owner most likely, the only question is who? Since we don't have any reliable source about what is likely to happen in bankruptcy, I'll suggest we leave it alone until we do have RS. Smallbones( smalltalk) 17:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Parking this link, might be useful in the future. Smallbones( smalltalk) 02:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I am from FXCM and would like to request edits with the page. I realize that there are requirements I need to follow since I am from the company. Prior to making any request, I want to make sure that I am doing things correctly by disclosing my affiliation. In addition to declaring here on the talk page of the article, is there any other location I need to do so?-- Formilds ( talk) 02:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Propose to update the first paragraph of the history section to reflect the early history more accurately. The early name of Shalish Capital is not in the sources currently in the article or the others. It also removes the terminology of "one of the largest US futures brokers at the time" as this is not specific to FXCM. The new version also includes five additional sources for verification. The second paragraph also includes information about the results of the bankruptcy proceedings from Refco.
Current version:
Forex Capital Markets was founded in 1999 in New York, and was one of the early developers of online forex trading. Initially, the firm was called Shalish Capital Markets, but after one year, rebranded as FXCM. In January 2003, FXCM entered into a partnership with Refco group, one of the largest US futures brokers at the time. Refco took a 35% stake in FXCM and licensed the FXCM software for use by its own clients. Refco filed for bankruptcy on October 17, 2005, a week after a $430 million fraud was discovered, and two months after its initial public offering of stock. Refco's CEO Phillip R. Bennett was later convicted of the fraud.[38] FXCM became entrenched in the Refco bankruptcy proceedings for several years.
Proposed version:
Forex Capital Markets was founded in 1999 by Drew Niv and five other associates. In 2003, the company sold a 35% equity stake to Refco, a U.S. futures broker. [1] As a part of the agreement, FXCM allowed Refco to license the FXCM software for use by Refco clients. By 2005, FXCM's platform had 70,000 customers and a revenue of roughly $260 million. [2] In October 2005, Refco filed for bankruptcy protection after it was revealed that its CEO, Phillip R. Bennett, had failed to disclose $430 million in debt. [3] Bennett was later convicted of fraud in 2008. [4]
In November 2005, Refco agreed, in part, to sell its 35% stake back (which included 15,000 customer accounts) to FXCM for $110 million. [5] In March 2006, however, Refco's creditors disallowed the deal and, later, denied a separate $130 million bid by FXCM. [6] Refco's stake in FXCM was eventually sold to a consortium of buyers, including Lehman Brothers Holdings. [2]
References
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
Your edit request could not be reviewed because it is unclear in portions of the request which references are connected to which claim statements. When proposing edit requests, it is important to highlight in the text which specific sources are doing the referencing for each claim. Note the example below, which mirrors the first half of your edit request:
INCORRECT
The sun is pretty big, but the moon is not so big. The sun is also quite hot. [1] [2] [3]
References
1. Sjöblad, Tristan. The Sun. Academic Press, 2018, p. 1.
2. Duvalier, Gabrielle. "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 51(78):46.
3. Uemura, Shū. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2018, p. 2.
In the example above there are three references provided, but they are all placed at the end of the passage. This placement fails to indicate which reference applies where. Your edit request similarly does not specify where the references you have provided are to be placed, and which particular claims they cover. These links between material and their source references must be more clearly made, as shown in the next example below:
CORRECT
The sun is pretty big, [1] but the moon is not so big. [2] The sun is also quite hot. [3]
References
In the example above, the links between the provided references and their claim statements are made clearly. In the second half of your request, the references are spaced more appropriately, as in the example above. The same cannot be said for the first half in which references are bunched together. This should not be the case, especially when there is plenty of room and lots of claims in this first part for them to spread out to.
