FACTUAL INFORMATION FOR CONSIDERATION

The following factual information is provided for your consideration and that of your clients. If you or the client chose to ignore or disbelieve this information, that is your choice. However, we can tell you that all of this information is factual and that without the consideration of this information, you will not achieve success in this business. The below information is presented in no particular order. We ask that you read and consider this information. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to post your questions.

99% of all of the Brokers and Clients that try to participate in this business have never and will never make a penny at this business. This is because they fail to understand and comply with the REAL requirements of this business.

70% of all of the documents submitted to us in this business are fraudulent and are, immediately, turned over to the authorities. Surprising that people that are still trying to pass fraudulent and fabricated documents and think that, as Introducing Agents (IA), we are too stupid to know the difference.

75% of the Client that submit all of the required documents, receiving and sign an Agreement and promise to perform, never perform or their banks never perform and the transaction goes into default and is reported as a fraud. This is because the Client has lied about owning the asset, free and clear.

If a Client cannot prove ownership of an instrument, via a copy of the Account Statement or SKR, then they will not be given any consideration for the hypothecation of the instrument.

Euroclear and DTC are Screen and Settlement Services. When an instrument is posted to these screens, the instrument is not physically on the screen, it is still in safekeeping at a bank (with a SKR) or a securities house (with an Account Statement). So, when people tell you that there is NO SKR or Account Statement, they are wrong and they are telling you that because they are not the owner and cannot prove ownership of the instrument.

Instruments that are Euroclear Eligible including MTNs, Bonds, Stocks, Treasury, Freddie Macs, Fanny Maes and, very rarely, a CD or SLOC. But, generally the CDs and the SLOCs are NOT on Euroclear.

BGs are NEVER, EVER on Euroclear or DTC and they do not qualify for an ISIN Number or a CUSIP Number. So, when someone tells you that they have a BG on screen (any screen) you already know that they are lying to you.

There is no such thing as a Grey or any colored screen, period. This is just broker nonsense.

Only instruments that are registered with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission can be on DTC. And, this does not include MTNs, BGs, SLOCs or CDs.

Euroclear and DTC are screen services. They are not parking lots for instruments or for cash funds. When someone tells you that you can screen and validate their cash funds on Euroclear or DTC, you know that they are lying to you.

The U. S. Treasury does not issue post-dated checks, as it is against the law to do so.

The Federal Reserve is not a bank that is available to any client, period, regardless of their claims. This means that the FED cannot receive funds on deposit, cannot issue POFs, and cannot be a repository for instruments and then issue a SKR. Anyone making any of these claims is just lying to you.

The Chairman and CEO of Bank Holding Companies do NOT sign any bank documents, including BGs, MTNs, CDs, SLC, Certificates of Gold Deposit or SKRs. This is all just the nonsense of brokers that have fabricated fraudulent documents and are trying to pass them off as something real that was issued by the bank.

All instruments that are presented for hypothecation must (after the Agreement is signed) move to the funding location. If the instrument is on Euroclear, it must move Euroclear Free Delivery. If the instrument is on DTC, it must move DTC Free Delivery. If the instrument is not on Euroclear, then it must move by SWIFT MT 7XX (depending on the type of instrument).

We do not desire to transact on Third-World instruments, as their banks and central banks are problematic and will not perform. However, we will consider these instruments on a case-by-case basis.

No one can block an instrument on Euroclear or DTC for the purpose of hypothecation, period.

No funding source can take down an instrument from Euroclear or DTC. The instrument must be sent Euroclear Free Delivery or DTC Free Delivery to the funding location, by a bank or securities house officer, acting on behalf of the client. This action cannot be taken by ANY client, period. These procedures are in place for the protection of the actual owner of the instrument.

In a transaction involving the buying and selling of an instrument (spot or contract), neither the Seller nor the Buyer are allowed to fabricate the rules and procedures that must be deployed. If the instrument is on Euroclear, then the transaction MUST be completed via the Standard Euroclear DVP Protocol Settlement Procedures, officer to officer, and no other way, period. If the instrument is NOT on Euroclear, then the transaction MUST be completed via the Standard NON-Euroclear DVP Protocol Settlement Procedures, officer to officer, and no other way, period. Anyone with any other procedures is just a broker that has never completed such a transaction and never will and, most likely, does not have the instruments.

The Indicative Value of an instrument and, subsequently, the Loan to Value, are determined by the Provider and their Funding Source, not by the clients or the brokers. And, not all instruments have the same Indicative Value or Loan to Value.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that the Rating of the issuing bank is the same as the Rating of the instrument, as they are not. The bank and the instrument are rated separately.

The Laws of Perjury do not apply to any commercial documents, period.

There is no law, act (including the Patriot Act), rule, regulation or ordinance that requires that any buyer of any seasoned instruments must provide a Proof of Funds. This is just the nonsense of the brokers. The Standard and NON-Standard Euroclear Procedures set forth that the validation of capabilities (both sides) is accomplished in the officer to officer call, after the Agreement is signed between the Buyer and the Seller and before the first invoice can be issued.

No one is going to pay +2% (or +1+1) for their acquisition of seasoned instruments. This is NOT the requirement of any Seller and is only the greed of the brokers involved.

Clients with Cash Funds that want to participate in a Buy/Sell Transaction, have three (3) choices:
1. Move the funds to an account that will be established for the client at one of the Providers Fiduciary Banks; or,
2. Have the current bank block the funds in favor of the Funding Source and then issue a SWIFT MT 760 for this transaction (this option is not available from a U. S. Bank); or,
3. Acquire a SLOC from the bank and come forward with the SLOC, not the cash fund.

There is no such thing as a Program, defined as the client leaving their funds at their own bank and the trader trading on the funds from the clients bank and then paying the client hundreds of percents per week. This is all the nonsense of the brokers in this business.

Banks in Mainland China (and other selected countries such as Russia, Taiwan, etc.) cannot send a MT 760 (for cash funds or for an instrument) without applying to the Central Bank of China for permission, on a case-by-case basis, which may take months. While there is a great deal of cash in China, the client cannot move the funds or move an instrument or use a MT 760, without the express written permission of the Central Bank of China.

There is no such thing as a Mandate. Something can be mandated, but not someone. The only way that a corporation can pass authority to someone (regardless if they are an officer of the corporation or any outsider) is via a duly issued and authorized Corporate Resolution, signed by the Secretary of the Board and containing the seal of the corporation or the signature of a Notary Public. So, when someone tells you that they are the client/sellers Mandate, all this really means is that they are the broker closest to the client/seller, and not that they have any authority to do anything, period.

Banks operating in the Western Banking World do NOT perform undertakings for their depositors/clients, as this would be a violation of banking rules and regulations. This means that the banks are not going to endorse the financial obligations of the client, period. Banks do not endorse Fee Agreements or Payment Orders or guarantee the safe return on an instrument/asset that is the subject of hypothecation. Banks are only allowed to act upon the owned assets of their depositors, and only based on the assets that are in that clients account at that bank, period.

United States Banks do NOT issue MTNs or BGs; cannot send or receive a BG; and, cannot issue a SWIFT MT 760.

Securities Houses/Firms are Members of Euroclear and DTC, but are NOT Members of SWIFT. Accordingly, they CANNOT send or receive SWIFT Messages.

The terms FED Program, FED Trader, FED ID Numbers, FED Pool, FED Compliance and Licensed Trader are all just broker-created terms and have no meaning as none of these items exist.

If your client has Gold Bullion (Au) and you want our associate group to hypothecate it, the first step is that they must have the bank that is responsible for the Gold Bullion (Au) issue OUR trader's Conformation of Gold Bullion (Au) Letter, with full bank responsibilities. If they cannot obtain this Letter, then we are not going to be interested in the transaction. Further, after the Agreement has been issued and signed, the bank must block the Gold Bullion (Au) to the benefit of the funding party and then send a SWIFT MT 760, bank to bank. And, for the record, Precious Metals Concentrate is not Gold Bullion (Au) and no one is going to hypothecate the Precious Metals Concentrate.

The following assets are NOT assets for hypothecation, unless the client has already obtained a Financial Guarantee Bond, from a A Rated or better insurance company or unless the client has an acceptable bank that is prepared to issue a MT 760 as to the value of the asset and issue it with Full Bank Responsibilities: Precious Metals Concentrated, Uncut Stones, Timber, In-Ground Mines, Copper, Coal, Oil and Gas, Real Estate, Land, Non-Rated Bonds, etc.

We do not accept or acknowledge any sanitized documents, period.

Certain Bonds and Stocks are acceptable for hypothecation, but only if they are on Euroclear or DTC and are rated by one of the acceptable Rating Services (Moodys, S & P, Fitch). And, just because the Term Sheet says that they are Rated, does not mean that they are Rated. We need to see the Bond on Moodys screen, then we know that it is Rated. Corporate Bonds that are issued, but that are not on Moodys and are not rated, are referred to as Junk Bonds and have no value for hypothecation.

If you have any questions and you wish not to post your question on this forum, send it to: theprivateinvestors AT hushmail DOT com

My aim is to exchange our experiences with those who wish to share theirs with us.

The above is not an offer. It is posted to generate a discussion.

P.I.

I have read your post with interest

I admire your post re passing on all documents to the authorities which you consider fraudulent more people should adopt the same

re MT760's J P Morgan Chase located in NYC which to my last time checking was in the US, Send MT760 internationally on a regular basis, That is a confirmable fact. Simply open up the requisite account and they will perform this function for any client.

Introducing agents, is that a licensed or controlled situation or is it similar to the Mandate your refer to below, I have never heard of this title in finance markets, Consultants advisors, brokers, yes, but an Introducing agent Under which regulatory body do you operate, or do you not require to be registered?

