Comments on: NSFG, Technical error causes a big loss

By: The Unbeliever

The Unbeliever — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 07:52:14 +0000

Let’s not forget that 50% of funds that were supposedly seized were reportedly taken during February 2006. It’s interesting that NO irrefutable proof has been furnished to lend credence to the seizure story. It’s even more amazing how so few people seem to call Paul on this or even seek out the truth for themselves. Maybe its wilful ignorance but in light of all of the secrecy, false accounting, and evasiveness that has pervaded this program I, on a balance of probabilities, would surmise that no seizure actually took place. I guess we will never know until someone out there uncovers the real truth. The other 20% loss is attributable to stealing from Peter to pay Paul- hence a Ponzi. Investors who were depositing after February were, unknowingly, funding exiting participants at full value. I’m surprised that Paul isn’t in prison for what he’s done but then again I suppose not enough investors have complained to the right authorities. Considering all that has happened I’d say Paul has some big balls to pull off what he’s done. I have a feeling though that someone will settle accounts with him one day. Ultimately he won’t get away with what he’s done.

By: makila

makila — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 18:03:53 +0000

50% loss(seizure by government) 20%(additional losses) = 70%
100% - 70% = 30%, indeed Jude, 30% was left.

By: Jude

Jude — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:50:12 +0000

It’s more than 50. I drew out at 30%.

By: makila

makila — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:40:19 +0000

The government seized 50% of the funds. The other 20% they lost because they paid withdrawals out at 100% and pretended they didnt lost anything so they posted fake returns. So 20% loss was caused due to the ponzi system they set up afterwards. But still 50%, its a lot of money they supposedly lost outside normal trading.

By: sharonsopinion

sharonsopinion — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 15:53:30 +0000

One thing I don’t quite understand about the government seizure. Governments don’t just grab a portion of accounts. They either …

1) Order a cease and desists until legality can be determined, in which case funds are frozen.

2) Tax the funds, in which case Paul and Ken would have time and a variety of sources for coughing up the amount. It wouldn’t be 70%.

So, if anyone understands or has an example of government seizing 70% of funds, please post here. I’m very interested in learning about this.

Thanks,
Sharon

By: Jude

Jude — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 15:30:03 +0000

Take it with a pinch of salt in the results they tabulate now. The only people who will really know what exactly is going on is those MA account holders in NSFG.

I’m out, thus I have no rights to comment on their results; but it irks me to think how I lost 70% of my funds there unknowingly through a government seizure.

By: McClausky

McClausky — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 13:44:19 +0000

I agree with Agent725.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 12:00:03 +0000

Moral Lesson:

Always have the Phone number of your broker handy.

But… If they didnt know that, that says something.

By: SStheHYIPer

SStheHYIPer — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 08:57:38 +0000

program with great potential and unprofessional management…
i’m glad i’m out…

By: Stijn

Stijn — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 08:19:43 +0000

A correct analysis I’m afraid.

By: Agent725

Agent725 — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 07:53:37 +0000

When seeing these results from NSFG I must stand by the point I made earlier on. These two men can certainly not be called professional traders when they gamble with investors money they way they do.

By: JoseLeon

JoseLeon — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 06:27:38 +0000

Big profit = big losses and big risk