Kindly reformulate your edit request so that it aligns more with the second example above in its entirety, and feel free to re-submit that edit request at your earliest convenience. Regards, spintendo 03:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
"In November 2005, Refco agreed,"). Adding the section to the article in the location which you've specified would have the sentence immediately following your addition beginning with events which occurred in 2003 (e.g.,
"In 2003, FXCM expanded overseas when it opened an office in London "). This is a full 2 years before the events covered at the end of your proposed section (2005). Reading the information in this way may be slightly disorienting, as the reader would find themselves being told about events in a backwards fashion. A better proposal would have this text more integrated into the overall flow of the text surrounding it. Please feel free to rewrite this section as needed in your proposal, taking care to include other sentences around it, altering them as needed, and then submit that proposal here to see if we can get it to fit better. When ready to proceed, go ahead and create a new level 2 heading at the bottom of the talk page and below that add a new edit request template. Also, wanted to thank you again for taking care of the filling-out of your disclosure, that was much appreciated! Regards, spintendo 06:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Based on the discussion and advice in the section above, I would propose updating the history section with the following information. The first two paragraphs would be replaced with the new proposed paragraphs.
Current version:
Forex Capital Markets was founded in 1999 in New York, and was one of the early developers of online forex trading. Initially, the firm was called Shalish Capital Markets, but after one year, rebranded as FXCM. In January 2003, FXCM entered into a partnership with Refco group, one of the largest US futures brokers at the time. Refco took a 35% stake in FXCM and licensed the FXCM software for use by its own clients. Refco filed for bankruptcy on October 17, 2005, a week after a $430 million fraud was discovered, and two months after its initial public offering of stock. Refco's CEO Phillip R. Bennett was later convicted of the fraud.[38] FXCM became entrenched in the Refco bankruptcy proceedings for several years.
In 2003, FXCM expanded overseas when it opened an office in London which became regulated by the UK Financial Services Authority.[39]
Proposed version:
Forex Capital Markets was founded in 1999 by Drew Niv and five other associates. In 2003, the company sold a 35% equity stake to Refco, a U.S. futures broker. [1] As a part of the agreement, FXCM allowed Refco to license the FXCM software for use by Refco clients. By 2005, FXCM's platform had 70,000 customers and a revenue of roughly $260 million. [2] In 2003, FXCM expanded overseas when it opened an office in London which became regulated by the UK Financial Services Authority. [3]
In October 2005, Refco filed for bankruptcy protection after it was revealed that its CEO, Phillip R. Bennett, had failed to disclose $430 million in debt. [4] Bennett was later convicted of fraud in 2008. [5] In November 2005, Refco agreed, in part, to sell its 35% stake back (which included 15,000 customer accounts) to FXCM for $110 million. [6] In March 2006, however, Refco's creditors disallowed the deal and, later, denied a separate $130 million bid by FXCM. [7] Refco's stake in FXCM was eventually sold to a consortium of buyers, including Lehman Brothers Holdings. [2]
References
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
In order to keep things in more chronilogical order, I would propose moving the "Pre-bankruptcy corporate structure" section under the history section, just after the "financial issues" section. -- Formilds ( talk) 02:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
I transposed two sentences in the above request, but these events happen in the same context. I have now corrected so that things are in the correct chronological order. Based on the discussion and advice in the section above, I would propose updating the history section with the following information. The first two paragraphs would be replaced with the new proposed paragraphs.
Current version:
Forex Capital Markets was founded in 1999 in New York, and was one of the early developers of online forex trading. Initially, the firm was called Shalish Capital Markets, but after one year, rebranded as FXCM. In January 2003, FXCM entered into a partnership with Refco group, one of the largest US futures brokers at the time. Refco took a 35% stake in FXCM and licensed the FXCM software for use by its own clients. Refco filed for bankruptcy on October 17, 2005, a week after a $430 million fraud was discovered, and two months after its initial public offering of stock. Refco's CEO Phillip R. Bennett was later convicted of the fraud.[38] FXCM became entrenched in the Refco bankruptcy proceedings for several years.