As a lawyer, i would like to know why a client should prove up an instrument to an Introducing agent? Surely this places the instrument/cash at risk by being put into the open market, the jokers as they are affectionately known?

75percent never perform, I am sure this is a two way street. There are more non performers on the side of ''we have the program. we can trade, we can get a credit line, we can pay fantastic profits than there is on the side of those seeking the dream. You are trying to paint those as seeking the dream the cause of all fraudl.

Look on the side of those offering. The facilitators who claim they have the key to fleece the gullible investor or his hard earned cash. Do you fail to notice in your post, you seek all the information, are you preperared to prove you can provide what you claim, or does that come under the magical NCND documents, which holds no standing in any court of law? More importantly are you registered to received such private information and what protection if afforded to your clients who provide you with such information.

The offering of or claiming access to a situation is a serious fraud act. To knowingly offer access to a position which the offerer is neither direct nor can prove performance is a criminal offence, and comes under the heading ''conspiracy to defraud.

Are you stating that a party involved in the purchase of an instrument eg, a UST, MTN is not required to prove funds, Sorry to disagree but this is the prime requisite of any security house. They will not entertain your request or order unless you show ''capability to pay'' prove you are the correct signature to the account and prove you have to authority to use those funds for purchase an ''instrument''

Your comments on Au are nearly correct, no Au transaction will happen in the way you mention without the beneficial owners authority. There is no bank worth its place in the financial market will deal with third party involvement on gold. they are already using it themselves so unless the owner need to access for some reason, the bank will step to the plate and assist the owner. Simply go to the market place and try and buy gold at the moment, and see for yourself, the documentation and diligence you must survive before you even get to the offer. Unless you are a previously registered buyer, there is no place for the newcomer, irrespective of how much funds they have.

Sadly, you omitted the bigest fraud area of all, the POWER OF ATTORNEY, the most abused document in this financial fraud area A power of attorney appears to the conman to give him the right to use people funds and represent himself as the principle far from such a position. It is too detailed a discussion to enter into on such a forum. Should anyone be approached with this document run a mile because it will be 8/10 a fraudlent/misrepresented position of the true facts.

Finally for Board resolutions, what a laugh, Check the company and you will find out that most of these companies are offshore, no nominated list of traceable directors phone numbers answered by call centres,and documents which any computer literate person can prepare at home.


My advice

1)ignore fancy websites, anyone can build a website, not all genuine operators use websites, they work strictly on referral business and have no need to advertise.

2) steer clear of companies, trust who use PO Box numbers, Serviced office addresses.

3) if you cannot ge given a confirmable hardline telephone number, decline the offer,

4) if the party concerned is not registered or cannot protect your information, run, you can be assured you are heading into the land of the joker offering,

5) offers on forums like these are never confirmable and ultimately you will find that there is a fee sting on the way, Genuine dealers/traders/banks/institutions do not offer on public forums, you will find some idiot will access a list of offerings and post to make him look geneuine,

6) always ask for the term sheet of the instrument. If the person making the offering cannot give you the term sheet, the odds are that they are nowhere near the real deal and simpy trying to get a position for themselves to make a commission on your money. Don't fall for this opt out, they can either produce the term sheet or prospectus, if not walk you are in broker madland. Remember a genuine offerer will be glad to give you the term sheet because they cannot be circumvented, another broker cliche, security houses send out up to 50 terms sheets on offerings every day to prospective clients. So go direct, Security houses are only to happy in intake new clients with funds.

7) areas to avoid Russia, unless you have the correct contact, eg someone life Refcon, China, for reasons stated the difficulty in release funds Middle east most muslim countries have laws to prevent the movement of funds abroad, hence the deluge of european banks into the area. Also this is the fastest growing area of finance fraud, Nearly every from this area is a Sheik, there seems no to be normal people of simply standing business standing.
California and Florida, read all these forums and there are too many to list 90 percent of complaints eminate from fraudsters operating in these area, no offence to legitimate people in those areas, but the evidence of operative fraud from these areas outweigh the other arguments.


8) if the party wishing to contract with you cannot prove performance, walk. You will find the provision of this information is a no-go area with most claimants. They want everything from you and will provide no comfort back, that is the biggest warning you can get.

9) To blow the last myth, those who state you cannot earn better interest on your money than that as advertised by banks are scaremongers There are many opportunitites where you can good returns Google, use some elbow grease and you will find such opportunities without losing money, paying fees and you will get security of capital in a lot of places.

10) Because you are a US citizen you are not prevented from seeking external investment on your money, the banks may tell you so because they do not want to lose your deposit. Jokers will tell you the same that they have found some secret way of moving money. If such restrictions applied how would US business survive. Most growth in the US if through overseas investment. Seek good advice from registered security houses, and you will get the correct guidance,

Remember if the person making you the offer cannot support the offer with performance the chances are it is non-existent. Comments such as this is an invitation only business, we are not allowed publish profits, etc etc are simply cover ups and play on your greed. Simply remember Madoff everytime you get an offer and that should be sufficient to give you the courage to ask for paperwork Most of these operators are home based, work alone and no traceable track record.

Follow the above, complain to the moderator of the forum if there are unsubstantiated offering of instruments on a regular basis and you will defeat the conman and put the jokers out of business. if they have nowhere to post then you won't fall for the con. Most forums now operate a non offering of instruments on their system unless you can substantiate the offering in full. However you will not find genuine registered traders making such offerins on this or any other forum. Go legitimate, you will earn money, ingnore the pushers on these forums they are simply after your money.

Credit to the original author of

"FACTUAL INFORMATION FOR CONSIDERATION, APRIL, 2008"

http://www.magu-international.com/download/info1.pdf

That is a nice piece of detective work? it sure casts suspicions on the integrity of the poster to this forum and his intentions. having read that I googled the poster and found and astonishing amount of available informaton of them. makes one wonder.

Please note US banks do issue Medium Term Notes. I've traded stacks and stacks of them.

G,

How right you are.

MTN was first issued by GM.

As to the gist of it, MAGU guys are not that saavy on what goes around.

I have sent MT 760 to ML in NY and had it securitised.

The US banks do not issue BG, but if they received a BG, can send it out.

Too much loose use of the word "hypothecation".

In general, it is relatively ok but not entirely accurate.

have a look at their site : www.magu-international.com

It has the look and feel of a broker site.

Domain Name: magu-international.com

Registrar: 1 & 1 INTERNET AG
Whois Server: whois.schlund.info
Referral Uhttp://REGISTRAR.SCHLUND.INFO
Status: OK

Expiration Date: 2010-06-08
Creation Date: 2000-06-08
Last Update Date: 2009-06-09

Name Servers:
ns35.1und1.de
ns36.1und1.de
See magu-international.com DNS Records

Information Updated: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 14:33:00 UTC

MAGU-INTERNATIONAL.COM SITE INFORMATION

IP: 82.165.95.218
IP Location: Karlsruhe, Germany
Website Status: active
Server Type: Apache
Alexa Trend/Rank: 3 Month: 25,231,006
Page Views per Visit: 3 Month: 1.0

PI, is this an early April's fool joke?

The issue of 'contention' is not MTN, BGs, etc., neither is it on the Magu entity.

It is the originality of the article that is being raised.

Cheers
EagleONE

The discount rate for MTN's trading is?

euribor plus ._?

The Tax Liabilties attached for the write downs taken?

I would say that European Bank Bonds are at the least... a risky investment.

But I have been wrong before and I am sure I will be wrong again.

 

My best to you all, JW 

Eagle,

Agreed. Tony has been a naughty boy and deserves to be spanked.

His intention was to generate a discussion.

Good intention but wrongly executed.

Not only that you look like a "plagiariser," the content is not what it

fully accurate.

I have a bone of contention to pick with the originator and not the guy who

posted it.

The aim here is to prevent Fraud. If the presenter is an honest broker

and had created the site to generate business, then he is guilty of giving

wrong advise.

If the guy is presenting himself in a way of descrediting others and

knows all, he might wee be an advance fee fraudster.

Either way the fault has been made here and Tony, you have an applogy

to make, unreservedly that is.

Let's focus at the perpetuation of fraud here.

Tony, you have made a mistake, please do correct it.

Magu International guys, let's verify before accusations are made.

will

I was away from my computer and I just got around to check on this forum and I see that it has generated plenty of response and excitement.

First of all: This document was originally issued in 2005 and it has received several revisions. I have emailed this along with other documents to many agents and one of them took it to the forum the "assetmanager" brings to everyone's attention....including me.

Let's start with what Will says and I will try to move on to the next post.

The two banks in the USA that will send an MT 760 are Chase and Bank of New York. However, they will only do so if you have an IBAN Account (International Account) already established with them. This represents less than 1/10th of 1% of their clients. And, it is not easy to obtain an IBAN Account. And for the other 99.9% of their depositors and 100% of the depositors in the other USA banks, there is no MT 760 activities, period. So, I stand on my statement.

All USA Securities Houses and most of the Western European Securities Houses are NOT Members of SWIFT and cannot send nor receive a SWIFT. If they are associated with a bank(ML and BofA), they can have a SWIFT come in and out of that bank. But, not in and out of the Securities House. Again, I stand on my statement.

