Talk:FXCM
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reparations cases
I do think the following is relevant:
- The firm has been accused in three CFTC reparations cases: 06-R031, 05-RO38, and 03-R098, according to the NFA. Accusations are not the same as convictions, and the CFTC only releases information on these cases by telephone at (202)418-5508.
The system seems to be set up so that information is not released except in this way, ie a small notice on the NFA site with a CFTC telephone number, so I don't know how else to get the information out.
If we don't cite this type of info, then the article starts to look like a self-promotional puff piece, which is what it was originally. Smallbones 12:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
This article does not need mention of the fines/administrative actions, just based on the types of fines and actions mentioned on other wiki corporate articles, they do not seem up to par, e.g. see the morgan stanley article. The article has had some fluff over time, but it has been drastically cut down. Try finding as detailed a description of a market maker's revenue sources anywhere on the net. That alone makes this article not "a self-promotional puff piece" Ragnaroklondon 09:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Forex scams
Is "The retail foreign exchange market is controversial because few retail traders make money, and because of the existence of many forex scams." really neccesary to repeat in FXCM's article? It's already covered in Foreign exchange market and forex scams. Forex scams are not specific to FXCM.
- I don't believe the above quote is in either of those 2 articles, but the idea certainly should be. The connection to FXCM is obviously the source of the quote talking about his own business, FXCM. Smallbones 23:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- It's not a quote, just a statement non-specific to Fxcm.
The first sentence doesn't even seem like it should be in this article. The controversy of the FX market isn't specific to FXCM. Wouldn't it be better-placed in the Foreign exchange market page? If it's in both, it seems redundant. I'd change it, but you'd just revert it. Lollerskates 02:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Need to leave in the negatives as well as the positives
Folks, when the CEO of a company says that 85% of his customers don't make maoney, that quote certainly belongs in the company's wikipedia article. The quote is factual, and is from a reliable source - The Wall Street Journal. There is a link so that people can make their own judgements in the context of the original article.
In short, repeatedly removing this quote looks like vandalism coming from people trying to promote this company. Smallbones 17:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yeah, have a read over the context of the quote. This quote would probably be more appropriate under the day trading article. When the CEO of one of big brokerages says most day traders lose, it probably should be stated. But the un-factual bias in how the quote appears in this article should probably be removed. Mynameiscurtis
-
-
- If you want to put it in elsewhere, please go ahead. But you are very non-specific about why you want it removed here. What is the "un-factual bias"?? Something about the context??? Feel free to change the context, but the quote is a rare glimpse of a corporate CEO telling it like it is, and should be kept. Smallbones 16:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Citations for Awards
In order to keep the area of Awards there needs to be some reference that shows these awards are real --DrewWiki 05:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure I have access to the mags some or all of these awards were mentioned in, but none are online (AFAIK). I'm not sure how to properly reference them, but I'll try to put any information I can find at least here in the talk page. Lollerskates 06:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah...I checked myself and was unable to substantiate some of them. I will do a checking of facts with all of the awards with the cited publications, and correct...but I should also state that if the awards are written out, then the regulatory actions also deserve more text in the body, and not merely by external link. The Lonely Trader 12:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- What's there to add about regulatory actions? Besides some bad marketing material and an IB gone awry (and I think FXCM was cleared of it.. I don't feel like reading it again), they haven't had any major regulatory actions taken against them. Lollerskates 16:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "No Dealing Desk" and changes to FXCM Business Model section
Does this change FXCM's market maker business model section? Does anyone have any information and citations on this?
Sure , "no dealing desk" is their new trick to make the impression they are having "non-dealing desk" , don't worry they'll keep manipulating their customer's positions to drive them into losses —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.172.19.81 (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Under the No Dealing Desk, they pass on the rates they get from the top banks in the world directly to the trader with only the slightest markup on the spread. They also no longer offset clients trades, negating the conflict of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.32.228 (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] from Wikiscanner
Wikiscanner shows that this article has been edited 24 times by FXCM, e.g. 20:57, 3 August 2006 72.5.142.135 (Talk) (undo) They also like to edit lots of FX and investment related articles. Please no COI guys. Smallbones 02:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