In 2003, FXCM expanded overseas when it opened an office in London which became regulated by the UK Financial Services Authority.[39]
Proposed version:
Forex Capital Markets was founded in 1999 by Drew Niv and five other associates. In 2003, the company sold a 35% equity stake to Refco, a U.S. futures broker. [1] As a part of the agreement, FXCM allowed Refco to license the FXCM software for use by Refco clients. In 2003, FXCM expanded overseas when it opened an office in London which became regulated by the UK Financial Services Authority. [2] By 2005, FXCM's platform had 70,000 customers and a revenue of roughly $260 million. [3]
In October 2005, Refco filed for bankruptcy protection after it was revealed that its CEO, Phillip R. Bennett, had failed to disclose $430 million in debt. [4] In November 2005, Refco agreed, in part, to sell its 35% stake back (which included 15,000 customer accounts) to FXCM for $110 million. [5] Bennett was later convicted of fraud in 2008. [6] Refco's stake in FXCM was eventually sold to a consortium of buyers, including Lehman Brothers Holdings. [3]
References
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Formilds ( talk • contribs) 02:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A consensus could not be reached. |
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
I am back to propose changes to the page. I know you want sentence by sentence changes but there is so much content on the page that it is difficult to do. When one sentence is changed, it changes the context of the paragraph and ultimately results in the moving of other sentences. However, I did it both ways so that it will be easier (hopefully) for those reviewing. These changes are applicable to the first four paragraphs of the page.
CURRENT VERSION
(Here is the current version as it exists on the page as of October 15, 2018) FXCM, also known as Forex Capital Markets, is a retail foreign exchange broker, now run from London after being banned from United States markets for defrauding its customers.[2][3][4] Its former parent company, Global Brokerage, Inc. filed for bankruptcy on December 11, 2017.[5][6][7] The operating company, known as FXCM Group, is now owned by Jefferies Financial Group,[8] which changed its name from Leucadia National Corporation in 2018.[9]
FXCM allows retail clients to speculate on the foreign exchange market and provides trading in contract for difference (CFDs) on major indices and commodities such as gold and crude oil. Global Brokerage shareholders lost over 98% of their investment since January 2015.[10]
On February 6, 2017 the firm agreed to pay a $7 million penalty to settle a suit from the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) involving fraudulent misrepresentation by FXCM to its customers and to regulators. FXCM withdrew its CFTC registration and agreed not to re-register in the future, effectively banning it from trading in the United States.[11] Three top managers resigned under regulatory pressure and the majority owner of the firm changed its name to Global Brokerage Inc., effective January 27, 2017.[12][13][14][15]
A Managing Director of Leucadia National Corp, which before the bankruptcy held a 49.9% equity stake in the operating company,[16] was appointed chairman of the FXCM Group board.[17] Its U.S. accounts were sold to Gain Capital. About 40,000 customer accounts were sold at about $375 each.[13][18]
PROPOSED VERSION (Here is the proposed final version as outlined line by line below)
FXCM, also known as Forex Capital Markets, is a retail foreign exchange broker currently based in London. [1] FXCM allows retail clients to speculate on the foreign exchange market and provides trading in contract for difference (CFDs) on major indices and commodities such as gold and crude oil. [2] [3] The exchange's operating company, FXCM Group, is owned by Leucadia. [4]
In February 2017, the firm agreed to settle a suit with the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) after FXCM was accused of fraudulent misrepresentation involving its customers and regulators. [5] Its parent company changed its name to Global Brokerage, Inc. (formerly FXCM, Inc.) that month. [6] [7] The parent company and three founding partners were ordered to pay a $7 million penalty and withdraw their CFTC registration, effectively ending the exchange's U.S. operations. [5] Its U.S. accounts (around 40,000 in total) were sold to Gain Capital for $375 apiece. [8]
Global Brokerage filed for bankruptcy in November 2017, but officially reorganized in February 2018. [4] [9] While the company technically owns a 51% equity stake in FXCM Group, its agreement with Leucadia and FXCM about future distributions of cash flows places its real economic interest in FXCM at 10 to 50%. Leucadia remains the de facto parent company of the FXCM Group. [4] [9]
References
SENTENCE BY SENTENCE