As for MTNs. This term is both generic and specific. The specific is the 10 Years 7.5% Off-Balance Sheet Subordinate MTNs issued by the Top Western European Banks. There is NO bank that operates on USA's soil, including the Western European Banks that have offices in the USA, that are allowed to issue these MTNs, period, as it is a violation of the U.S. Banking Rules and Regulations. As for the generic MTNs, any instrument that is issued for a period of greater than one year and not greater than 15 years can, generically, be considered a MTN. Example: General Motors issue a 10 year Bond. That could be called a MTN. But, it is not a bank issued, off balance sheet subordinated MTN, period. If Coca Cola issued a note in the USA, it is called a Bond. If Coca Cola Germany issues the same note, it is called a Global MTN. So, it is all in the wording. Again, I stand on my statement.

As far as the comments from the attorney go, I have to brief comments: (1) show him our financial capability before he shows us his? This is like, who came first...the egg or the chicken. And, (2) his financial education is, obviously, limited to what he learned in law school and not what is really happening in the world. But, then, that is true with most attorneys.

Regardless, I welcome your comments and once again, just because one of my agents, released one of our documents, before you got to see it here, does not make me a fake.

If I forgot to address someone's comments, I will be back and take care of that.

Best wishes,

P.I.

PI, it is only in joker broker land that an MTN is considered as the mythical 10 year, 7.5% off balance sheet instrument!

All market participants, whether in The City or on The Street, would think anyone talking about an MTN would be talking about some sort of bond. And there are thousands of MTN's issued by US banks, both for the general market and the private placement market. I've issed stacks of private placement products via JP Morgans's MTN programme (and ML's in the days before they got their sums a bit wrong!)

As for "The specific is the 10 Years 7.5% Off-Balance Sheet Subordinate MTNs issued by the Top Western European Banks".....it's worth adding to the article that this instrument doesn't exist!!

Anyway, I liked the original post and your reply. It's a good thread.

Outside of copying someone else's text your reading capability is not very good. I simple stated a fact, your documents clearly state you require each bit of information from a prospective client and not demand information before.

I ask you again

a) are you a registered broker? If not under what schedule can you make a security offering which is the subject you commenced? Are you FINRA registered?
b) what protection do you offer re confidential information from a client? In the UK the demand/exchange of such information is protected by the Data Information Act and every broker must be registered under act in order to obtain the type of information you seek. I am not an expert on the SEC but I am assured that there are similar requirements under SEC Regulation
c) can you prove performance following the exc hange of the information or are you simply brokering to another source?
d) what makes you more of an expert than anyone else, say for example Goldman Sachs, Magna Securities, etc etc

where is the chicken and the egg? Normally that is used as a diversionary tactic from responding to genuine questions.

I can go to any security house and get proof of performance, a prospectus and even a term sheet before I give my data and/or make a commitment

reading google about you is not very englightening or heartening. You jump to your defence with attacks on my education well two things to bear in Mind. I run a very successful chambers, which if you dont understand is for barristers, not lawyers, and I am a female,

You are probably right in your assumptions re solicitors/lawyers, however in our defence, that is for good ones, we study the law for our clients and if the offering on the table before us seems unsound, it is our duty to seek and find out the truth of the situation. That Cleary bothers you.

You post further lends to the argument that your company/firm/trust/organisation
are responsible for the initial document and that the poster asset manager is simply using your information to infringe on your business

Secondly could someone kindly tell me what the discount trading of a bond has to do with the discussion, this is beyond my comprehension?



Finally, what is this fetish re domain posts, it does not signify someone is a crook or frauster, it smily gives information on the service provider and to judge someone by their server is taking things a bit on the farfetched side of life.

I am merely interested in this post as we are doing a case law study in preparation and this post raised most of the questions we have to study.

I would like to probably pre-empt some of the expected replies. For example the most generally used comment by non registered brokers, this is a private placement offer and does not come under SEC rules and regulations.

Okay lets deal with the answer, Private Placement offerings require a prospectus for the client, that is the law, That raises multitudes of questions based on my readings of this and similar forum, but we will wait and see how what responses this comment invokes,


Private placement according to Banking documents, Security house diligence, usually entail at some stage the trading of an instrument to create the profits or returns that are proposed by Private placement offerings. Question, at what stage under your proposal does the client/investor meet with or sign a contract with the trading entity? Or do you simply take control represent the funds as your own and sign your own contract with a third party, that in my view amounts to arbitrage, yet another topic of heav discussion

Does the Private placement offer once it involves the physical use of bank instruments now become subject to the SEC? so where exactly are the client funds protected during this process, from commital the non regulatory section of the deal through to the regulated section of the transaction. Who actually is protection the funds and under what regulations? it cannot simply be on the basis of trust me, even though you never met met, or on a NCND contract, and corporate guarantee of security. What is this corportate gauarantee of security? Is this not what Madoff and Stanford offered their clients, and look how safe that security turned out to be?

If you go to the SEC site and guidlines, it clearly states that once the mention of a private placement comes to the fore, the client should immediately request the prospectus for the offering, that seems to be something you are avoiding. Again I can only gather this assumption from your response, and your quickness to go to the chicken and egg situation repeating myself the cursory diversionary response and typical of non registered brokers.

I have researched the J P Morgan Chase site and cannot come up with your 1 percent figure, can you disclose the source please so that I can study. This is very intersting point you make, one you appear to be certain about and worthy of research and discussion.

However I would doubt if any bank would publish figures which would show how many IBAN accounts and clients are associated with such accounts.

The Iban to my knowledge is simply the bank identifier and used only when they need to transfer funds abroad. There is no particular account to which one must be in possession. The client simply gives the bank the opposite iban information to which he/she wishes funds transferred and the remitting bank simply enters the process and transfers the fund.

Unless you know some secret banking business, then I would like to read your comments on how else this works. For your information, if you check with the Banking Authority as I have done you will find most NYC based banks with international business have an iban number.

Frankly, put international transfer are conducted through the wire room and dependent on where your funds are located will either go through the wire room or by IBAN if the bank has the facility.

Guys,

As a customer of any bank, We give the bank instructions.

True that US banks do not issue BGs but they can do a SLC.

If that is not what we want, they will have their overseas branch open the

BG for us and it is not uncommon at all.

Banks are in busines to make money and if as a customer, you

are ready to pay the bank charges, they will find an appropriate

way to do it.

I do not bank all that much in the US except with certain banks that are on

dealer panels of debt issuers that I am interested in.

As I had stated in numerous posts, Get the bloody prospectus.

Problem is some dude decides that he is one of the masters of the universe.

He then gets his comrades( Joker Brokers ) to start soliciting investors.

They then get the Investors to do a JV with the Trader of the Universe and

now, with MULA, can go into a trade.

The sucker of an investor does not smell the prospectus, waits forever for

his 30% per week payout and will be fed a bunch of baloney, the trade

turns out not that lucretive and pays 6% tops, how is the Mighty Trader

of thr Universe goung to face the investor.

He probably blew that moneuy upfront on wine, women and song.

It's called flash money. Living the highlife has it's limits but most jokers

don't know when to stop once they have money in their hands. even if it is

Not Their Own.

Dollar 51, I do concur that the issuance of a prospectus is a must.

Broker Dealers must be under a bank holding company.

That's where the business is. It is highly regulated and there is no

secret squirrel meetings at all.

PI, if it is your intention to provoke a discussion here, well you have your

hands full.

By the way, there are no such thing as " it's a secret".

It's all been done. It's all regulated and if you are looking at ways to go

around the framework, look at what happened to wall street.

G, you have been at it for a while,on the other side of the pond,

is there that much difference?

Many say, it is very different in Europe.

Investors every where are the same. It is about

Commercial viability

Risk management

Wealth Generation

and Wealth Protection.

Always say no before seeing the whole picture.

Understand the business or else seek other avenues.

will

some information taken from US Bank website


International payments
U.S. Bank offers fast and secure wire transfer services for individuals and businesses wishing to make payments internationally. Control cash flow with the convenience of same day and future dated movement of funds directly and reliably.


Send Outgoing Payments
Individuals - to initiate a payment, you must visit your local branch in person and provide the following information:
The account holder name
The account number/IBAN number
The receiving bank's name, address (include city and country) and SWIFT code.
Any special routing instructions
Corporate or business customers - if you need to send wire transfers on a regular basis, please consult your U.S. Bank representative for information on our various products that allow you to save time and manage your wire transfers from a remote location.


Receive Incoming Payments
If you are receiving an international wire transfer payment, you will need to:
Provide the sender your name as it appears on your account
Provide your account number
Provide the U.S. Bank SWIFT code (USBKUS44IMT)2
International Balance Reporting
Want to see your complete financial position on one Web site, including your foreign bank balances? U.S. Bank SinglePoint® International Balance Reporting lets U.S. based organizations view account summary and detail transaction information for foreign accounts. Access data from foreign banks that have the ability to send S.W.I.F.T. messages (an international messaging standard).



Under international banking laws it can be concluded that US BANK have the facility to issue an MT760 as a member of SWIFT

"Dollar51 / Anonymous" IP address: 89.195.65.147 & 214= dugganlaw@hotmail.com

Aren't we familiar with each other? I recall your email address...I will get back on Monday once I get my support team to confirm who you are.

Re. Frank's comments:

Frank, are you saying US banks can send MT 760 inside our territory? Or perhaps, MT 720 (SLOC) or MT 103 wire transfers?


Anyway, I will be back tomorrow to continue with this great topic.

Thank you to one and all for contributing to this discussion.

And remember,

Law of Logical Argument:
"Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about."

P.I.

while I understand that most brokers will never even touch the level to find some of the main posters information as non-factual, it should be noted that
a. you can get an IBAN if you ask for it from the US Money Center Banks. You only need it for foreign currency wires anyway, some issue it through an overseas office, some specifically do it for international clients, it is mostly done automatically for those international and corporate clients who need it for their set-up. Wachovia does it through London for all Euro accepted payment customers, Chase in NY and so on.
b. MTN are Medium Term Notes, they are general debt notes and yes you can structure them with a 7.5% interest but why would you when the interest rate is generally lower etc; so I understand that some brokers use the term MTN in the same environment as they use BG, but the actual term is easy to find.
c. BG's can have CUSIPS and can therefore be handled via Euroclear etc, I remember Richard going on how to do it, these are special situations, depend on some jurisdictions which allow it and if you look at institutional trading and structures such as back up collateral pools for dark pool liquidity trading you find these participants using such structures to make handling easier.
d. When you have access to DTC you can send messages through Euroclear, when you have Euroclear you can send messages via SWIFT, there are portals interchanging with the service for those who buy the module, most US securities houses do not pay for all the modules, so they cann't but it is possible.
e. Euroclear and DTC are preferred for use in settlement of transactions for securities, thats for the electronic settlement when the security is in a depositary under the rules and regulations of the clearing service, look a the underlying rules how you get an instrument on the DTC screen or Euroclear, if you can cusip it and deliver it to the depositary you can put it on the service screen, there is no skr (these where the old style depositary receipts) but global depositary receipts and interbank depositary account statements which then the member who initiated the deposit mirrors with a normal account statement.
f. you can technically send any SWIFT message following the SWIFT Master Agreement requirements between any participants who have an address, even in the US to other US banks etc, the reason its not done is easy but legal; SWIFT is a sub-international law standard of trade and transaction between banks, it is not a national standard in the US, so the standard message does not create a quasi contractual binding, because the national rules prevail over the international standard within that country (Richard explained this here in detail once)
g. your view on Mandates and how signatory powers are convened bases on the english system, there are others in the world (actually the civil systems of most countries are non-english).


so these are just a few remarks, I generally understand the intention of the paper, however I believe with Richard that the better educated the members of your team are, the less they are defrauded, so you should strive for a complete education. I find myself often asking and checking answers out, sometimes I'm wrong other times I seem to find a way to do things which are a bit irregular but possible, just by asking and working with the bank, in institutional accounts the bank works with you, it also helps when you have a good record and are licensed.

I'm posting here under my name and the email address works but I use proxy servers, I would find it easier if people would use their real names.

It is just me or is Alzheimer getting to everyone too? Probably hyperthermia is the cause.

Having proclaimed oneself a real banker it makes one wonder what kind of a bank he use to pick up the biz and knowledge from.

1) MTNs.. Read up on Article 415 of the Securities and Exchange Commission of the USA, and whilst doing so read up on the Federal Reserve Board issued a publication called Anatomy of Medium Term Notes from 1992

These will provide an idea of what is fact and what is friction. The fact is far from the friction as stipulated in the thread above.

2) IBAN ... originated in EU, stands for International Bank Account Number (IBAN) and is an international standard for identifying bank accounts across national borders. It has got nothing whatsoever to do with the comments voiced further up the thread.

All bank accounts in EU has a designated individual IBAN number. Same cannot be said for accounts in U.S.A., and for that matter the larger world. Even banks in Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore do not use IBAN. None have implemented this standard YET. Time will tell when IBAN will be implemented worldwide.

3) MT760 ... American banks with either or both an international trade and treasury department do MT760 internationally and locally. Same applies to MT 720 and MT 103. Period. Those without SWIFT membership have their corresponding banks on hand.

4) SWIFT ... Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication
The fact .. The society operates financial messaging service for items such as letters of credit, payments, and securities transactions between member banks, securities houses/institutions and other qualified financial institutions worldwide. SWIFT's key function is to deliver these messages quickly and securely.

5) BGs ... WILL, I concurs with you. US Banks do not issue BG in the their backyard in N. America. They do so offshore.

WILL, congrats on your "44" on 8 August.

Cheers

Eagle,

Thanks

Will

any bank which provides multicurrency accounts which include receipt and sending EURO will give you an IBAN, some banks do it for other currencies as well, not all have adjusted but their systems provide them automatically, its just a coding.

Thanks PI for serving up that document. Somewhere Scribes Unlimited is having
a sourcing meltdown, but he seems to have left the building, and your discolored
knuckles will heal.

Even if it's batting about 80% correct, the point is this text ignites the debating/refining
of difficult, complex, evolving and vital information, and personally it's one of the
main reasons I come here, so thanks to everyone for already weighing in with such
detail on this one.

So inasmuch as documents like this are already widely distributed, doesn't it
make sense to really get it right for posterity? Those sections that still have traces
of jb mythology should be rewritten so that we disseminate the clearest, most factual
and up-to-date information possible.

I'm willing to spearhead it if I have the support of the earlier contributors.
Perhaps we can come to a consensus on the points of contention and produce
something completely verifiable. Even if it takes posting successive edits while we
refine it out in the open here over a bit of time. Tennis, anyone?

And I brought my "Ping Clubs"

Well ok, I'm in.

will

Good suggestion may I be as bold to add, that you proceed as stated and get this best bits into some sort of procedural document, then we open up on a discussion on several heading,

Further posting on this thread would become unmanageable and wild.

Like will has started on PPP I believe there should be a detailed discussion on this as Will and the lawyer stated, this is the real grey area of the business. when is a PPP a genuine offer and does it ever become a regulated offer.

I fully agree with Will's suggestion. However, I would like to add a few things.

1. This type of topic, once agreed by the senior members of this forum, should go onto another section, which should be a "private" forum, protected by a password, registered with our moderator, allowing qualified members to continue with such posting.

2. Aim should be taken, preventing scammers from using the correct terminology, making them appear real. The worse thing we can do is help criminals defraud unsuspecting victims.

3. "dugganlaw" wants to learn about, "how to put cyberspace forums" such as this one, out of business and I am not sure if I want to help her do that. May I make a suggestion to "dugganlaw" to visit sites such as "bradynet" and start the cleaning process from that site first? ------Also, "Dugganlaw" may wish to check on what is an INTRODUCING BROKER and then, focus on what is an INTRODUCING AGENT. And, while she is at it, check on what is referred as a "RAINMAKER."

P.I.

G_Kid (Login G_Kid) 80.73.214.225

Re: Factual Information For Your Consideration No score for this post August 8 2009, 8:57 AM  Please note US banks do issue Medium Term Notes. I've traded stacks and stacks of them.   Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent)

 

Oct 03, 2008 (M2 EQUITYBITES via COMTEX) -- JPM | Quote | http://charts.powerratings.net/prcharts/?src=prchartl&sym=JPM");' ZDXo1="0" ACPU8="0">Chart | News | PowerRating -- Financial services group JPMorgan Chase & Co (NYSE: JPM | Quote | http://charts.powerratings.net/prcharts/?src=prchartl&sym=JPM");' ZDXo1="0" ACPU8="0">Chart | News | PowerRating) declared on 1 October that, after the close of NYSE Euronext's planned acquisition of the American Stock Exchange (AMEX), it will transfer the listing of medium-term notes, series E, KEYnotes exchange traded notes linked to the First Trust Enhanced 130/30 Large Cap Index currently listed on the AMEX, to NYSE Arca.

The AMEX and NYSE Euronext expect the acquisition to be completed in the third quarter of 2008, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions including the approval of the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

JPMorgan said that it would provide specific dates for the transfer in listing of each of the securities in advance of the

change.

http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/1918817/

NEW YORK -- Fitch Ratings has assigned an 'A ' rating to the new EUR500 million medium-term note programme of JPMorgan Chase & Co. The notes have a coupon of 25 basis points above the three-month Euribor index and mature March 2, 2015. The Rating Outlook is Positive.

Related Results

• UDR Completes $240 Million Senior Unsecured Term Loan
• Glitnir Bank issues USD 500 million of Floating Rate Notes
• Glitnir Bank Issues USD 500 Million of Floating Rate Notes
• Glitnir Bank Issues USD 500 Million of Floating Rate Notes.
• Glitnir Banki hf issues USD500m of Floating Rate Notes

JPMorgan Chase &Co. (JPM) completed its merger with Bank One Corporation on July 1, 2004. JPM is in the process of integrating the businesses of the two firms, and is expected to achieve significant efficiencies as a result. At the same time, the integration risks are notable, and some business units remain challenged. The Positive Outlook reflects Fitch's view that JPM's broader and more diverse franchise, particularly once certain efficiencies are achieved, could improve the firm's financial flexibility to address potentially large litigation matters over the medium term. While the settlement of all outstanding litigation is likely to take many years, it is Fitch's expectation that more clarity will evolve over the medium term along with JPM's added capacity to absorb the potential impact.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_Feb_18/ai_n9774393/

I could go on and on but I think that your point has been clearly defined.

My best to you and yours G Kid and hows the fishing or is it all golf for you now days?

Be well, JW

P.I. (Login privateinvestors) 76.167.222.92

I would like to add something to Will's suggestion. No score for this post August 10 2009, 12:36 PM  I fully agree with Will's suggestion. However, I would like to add a few things. 1. This type of topic, once agreed by the senior members of this forum, should go onto another section, which should be a "private" forum, protected by a password, registered with our moderator, allowing qualified members to continue with such posting. 2. Aim should be taken, preventing scammers from using the correct terminology, making them appear real. The worse thing we can do is help criminals defraud unsuspecting victims. 3. "dugganlaw" wants to learn about, "how to put cyberspace forums" such as this one, out of business and I am not sure if I want to help her do that. May I make a suggestion to "dugganlaw" to visit sites such as "bradynet" and start the cleaning process from that site first? ------Also, "Dugganlaw" may wish to check on what is an INTRODUCING BROKER and then, focus on what is an INTRODUCING AGENT. And, while she is at it, check on what is referred as a "RAINMAKER." P.I.