NOTE - Above I went through line by line and hopefully got it right. However, I put everything into what the actual opening paragraphs would be like with the changes above so that you can see it all laid out. Let me know if there are any questions or you need additional clarification for any of the changes. -- Formilds ( talk) 03:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Notes
Spintendo, I am confused as the response above does not address all of the requests. What I am looking to do is have someone review all of the proposed edits that are in my sandbox. The current article does not list the history correctly as there seems to be a confusion of ownership throughout the years. The copy in my sandbox better defines it and also reads more neutral than the current article, including the opening paragraphs. I was looking through recent requests for COI edits which led me to find another similar request which was handled without all the need to break down each and every section. I would request that the draft article in my sandbox be reviewed and the changes updated to the live page. -- Formilds ( talk) 00:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Formilds, with all due respect, this company has a ton of legal issues and they are very difficult to wade through. The current page is difficult to decipher but so is the draft you presented. I am going to wait for feedback from others on the bankruptcy section below prior to doing any further edits. Even though you have a COI, you are welcome to engage in the discussion as long as you do not make edits to the article itself. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 17:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Going through the page, I found a few publications which I am not sure about reliability. They appear to be industry publications so hopefully someone can opine about their use. I will search and can likely find better sources but would like to know just in case.-- CNMall41 ( talk) 16:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I placed this here for discussion. I replaced the COI users request for the bankruptcy wording as it does indeed make thing clearer. The wording below looks like a court transcript of the play by play of the bankruptcy. Not sure what, if any, of the below should be worked back into the section but leaving it here for discussion.-- CNMall41 ( talk) 17:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Prior to the bankruptcy in the US, the parent company, Global Brokerage Inc (formerly called FXCM Inc.) was publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange until early 2017, and then on NASDAQ until its delisting in December 2017, soon after it announced its bankruptcy filing. Global Brokerage owned a 74.5% interest in Global Brokerage Holdings, which owned 50.1% of FXCM. Leucadia National Corp owned the other 49.9%, plus debt worth $123 million as of March 31, 2017. FXCM owned all the operating companies including FXCM UK. Leucadia did not own any shares in Global Brokerage. [1] [2]
Ken Grossman was CEO of Global Brokerage. Drew Niv, who had earlier resigned the position, was interim Chief Executive Officer of Global Brokerage until about May 15, 2017. Grossman had an unusual contract to pay him $600,000 in base salary plus a bonus of $1,000,000 if he stayed in the position for a full year, but with his tenure to terminate in one year. [3]
At FXCM Group Brendan Callan was the CEO and Jimmy Hallac of Leucadia was Chairman of the Board. COO David Sakhai receives base compensation of $600,000 per year plus a $1,000,000 bonus. Eduard Yusupov, the head dealer, received $600,000 in base pay. Global Brokerage, Inc. had a market capitalization of about $12 million in May 2017. [4] [5] Cash generated by FXCM was first applied to pay off the debt owned by Leucadia, which had the right to force a sale of FXCM in January 2018 if the debt was not paid. [1] [2]
FXCM owned about 34.5% of the ECN FastMatch which was sold to the Euronext exchange for $153-$163 million. FXCM realized about $55.6 million on the sale. [6] [7]
At least three sets of lawsuits were filed against the parent firm, Global Brokerage, Inc. Shareholders contend that they were misled by the company's initial public offering prospectus or otherwise defrauded by management. Former customers contend that they were defrauded by the claim that they were trading on a "no dealing desk" system. [8] [9] In the UK Daniela Shurbanova filed a suit claiming that trades that resulted in $460,000 in profits for her were simply cancelled. FXCM said that the trades were cancelled because the prices they quoted were changed more slowly than actual market prices, and that Shurbanova was trading to take advantage of the price discrepancies. [10]
FXCM reported negative earnings of $28.2 million for the quarter ending March 1, 2017 and held $141.7 million in cash. They owed $121 million to Leucadia. [11] [12] Global Brokerage owed another $163 million to convertible note holders. [9]