 

Tony,

Does that mean my "Fresh Cut", 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1, "Cash Backed", "B.G." deals that are all Bound by international regulations are not ging to pay out going forward based on my Joint Venture Agreements?

Tony, why are you popping my bubble of joy... why man... that is just mean. 

I had hoped my Tax free trust set up offshore thru use of a "Fresh Cut", "B.G" would have provided FANTASTIC yields in a dark pool trading scheme that no one else could enter into becuase it was a time limtied for entery.

That is hurting my goal of providing stable mates for my very lonely 1-77. ( I dont own a 1-77 before anyone asks)

I am crushed.

Be well Tony and keep your chin up, JW

JW, appreciate the JPM post.

No fishing for me, and I gave up golf a few years ago. I played for 2 years, but couldn't afford enough time to get my handicap into single figures so I thought it was a waste of time continuing. Now you'll catch me in the water whenever there's a decent swell...surfing is the best cure for a tricky day on Bloomberg!

Will, in one of your previous posts you asked how things were on my side of the pond. I'mn quite lucky in that I only deal with other regulated entities, so a lot of the client related regulation tasks are handled by other people. When it comes down to the regulation of the actualy securities used, I'm often amazed by the different attitudes to various regulations and rules governing issuance. I could tell you banks that blatantly show disregard to certain rules, or who just read the rule book a different way. I think some have never actually heard of MIFID......

BTW, I like this thread a lot.

MiFid is an acronym for: Markets In Financial Instruments Directive.

G_Kid (Login G_Kid) 80.73.214.225

To JW No score for this post August 10 2009, 4:23 PM  JW, appreciate the JPM post. No fishing for me, and I gave up golf a few years ago. I played for 2 years, but couldn't afford enough time to get my handicap into single figures so I thought it was a waste of time continuing. Now you'll catch me in the water whenever there's a decent swell...surfing is the best cure for a tricky day on Bloomberg! Will, in one of your previous posts you asked how things were on my side of the pond. I'mn quite lucky in that I only deal with other regulated entities, so a lot of the client related regulation tasks are handled by other people. When it comes down to the regulation of the actualy securities used, I'm often amazed by the different attitudes to various regulations and rules governing issuance. I could tell you banks that blatantly show disregard to certain rules, or who just read the rule book a different way. I think some have never actually heard of MIFID...... BTW, I like this thread a lot.   Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

Reef Road is small but good power for speed and air..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umTrGbAUITc

Pump House is dirty but gets heavy with a north swell or on the backside of a Hurricane..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws6PfMlXiis&feature=related

I grew up surfing Lake Worth..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgZr8Xb7Vkg

You can now laugh at how small Florida surf is now.. please take into consideration Tom Curren and Kelly Slater.. 20 years of world champions (plus)..

If you grow up on this little stuff the better surf every where else is a blank canvas and loads of fun.. so the winning streak is really just a local boys having fun.

I hope you got a great giggle from the lil surf.

My best to you and yours "G", JW

Cheers JW, Pump House looked like my kind of wave with that nasty shorebreak (i'm a bodyboarder most days...unless it's really dull when I break out the longboard). Not sure about all the tow-ins though...what happened to paddling!?!?!

I've never surfed Florida. Closest is probably a session in Myrtle Beach around the time of Hurricane Bob many many years ago. Had some great sessions around Hatteras too.

Have a good one!

I am sorry, I have been busy for a few days and only taken time out to read some of the responses. .

I see that a lot of my questions remain unanswered. Yes Mr PI our paths have crossed in the past, on several subjects pertaing to this type of business. Thankfully you were always forthcoming with your responses and in the main factual.

However I see your attempts to create a genuine and factual discussion has now fallen into a discussion on fishing and skateboarding/body boarding, surely not the topic you have attempted to discuss. But then again these types of forums always have one or two, who are simply there to idle the day away.Their purpose is to create diversion and steer away potential investors who may be reading the forum from discovering the true path.

Happens on every forum, more so here and Bradynet, which thanks to Mr. P.I. and his guidance I have been researching for the past few day. Enlightening, crude, Flakey and basic non understanding of the finance world, is the best way to the describe that forum. I wonder how the US finance markets ever collapsed, when all they had to do was go to that forum and all their financial worries were resolved. Unbelieve loans are interest rates second to none, more important they were non-recourse. Such low cost debenture instruments that even the dumbest of the dumb couldn't fail to make money.

Back to a serious world of trying to reduce fraud and the ways in which fraud is presented to the investor.

The following major questions remains unanswered by all those who have contributed and are clearly avoiding this issue. So here again are those question?

1, When does a Private Placement in this type of financial world become a registered transaction? Reading all the responses it is clear that the success of the PP offering depends on the trading of some type of ''bank Instruments'' Surely that brings the offering under the control of the SEC within the US and thus should it not require a registered entity to be in control of the trading?

It is clear that the people ''in the know'' appear to agree that requirement of a prospectus is a must before any client should part, sign away his/hers money or part thereof.

Based purely on assumption and reading of the responses it appears that most people making these PP offerings are not registered brokers and tend to try to convince investors they are negotiating with, that they are acting under the license of another entity. i.e the trader a licensed Fed Operator, a Security house, or direct to a Bank. The latter doesn't work because banks do not use employ unlicensed agents. Similar applies to a Security house. This leads us to the most abused title known in Finance Cirles ''A Federal Reserve registered Trader'' Now a detailed enquiry to the Federal reserve has failed to unearth this mythical creature , in fact has led to a total denial of such a creature. So where do we go from there? Are the Feds actually lying or merely covering up for whatever reasons?

The alternative response is; this is a private placement offering and is not governed by the security act..etc etc etc. Shouldn't the investor now be presented with a prospectus of the offering at this stage of the process? Or is that again subject to some mythical clouding of secrecy? Or simply does the investor lose his ''great opportunity to wealth beyond his wildest dreams'' simply because he/she asks for a prospectus on what is being offered and into which they are required to commit their funds?

When does the investor actually get to know this legalised entity, or is that the 'Secret'' that the non registered world of brokers depend on to try and gain this mythical 1 percent commission without expenditure, risk or trading capability? Are investors really being directed into a dark chasm of myth or is there a reality to all these stories?


Mr. Onepoint and Mr. Will you seem to be the only two who offer credible explanations with factual knowledge and whilst the questions are not directed entirely to both of you, I welcome your appreciative comments.

T.N.

while I consider the questions all valid and yes there are answers for them, these answers need to go deep into structure and set up which frankly are public knowledge for the versatile registered investment banker and securities lawyer but fly under a different name (I could also say language since the brokers have put their intended meaning on structures which mean something completely different for the investment professional). A restricted forum is a better place (there is only one I know which does it and it is associated with a former member of this forum, so I'm not allowed to name it); in general there is no such thing as a Fed Trader who does not work on a desk in the Federal Reserve itself, he is definitely not running around, nor does he engage in the use of unlicensed brokers. Some of the special ops finance and economic warfare files as well as government fishing operations use brokers but thats nothing anyone wants to be involved with, there are transactions which create high profits but frankly these are institutional, highly specialized transactions which are used by a handfull of parties, not because the others don't know but because you need the liquidity and clearing capacity and risk potential. So the real players may not be willing to explain, certainly there are reasons, I am willing to share what I learned from Richard but not here.

Dollar51,

I have heard of a dog named dollar and I have seen billable hours.. so... I gues.. I take it your not into surfing.. and that you abilty to research is limitied due to your over whelming work load..

 

So here I will make it easy for you.. no need to thank me...

REGULATION D : A popular option

Most issuances of equity securities must be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Registration documents include detailed disclosure, historical financial statements, and third party audits that take time to assemble. The process requires many hours of assistance by attorneys and accountants, and the SEC review can last from 20 to 60 days. Registration alone can cost a business thousands of dollars even before the offering makes any money.

A private placement, however, is EXEMPT from federal registration. Exemptions have always been available under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), but the original exemption provisions (contained in sections
3(b) and 4(2) of the Act) were vague and,
therefore, risky for business owners to invoke.

In 1982, the SEC adopted Regulation D, which set forth
objectives and quantifiable rules for exemptions from federal
registration. Offerings exempt under these rules 504,505 and
506 have become the most common cost and time saving
methods for small and growing businesses to raise capital from
private investors.

Rule 506 : Provides an exemption for limited offers and sales without regard to the dollar amount of the offering. This exemption does not limit the number of accredited investors, but the number of nonaccredited investors may not exceed 35 investors. (An accredited investor is any one investor with a certain net worth and or experience in the purchase of stocks.) All nonaccredited purchasers, either alone or together with a designated representative must be sophisticated enough (i.e., have the knowledge and experience necessary) to evaluate the merits and risks of the investment. (An offering company typically determines the sophistication of its investors with a questionnaire subscription agreement.) Rule 506 requires detailed disclosure of relevant information to potential investors; the extent of disclosure depends on the dollar size of the offering.

Rule 505 : Offerings may not exceed $5 million, less the total dollar amount of securities sold during the preceding 12 month period under Rule 504, Rule 505 or Section 3 of the act. This exemption limits the number of nonaccredited investors to 35 but has no investor sophistication standards. Rule 505 requires disclosure similar to that required for Rule 506 offerings, under $7.5 million.

Rule 504 : Offerings allow a business to raise a maximum of $1 million, less the total dollar amount of securities sold during the preceding 12 month period, under Rule 504, Rule 505 or Section 3 of the act. However, a business can raise only $500,000 by the sale of securities to persons residing in the states of Montana and Alaska, which have no disclosure laws applicable to the offering. For the states that do have disclosure laws, which are 48 out of the 50 states, a business can raise up to $1,000,000. Rule 504 has no prescribed disclosure requirements, no limit on the number of purchasers, and no investor sophistication standards.

Rule 504 is the most commonly used Regulation D exemption. Offerings that are exempt under Rule 504 are relatively simple to prepare, which reduces cost and delay and can generally be underwritten by the offering company (the securities being sold by the company's own officers, directors and employees).

http://www.cfss.com/reg_d.htm

 

You now can google a 504 +++ structure for more information.. I guess that I and "G" can discuss surfing becuase this is already common knowledge? or we have competent counsal who keeps us in the know.. I really should not drag "G" into this..

I will say that your lack of comprehension speaks volumes more than my pointing it out.

Maybe you shoudl try surfing it is far more forgiving.

Sincerely, JW

I'd get off my high horse, if I were you!

I like your statment (and I quote) "Their purpose is to create diversion and steer away potential investors who may be reading the forum from discovering the true path." What a load of tosh! Perhaps if you spent some time reading the posts on this forum rather than struggling through the rubbish on bradynet then you might have a bit better of an idea of the people posting on this forum/thread.

Or maybe you could expand on your statement and explain how you think my purpose is to steer away potential investors? (Although only jokers have the unrealistic expectation that they will find investors for mythical PPP's on forums).

It is possible to ascertain from your posts that you are obviously an intelligent individual, but are I feel you are swimming in a pool that is alien to you. My best advice to you is seek guidance from people who have been working in capital markets, rather than attempting to gain knowlege from forums.

Will just plagiarized my ping clubs post

GKid, TD BankNorth has issued MTN's in the past, but did not sell them to US investors. This was just before they were acquired by Toronto Dominion Bank.

Chad,

I love you for that, LoL

To get down to it, JW only painted a small part of it.

Google 144A.

Now let's take it a step furthur into the world of reality.

Assume that you have $100M to play with.

You go to a BHC brokerage and set up an account.

You broach the dealer and sign a Prime brokerage Agreement with them.

The paper is now offered to you.

The note will come with a prospectus and in most cases a monetorium.

Issue size of $3billion.

You have a hundred million. How do you move ?

Dollar, that'when you have to have a credit facility,

A securitasation desk, Syndicates and offtakers ( retail desks )

That is assuming that you have read the prospectus and have the balls for

it.

Under : 3230, the guide lines does not spell the entire process.

Not to sound condecending, few here have actually run the entire process.

BTW, it is the SEC that grants broker licences and the action of

swaps/ buy-sell is called trading. I have yet to meet anyone with a name

card that says trader.

The trade is populated with Dealers and Brokers. They trade.

What about Bond Buyback, Convertables, Repos etc.

There is more than meet the eyes.

On some notes, because of the structures involved, gets complicated.

The moment we buy, We pray that they default as there is more to be made

on a default. That is another matter and most here will not have encountered

it.

It is about having the regulations in place, abide by them and work your

magic via financial archtecture to yield the max for your

clients / benificiaries etc.

Any investor reading this forum will know that this is an institutional game

any not for Joker Brokers wanting to use the investors funds to back them

into a trade.

Be smart.

will

Dollar, See :

http://www.network54.com/Forum/27708/thread/1249490268/last-1249686752/Moody%27s+Definitions

and enjoy London.

Quote Dollar 51

[ Finally, what is this fetish re domain posts, it does not signify someone is a crook or frauster, it smily gives information on the service provider and to judge someone by their server is taking things a bit on the farfetched side of life. ]


As any investigative legal eagle will tell you, that a mega million outfit

resorting to a $2/- website does cast a very big shadow.

Also the juridiction of the host.

many fakes are set up outside the reach of the law.

This in itself adds suspicion, don't you feel so.

Like G said, "get off your high horse"

Perhaps you can examine to grounds better.

My email is clearverbiage@lycos.com

Drop me a mail from your working email, and not some free email,

and I am willing to furnish some proper insights.

Will

Mr. Workman, for your information I have volumes of books on this subject and also copies of 144a bonds which are the currently subject to many fraudulent issues. So thankfully my humility allows me to state that I do not profess myself an expert on everything, and take the trouble to source information to assist in my understanding. Thankfully I am able to source information without the need to be seen to be rude, condescending and resort to addressing /likening someone of whom you have no knowledge as a dog.

The only relevant points in your posts to my questions, is the requirement of the need to know by a potential investor of the private placement offering and its prospectus. I think I made this very clear in my posts. This is topic that all of you bar Mr. Onepoint and Mr Will, clearly fail to substantiate.

Investors are not as knowledgeable as you Mr. Workman, have as much spare time as you appear to have, depend on factual guidance and trustworthy broker for their investments. I am neither an investor nor a party who intends to make an offering. Instead of pontificating, a discussion as to why the unregistered brokers who contribute to these forums do not make nor are they prepared to show the offering for the PP, should not be decried or shouted down.

Mr. G Kid, this is why I addressed diversionary tactics. Lets call it the smoke screen syndrom. put out enough factual documentary informatin and every one will believe that the offering is a genuine one. All this succeeds in achieving is covering up the fact that a prospectus is required and that the investor instead of being abused for daring to ask for such a document, should indeed be applauded for asking for the prospectus.

So which regulation seen as you introduced them covers the Federal reserve trader, the program manager, etc etc. the mythical ones. Simple answer is none, beause they do not exist. If they do I cannot find them in any books/ magazines, etc etc. You seem to have an enviable source of information Mr. Workman so could you share this regulation with me.

Mr Will clearly shows understanding, his mythical means of transacting is quite factual and points to the way it should be done. I have no doubt you have also a similar structure in place Mr. Kid. Your posts re transactions of MTNS or other topics showed an understanding of such matters.

I think Mr. PI started this thread to eliminate as many doubts as possible for intending investors, by reducing the chances of an investor receiving a fraudulent offer. Mr. Onepoint made the point of drawing up a document, or updating and correcting the one posted by Mr PI.

I have not read a posting from anyone who appears to be an investor, as to whether they ever receive a prospectus from these unregistered brokers when being offered a private placement, That would be an interesting post, together with the response of the party making the offering.

Finally, Mr. Workman, many public prosecutors read this forums not because of lack of knowledge or understanding of the intellectual side of the finance world, but to get an understanding of the street wise factor of the seamier side of the finance world, I do not know of any books that cover street-wise. It was from such forums as these that informtion was gathered in regard to the convictions of Dowdell, Gangar shin, to name two prominent individuals plus many others.

An understanding of the criminal mind gets more successful prosecutions than a knowledge of books. It is the knowledge of how the criminal makes his offering to the public leads to the correct statute of law for a successful prosecution. Surely the goal of every genuine poster here.

I will refer to my initial posting, the world you all profess to work in is clouded with secrecy, not by all but by most. To blow away those clouds should be your goal. You will improve the quality of your own business, beause once you get rid of the bogus offerings, inflationary busting returns, then genuine investors get a real offering creating more business for the genuine people.

Other than Mr. Workman, I appreciate the constructive comments of each of you and thank you sincerely for your time. As for Mr Workman, had your comments/posts been done in a professional manner, I would have been equally as grateful to you, even though we have volumes of books ourselves. It is not necessary to introduuce yourself as an insulting individual, i have no doubt you are probably a bit above that type of response normally. Remember because someone asks a question they are not low life and deserve respect. If you cannot give respect then give nothing. Respect is free.

This relates to London and I assume therefore other markets as well, but if you want to get paid following a successful securities transaction, you are going to need to be authorised by a regulated entity. This means unauthorised intermediaries can't earn directly from the transaction and the various contracts devised by so-called "joker brokers" are not worth the paper they are printed on.

In my experience, private placement is issuer to dealer and there is always a prospectus, especially where there is an exemption being used (I am speaking about the UK here). Anyone involved in the placement must be authorised and the placement should not be offered to retail investors. And let's not forget, in the UK it is a criminal offence to promote any regulated investment opportunity unless you are authorised to do so by a regulated entity.

Similar to the Kid I have used the likes of JPM and GS to issue securities to distribute to my clients. There is no rocket science involved in designing, manufacturing and distributing MTN as there is a process to follow and these American banks have had Master Note programmes established and operating for many years in Europe.

In my opinion the depth of discount advertised by unauthorised intermediaries is a complete fallacy designed only to relieve greedy investors of their cash. The Kid may disagree, but the MTN market is pretty efficient and any client with hundreds of millions is likely to have an army of bankers only too happy to give him advice on how to invest that money. It makes no sense that an unauthorised intermediary, a joker broker, would have information on an institutional quality securities transaction that is accurate and subsequently offered on the internet.

Regards
Luxemburger

Dollar,

From your answers, you must be a woman.

Sister, been there and done that.

It ain't a bed of roses.

I much prefer equity play and RTOs.

More clean money to be had.

As for debt, I rather be the issuer.

Clean exit.

Sad to say most Joker Brokers are in it because of Hope Money.

Look at the offers on the net.

will
BTW, I am a salaried bloke.

Quote: Lux

[ In my opinion the depth of discount advertised by unauthorised intermediaries is a complete fallacy designed only to relieve greedy investors of their cash. The Kid may disagree, but the MTN market is pretty efficient and any client with hundreds of millions is likely to have an army of bankers only too happy to give him advice on how to invest that money. It makes no sense that an unauthorised intermediary, a joker broker, would have information on an institutional quality securities transaction that is accurate and subsequently offered on the internet. ]

Lux,

You forgot about the guy who is next to the brother in law of the maid that

cleans the home of the receptionist who is in bed with the lover of

the dealer's wife ?