The market capitalization of Global Brokerage, Inc. (known as FXCM, Inc. until 2017) fell by 90% in 2015 and an additional 58% in 2016. [13] On February 7, 2017 it fell by another 50% with the stock price ending at $3.45. [14] The share price continued to drop to $2.00 on May 25, 2017 with a market capitalization of about $12 million. citation needed Before Global Brokerage declared their intention to seek bankruptcy protection in November, 2017, its shares were trading at about $1.30, and then fell another 27% to $0.95 by November 22. [15] On July 25, 2018 Global Brokerage shares traded at $0.07, giving the company a market capitalization of less than $600,000. [16]
The prepackaged bankruptcy was scheduled to be officially closed on June 14, 2018, but proceedings continued until about August 1. Noteholders were expected to be issued new securities as previously agreed. Provisions releasing managers and directors of the company from liability in civil suits are not expected to be adopted. [17] [18] [19]
References
GB10Q3312017
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The company has quite a bit of negative information to include, but not sure the current lede is reflected of the page history, especially after the implementation of several COI request (above). Here is the proposed wording by the COI editor. I would rather get a consensus on this prior to implementing any on the actual page. Note that I copied and pasted directly from User:Formilds/sandbox.-- CNMall41 ( talk) 01:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
FXCM, also known as Forex Capital Markets, is a retail foreign exchange broker currently based in London.[2] FXCM allows retail clients to speculate on the foreign exchange market and provides trading in contract for difference (CFDs) on major indices and commodities such as gold and crude oil.[3][4] The exchange's operating company, FXCM Group, is owned by Leucadia.[5]
In February 2017, the firm agreed to settle a suit with the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) after FXCM was accused of fraudulent misrepresentation involving its customers and regulators.[6] Its parent company changed its name to Global Brokerage, Inc. (formerly FXCM, Inc.) that month.[7][8] The parent company and three founding partners were ordered to pay a $7 million penalty and withdraw their CFTC registration, effectively ending the exchange's U.S. operations.[6] Its U.S. accounts (around 40,000 in total) were sold to Gain Capital for $375 apiece.[9]
Global Brokerage filed for bankruptcy in November 2017, but officially reorganized in February 2018. While the company technically owns a 51% equity stake in FXCM Group, its agreement with Leucadia and FXCM about future distributions of cash flows places its real economic interest in FXCM at 10 to 50%. Leucadia remains the de facto parent company of the FXCM Group.[5][10]
I removed this for a second time in as many days since it is not related to the company. Just because the CEO makes a statement about the industry doesn't mean that it is about the company or belongs on the company page. Would be happy to discuss and get a consensus if there are people who feel otherwise. Also, if we are including CEO quotes about the industry, why we would include this one in particular and not others?-- CNMall41 ( talk) 07:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Smallbones, I understand your want to make sure that negative information about this company is covered in Wikipedia. However, it is covered extensively. There is also a process for discussing edits and you seem to cross the line of WP:5P2 and WP:5P4. The edits I made were discussed not only on this page but also in detailed edit summaries. The edits I implemented were not as-is from the company and if you actually look, you will see that all the negative information about the company is in there (in fact, there is very little positive other than a few facts). However, you reverted them all saying "revert to last Alaney2k, per discussion at WP:COIN." Your revert caused the re-introduction of WP:SYNTH and edits that were not WP:NEUTRAL.
The discussion you mention was a report filed by you, basically stating that edits requested by a COIN editor are tainted if implemented by me since they originated from a company you are "running out of patience" with. The most relevant statment I see from the COIN report is from an admin who said - "Since the COI issue was previously flagged, and since Formilds is going through all the correct steps, there is nothing left for this board to resolve. User:CNMall41 is doing just what they are supposed to do in handling requests from a COI-affected editor. The material is not forever 'tainted' by originating from a proposal by User:Formilds. It is to be reviewed like any other proposed content."
There has bee NO policy base reason you have given for your reverts and NO discussion from you about the edits. I have reverted you a final time prior to filing an ANI report and ask that you discuss here. Please start to WP:AGF and not use Wikipedia to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
michael should be replaced as www.forexwolf.in 111.223.2.232 ( talk) 17:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)