How could you. They are all waiting to get their 1% each.

Sorry, but I had to rub it in.

Will

Mr. Will isn't lycos a free service provider

next time you come to London give drop me a note and I will invite you to our chambers in Lincolns Inn Field, or to our bristol chambers in the High court building.


will look forward to seeing you.

Dollar 51,



Yes governess,lycos is free.

Drop me a proper mail and I will respond from my proper mail.

I live in Lexham Gdns 3 months of the year and use Wedlake Bell

and Lovells Lee and Lee.

Both are kinda cool in this field.

Regards

will
And I thought this would make a great script for Monty Python

Krispy Kreme ?
You get the doughnits and I'll get the latte.

To dollar 51. I don't have any PPP structures in place. I run an office for a GFSC regulated outfit, who are also FSA regulated. I mainly create and trade structured products to a wide variety of clients, generally structured as EMTN's and issued as Private Placement securities. I also trade corporate bonds (EMTN's) for clients. I've previously ran discretionary portfolios and traded fixed income securities, so i've got a little bit of knowledge in the area! I stumbled accross this forum whilst trying to gain some info on a potential client, and have hung around because there is often interesting exchanges between posters (and there is also occasionally some good humour!)

And I really don't believe in PPP.


To Lux, I agree with everything you state. A privately placed MTN still requires a prospectus. There are varying levels of regulation on the PP issues. For example, if you offer to more than a certain amount of investors and you have denominations of less than USD 70K (or equiv), there is more onerous regulation.

In the UK virtually everyone you deal with is regulated or approved. There are a few "consultants" out there, but they are rare and they won't be able to trade on behalf of their clients. They will generally have to be affiliated with FSA regulated persons or firms.

I agree that the MTN market is very efficient. There are plenty of arbitragers out there to ensure pricing stays in line. However, the recent crisis and subsequent massive widening of spreads did result in a lot of more recent issues trading at large discounts to par which attracted the joker broker crowd claiming they were getting the bonds at a huge discount to market value. Which was obviously rubbish, although it did add some sort of slight legitimacy to some PPP sales guys and operators.

Have a nice day! It's hot and sunny here!

G,

It summer all year in the tropics where I am at.

You've got 19 C there.

Lucky you !

will

I have always understood (please correct me) that a Private Placement is exactly that, a placing of securities, shares or of some other financial instrument. Once "placed", the objectives of the Private Placement are complete.

Beyond that, there is asset management. In other words, where someone has purchased a privately placed financial instrument an asset manager would be used to sell it and to buy something else.

Private Placement Programmes and MTN Programmes are different beasts but both are highly regulated activities.

Structured Investments issued as MTN are issued under a Master Note Programme (in my experience anyway). These are fixed structures which can't be used to dress up an asset management programme being managed in the backgound by an investment bank. The same is the case where the derivative is re-packaged as a Certificate that can be traded on an exchange or as a deposit.

Finally, it beggars belief that anyone who owns a readily realiseable asset with a market value of $100 million would sell it for $60 million, when there is a huge number of buyers who would pay $99 million at the drop of a hat.

Regards
Luxemburger

Hi Luxumberger

The Private Placement deals i'm involved are are basically securities issued off the back of a banks EMTN programme that are not offered for public offering. For example, I buy the note from (for example) JPM and sell it directly to my client who we created the note for. On the relevant Bloomberg DES screen the words "Private Placement" will be shown on the top left.

I think that in the US there may be a difference, especially with regard to prospectus'. However in the UK a prospectus is still created, and the note is still settles via Euroclear as per any public MTN.

PPP's (in my view) don't exist. Yes, there are trading programmes which can generate huge returns (they are utilised by prop desks for all the big banks). But these aren't riskless strategies, which PPP generally seems to be sold as.

And as for your example re the discounted securities, there is a chap called Richard Carruthers who regularly sends offers around looking for MTN's that people will sell to him at 6% below the market level.................. As you say, why do idiots expect investors to sell at levels below the market value?

G,

PPP Does exist,

in the minds of the mindless.

How many decent borrowers are there who would go the wholesale route,

to do a 40 week program at $500m tranches, 3 times a day 5 days a week.

we are talking of cash value and not face here, and all with one

master of the universe trader. I like to call him He Man, LoL.

$900 B cash value in a single entity when the entire debt world revolves

around 5 to 7 T a year and that includes soverigen debts to D rated turd.

Yes we cannot disbelieve He Man and the Masters of the Universe.

Sorry guys, just am psyc of these and had to have a wee bit of

jeer to have some cheer.

will

your IP address appears.


Rgds,


Jose Bueno
CEO
PERUVIAN BARYTES & MINES SAC
http://www.pbmsac.s5.com

Will, Lux, Kid, and all the other contributors on this thread------

You mean to tell me that you cannot go to London or Zurich and place cash $100mm Euros into a private leveraged program (with a contract with a trader inside the Top World Bank)----and make a lot of money in 1 year and get paid weekly????

I am confused!!!

All the best,
Mike

Mike, I agree with them Unless there is a prospectus of what is on the table you are putting your money into a dark hole. Why would you want to invest 100m without seeing a prospectus of what is on offer and who is the main honco offering the prospectus?

When have you ever been introduced to a trader within a top world bank. When have you even been introduced a trader in any bank, by one of these brokers. When have you ever seen his name, other than I am direct to the trader. I know in excess of 50 people called ''I am direct to the trader'' and they all work for deutsche bank. must be hell to play on pay day.

it is a great topic, thankfully unspoilt, and hitting at some home truths. I have seen a buy/sell operate and the maximum spread that was available was 7 percent all round, take out the costs of boths side and the bank, there is not a lot but on a hundred million that is 7 million profit on a single transaction. that is better than any day to day interest. As a broker the fees differ between 0.25 and 0.70 percent which is a lot closer to the real deal than that in dreamlan. However that is not enough for our scam merchants.

Here Dollar,

Do yourself and cut out the middle man.. you want dark pool trading? you have institutional (type) monies to place...

You want into the 9 figure trade world?

Here ya go.. for free... knock yourself out...

 

www.fidelitycapitalmarkets.com
 

Dmitri Galinov

212-325-2044

dmitri.galinov@credit-suisse.com

 

Matt Scoble (New York City)

212-713-9605

matthew.scoble@ubs.com

 

Ross Hutcheon (San Francisco)

415-352-5606

ross.hutcheon@ubs.com

 

Wait maybe you would prefer something on yourside of the pond...

 

www.instinet.com
 

Instinet U.K. sales team

(44) 20-7154-8844

uksalesteam@instinet.co.uk

 

www.instinet.com
 

 

Christian Chan

(852) 2585-0585

koreacross@instinet.com

 

www.instinet.com
 

Ned Phillips

(65) 6586-5755

ned.phillips@blocsec.com

 

Once again no thanks needed happy to see you helping the conversation along..

 

Sincerely, JW

I should note... all of you Joker Brokers that send these people emails will get added to the LIST..

That means plainly they will source you and name you as a Do Not do business with personality that follows you forever.

You have been fore warned about playing games with real people.

If you do not have POF of an institutional amount.. you are toast.. that will be the first thing you are asked for.

Now, welcome to the land of real Business minus the magic, time limtited disapearing land of PPP's..

Now if you want to talk about Private Public Offerings... maybe a new thread should be started..

For everone who has been screwed by some slick talking.. Fresh Cut.. invisable trading paltform.. for 100's of millions..

Consider yourselfs direct.. and I will say again you better have cash in hand.. that is to say the POF's with the direct line to you local Bank President before you reach out.. if not YOU WILL BE know as a Joker going forward..

Good Luck, JW 

Thank you BBB for your information!!!
So as far as you know or have knowledge of-----all that works
for a $100mm Euros cash investment program inside of a top London
or Zurich Bank is a buy/sell program??????

So all these people who contact investors are frauds and fakes and do not have a real private trade program???? These people are fraud brokers and are not direct to a real trader???? And there are no real cash leverage private trade programs at the London or Zurich Banks????
I am only talking about these so called PPP and private investment European bank programs----not the FED Reg 44 progams in the USA!!!!

All the best,
Mike

 

Here Dollar,

http://www.flextrade.com/

Maybe you would like to have your very own PPP...

http://www.iinews.com/site/pdfs/JOT_Summer2009_Palmer.pdf

Maybe you would like to manage your monies or your clients monies..

Give it a whirl....

JW

 

mr. workman before you work yourself into a frenzy and give yourself a heart attack, kindly read my posts correctly, I clearly state that neither I am an investor nor a potential offer of PPP.

i am simply trying research from a legal point of the the validity of a PPP as understood by the majority of posters to this forum #

Now Mr. Will, Mr G Kid and Mr. Luxembourger, have confirmed the facts of law correctly as pertaining to PPP in the UK and the requirement of law with regard to registration.

My shouting off and everything you publish goes back to my comment of creating a smoke screen instead of answer the direct questions, as the gentlemen above have.

They all agree about the non-existence of PPPS in the format as discussed and offered by members of this and other forums.

Now if you do not agree with these learned gentleman the we must assume that you run on the side of the bogus offerings. Quoting all the regulations and indices that you post does not constitute an opinion. Threatening posters that to make contact with these posts sound their death knell, simply is not impressive nor does it smack of professionalism. If these entities are so sacrescent to you why issue or make public their identifies, What are you trying to prove.

How many times on this forum has the misue of Proof of Funds been discussed, yet you attempt to drive it home like one would with a hammer and a nail.

So If the knowledgeable members of the forum can voice an honest opinipon, why cant you state your position without the aid of cut and paste, extra large print which by way constitues shouting without using all upper case letters.

so let me make it simple to you. Do you believe in PPP? Do you believe the investor has the right to ask for a prospectus, without the fear of being told sorry but you are no longer acceptable? and finally do you agree with your fellow posters that PPP offerings simple do not exist without the use of securitised instruments, thus bringing the offering into regulatory territory?

simple your personal opinion, without the shouting or is that beyond your comprehension?

Dollar, T N, Sister ,

I prefer sister

POF. This is a subject that fortunately I have yet to encounter.

Reason for that is

1) I do not deal with grey market 'TRADERS', Joker Brokers, Introducers
and the likes.
Everything is on screen, and not the grey,green,blue or whatever screen.

2) Working for large entities, or institutions, I never had a request from
banks, brokerages for that.

3) Any real potential that approaches us, will be positively suprised as we
filter the transaction and are satisfied, we move forward using 999s.

The system provides an array of tools that filter crooks, scammers and
joker brokers who pretend to be the principle.
As a point, we never issue transferable instruments, and only after performance gurantees are in place.

Many who try to get to us in the hope of scamming us have had their bank accounts closed and been reported to the authorities.

I recently sent a FIN 999 to an offerer who came through one of my superiors.
The receipient's banker replied that he was not aware of any such transaction
or capability as it was a normal checking account.
Needless to say what ensued.

Cost of the 999,- $45/-

I do not understand how the voodoo gets drummed up amongst Joker Brokers.

Mike,

If you had $100M, why go to London or Zurich ????

There is enough action where you are.

Agreed that most of the dealer panel banks are in London ( not Zurich )
but there is more than enough in New York.

I do not need to elaborate, but if you had that money, your bankers will be
opening the cookie jar for you.

Merill Lynch, Goldman, JPM,Watburg and a host of others will greet you.

What a bunch of Baloney!

Opportunities abound everywhere, even in Nigeria, if you have the appetite
for it. ( Trans Sahara Pipeline needs funding - Suckers welcomed )

BBB, I think now you understand what I had said to you on sitting on the
trade desk and doing it yourself with the Dealer/Broker.

Sister, Have you tried the doughnuts from Kiispy Kreme, just round the corner from you, I like the glazed ones.

will

To Mike,

As Will says, if you have $100mio you will have private bankers biting your hand off! There is no need to look for investments via internet forums and via unregulated "brokers"!

You will also find hedge funds will be very interested in your cash, and you will have a whole universe of styles to choose from. I would even sell you our CTA fund which averages over 18% per annum since launch in 2004, is approx $1.5bio in size and has never had a losing year (it did about 6% last year when everyone else was losing cash). Yes, it's not 18% per week....but then again it isn't high vol.

Lady, and Gentlemen,

Let's stir up a wee bit more while we are on the Subject of

Private Placements Program.

As Sisier T. N. puts it, a Mythical sceneario :

Investor is courted and agrees to to " Required Form of Entry" with

CIS, filled up, Joint Venture Signed, Account Nominated Etc.....

The famous MT 760 ICC 458 format is the next step.

He Sends the required Swift lets say for $100,000,000.00 USD

The BG is 'Monetised, Hypothicated, Discounted, Forfaited, Securitised,

or whatever' and yields a healthy 80% as it seems the magic number in

that "Universe" and the Trade/ Game begins.

Now my question, and many an investor will want to know.

Is the sum of investment $$80,000,000,00 USD or $100,000,000.00 ???

He sents $100,000,000.00USD in the form of a BG and Markrt rate of

securitasation is about 89%, what happened to the 9% ???

FED manual BHC sup manual section 3230.4 states "Riskless Principle".

He is sold by the 'Trader' and 'Unregistered Brokers' Introducers,

and the Gang that "His Principle Investment Is Safe"

The crux as I had posted many a times before:

Is it not that 20% is now at RISK or Loss ???

The differential of ( noting the market 89% and what the Trader gets 80% )

is loss.

Risk at the very first step.

Loss even before the Said Trade begins.

Please do weigh in as this seems to be a favoured way of entering into the

realm of this trade.

Will

Thank you Gkid and Will for the Education!!

All the best,
Mike

 

Q; mr. workman before you work yourself into a frenzy and give yourself a heart attack, kindly read my posts correctly, I clearly state that neither I am an investor nor a potential offer of PPP. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

A; I offer you direct contact minus any interference from intermediaries and this equals a heart attack? Really, seriously?

Q; i am simply trying research from a legal point of the the validity of a PPP as understood by the majority of posters to this forum

A; Private Placement Memorandums do float around quite a bit. Some from name brand entities are the riskiest I have seen and benefit the brokerage who is circulating them more than the principles in search of liquidity in this market. Now the Public Private Placement of debt or gaining liquidity to re-structure debt held has been the new hot market now going back 6 months or better.

Q; Now Mr. Will, Mr G Kid and Mr. Luxembourger, have confirmed the facts of law correctly as pertaining to PPP in the UK and the requirement of law with regard to registration.

A; I am not in the U.K. but I would yield the floor to Will or "G" as they have a clear understanding of the institutional abstract that all must adhere too.

Q; My shouting off and everything you publish goes back to my comment of creating a smoke screen instead of answer the direct questions, as the gentlemen above have.

A; I don't understand? The clip and paste was larger than my personal type? This sounds familiar, the argument sounds like a road I have traveled once before with a sad little pudgy toad who likes to use multiple names to post under. But then again I am middle age so it all seems like something else I have already seen or heard before.

Q; They all agree about the non-existence of PPPS in the format as discussed and offered by members of this and other forums.

A; The format of the PPP's being Private Placement for the U.K.? I can and have only spoke on what is firsthand knowledge. I am not authority on England other than I like my cousins across the Pond.

Q; Now if you do not agree with these learned gentleman the we must assume that you run on the side of the bogus offerings. Quoting all the regulations and indices that you post does not constitute an opinion. Threatening posters that to make contact with these posts sound their death knell, simply is not impressive nor does it smack of professionalism. If these entities are so sacrescent to you why issue or make public their identifies, What are you trying to prove.

A; For an Esq. you do mis-spell a lot of words.. typically esq.'s love the word written or spoken so much that they do treat it a little more kindly than you have. Once again this diatribe smells familiar to me.

Q; How many times on this forum has the misue of Proof of Funds been discussed, yet you attempt to drive it home like one would with a hammer and a nail.

A; Proof of Funds in the form I have spoken of, with your banker on hand to provide the lineage of the funds is common practice.

Q; So If the knowledgeable members of the forum can voice an honest opinipon, why cant you state your position without the aid of cut and paste, extra large print which by way constitues shouting without using all upper case letters.

A; My offering you information to better yourself seems to be getting under your skin, I do think now that this conversation seems exceedingly familiar. You want to have an argument not learn or appreciate the information provided.

Q; so let me make it simple to you. Do you believe in PPP? Do you believe the investor has the right to ask for a prospectus, without the fear of being told sorry but you are no longer acceptable? and finally do you agree with your fellow posters that PPP offerings simple do not exist without the use of securitised instruments, thus bringing the offering into regulatory territory?

A; Do I believe that someone would place funds minus a proven track record and a prospectus? Is that really the question you are asking? I do believe that PPP in the loose form you have described can be used to source seed monies. Just not from me.

Q; simple your personal opinion, without the shouting or is that beyond your comprehension?

A; Once again, this sounds all too familiar. But you keep trying, consider yourself the little engine that could.

Sincerely, JW

http://www.tradetaxfree.com

http://forum.reserve-bank.com/viewtopic.php?t=876

Working directly with a private Swiss bank we are able to take investors with 50k EUR+ into their Private Placement Program. Clients must be willing to travel to the bank to meet the Trader & sign the investment contract. Once this is completed it is necessary to also move funds into the trading bank to an account under the investor's sole signatory control.

Larger investors with or without Humanitarian Projects can be placed with 2 AAA rated European banks with funds blocked at the investor's own bank.

For further information please contact me through my website.
_________________
http://www.tradetaxfree.com - Private Placement Programs

Interesting offer Will.

Could you explain why the investor needs to travel to Switzerland, and also show some previous performance? I am presuming the traders and their outfit are fully regulated?

Thanks

G,

This is a clear example of promoters of PPP that I feel is unreal.

Look at http://www.ecvv.com/company/tradetaxfree/index.html

Gibraltar, Familar?

Will

Hahaha, well I was wondering about your apparent move to the dark side!!! However, I was also giving you the benefit of the doubt by asking questions in a "nice" way!

VERY CLEAR AND UNDERSTOOD. EXCELLENT POST

SAME IS TRUE WITH...FINANCING; WORLDWIDE PROJECTS & REAL ESTATE.

BORROWER / OWNER... SEEKING FINANCING MUST BE FACTUAL AND TRUITHFUL.

SOME ARE , MOST ARE NOT.

REGARDS
CALAN LINDSEY, SR.

Alan,

So very true, but Lenders too must be as scammers who pretend to be lenders

fall into several catergories.

1) Laundry Shops

2) Small money for equity and push/dilute for takeover via minority share
oppression ?

3) Up front fee scammers as we have seen too many

4) Joker broker on an ego trip

5) Intellectual thieves who are only interested in the business plans.

6) Phishermen.

Transparency cuts both ways, don't you think so?

will
ps
Alan, you are in uppercaps, please edit.

Perfect answer Will!!!
thank you---too many up-front fee scammers and fake funders!!

All the best,
Mike