Talk:FXCM

Previous Delete

A page for this company has been deleted twice before Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FXCM, however FXCMs acquisition of ODL and the increasing market share of the company because of the NFA raising capital requirements, has in my opinion given it just enough notability for inclusion. It is one of the main companies in the margin forex industry and one that has driven some development. The other reason for delete last time was WP:SPAM and have tried to be balanced in this article and avoided spam type references. Sargdub (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"Is" or "was"?

Yesterday I put in the lede that "FXCM was a US-based company" (approx) and it was reverted. It is banned from operating in the US or even from reapplying for registration, so we certainly can't say that it "is" a US-based company. If it even tries to solicit US customers, the direst consequences will ensue automatically, e.g. fines, prison, well-founded fraud lawsuits from any customer who lost money over a 5 year period. We also cannot say that they have branch offices in the US - what would those offices do? The founder and 2 others have been banned from associating with any US regulated broker and have resigned. The London office is reported to be closing see Reuters. They've admitted to lying to their customers (within the limits of CFTC action), so we can't assume that anything they say is true - i.e. no self-refs that make them look good. "Was" may not be the perfect phrasing here, but we need to do a whole lot more than just leave the article as it was. Let's get started on it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing the ban to act or to register as an RFED with CFTC/NFA and a ban to act as a company. They are still a public company legally operating from the United States and listed on NASDAQ. What they can no longer do is provide their services to the retail customers based in the USA. Enivid (talk) 08:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

'Formerly based' is not quite correct because the company remains to be based in the USA. It is just that they now cater only to the foreign markets. It's like if Apple stopped selling phones in the USA, but would continue to sell them worldwide. It would still be a US company. Enivid (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm new to this Wikipedia editing so please correct or move this paragraph if it is in the wrong place. I can't edit the actual article as it is now protected, however the sentence "now run from London after being banned from United States markets for defrauding its customers.[2][3][4]" is 100% inaccurate as FXCM still has its main headquarters and largest office based at 55 Water Street in NYC with over 200 employees. That is followed by Plano, TX in the US as well. FXCM UK is NOT the headquarters, therefore it is totally inaccurate to say it is now being run out of London, especially claiming that is based on the CFTC settlement.

Please edit accordingly as this entire article is misleading and bias to anyone unfamiliar with the company and is riddled with other inaccuracies as well.

Industry criticism section

their customers lost another $225 million or more

This can be rather misleading because what happened (and is stated in the source) is that $225 million is the total of negative balance accounts that occurred in the aftermath of the 2015-01-15 Swiss franc event. Although it may seem that it does imply that the customers had lost at least $225 of their funds, in reality, FXCM did not try to collect that "debt" due to their negative balance policy at that time. So, it was more of a loss for the company rather than for its customers.Enivid (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

So the customers had trading losses of everything in their accounts, plus another $225 million that FXCM could not collect, which means "their customers lost another $225 million or more" Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

When you phrase it like "their customers lost another $225 million or more", it implies that the customers had $225 or more and lost it. In reality, it was not so. Consider the extreme hypothetical case when all those customers had a total account balance of just $1 before Jan 15, 2015. After the event, when their total balance reached negative $225 million, it could still be described as "FXCM Inc. [...] said clients owe $225 million on their accounts..." as it is stated in the cited source. However, would you still call that "their customers lost another $225 million or more" considering that FXCM could not collect any part of that $225 million negative balance? I believe that it is misleading to call a customers' loss what was in effect a loss for a company. Enivid (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

"currently undergoing severe regulatory problems."

The phrase "currently undergoing severe regulatory problems" was removed (and called libel!). I think it is just calling a spade a spade. On February 6, 2017 the firm was kicked out of the US market by regulators. On March 20, yesterday, the firm states that they are cooperating with investigations in our countries and might not be able to pay off their bonds when they come due next year. In between times, they've sold their US accounts and changed the name of the holding company, but haven't made any other statements. If they made some other statements perhaps we could say something else, but right now it amounts to "currently undergoing severe regulatory problems" Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

"Formerly based in the U.S."

This phrase was deleted again. Since the company was prohibited from trading with customers in the US it seems impossible to say that they are based in the US. The firm has not issued a statement on what operations are open since that time, which is of course their right, but we can't still include that information if we know that it is questionable. The link to the FXCM website, which presumably was meant to show they are still based in the US, is clearly out of date, e.g. it still includes their Australian operation. If they can't update the information they present to the public, then we have to eliminate the now unbelievable parts that were in the article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Why have you started a new section instead of adding to the old one? Your claims were already refuted by Enivid (talk · contribs). Please provide sources that support your assertion or refrain from adding them to the page. The burden of proof is on your side. Gouyoku (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Given that you had over three weeks to address the issues since first refuted by Enivid I will be reverting the changes. If we keep waiting we won't get anything done, I hope you understand. I have familiarized myself with the FXCM case over the weekend and will try to fix some factual errors in the article.Gouyoku (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

"Full Review" of 2017/04/26

I have found large edit of 2017/04/26 done by user Smallbones (talk · contribs) to be contentious due to:

• removal of relevant information from the infobox
• "a history of legal and regulatory problems which is currently undergoing regulatory difficulties" does not sound at all to be compliant with Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
• removal of United States as headquarters
• removal of Australia from countries of operation
• removal of relevant operations section

Due to this I will be reverting the change. Please try to make incremental changes and use informative edit summaries as per Wikipedia:Good_editing_practices. Gouyoku (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Please see your talk page. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Please address the following concerns:

• Why did you remove relevant information from the infobox ? while you dispute location_city and location_country, logo and industry were certainly correct.
• "a history of legal and regulatory problems which is currently undergoing regulatory difficulties" in the very first sentence sounds extremely malicious and is not compliant with WP:NPOV: Prefer nonjudgmental language.
• The company was banned from trading in United States, but it was not banned from operating there. There are no sources that state the headquarters were moved out of New York. You have still not provided any as per previous requests.
• The article you linked about Australia only states Forex Capital Markets LLC, the United States branch, ceased to be a representative of FXCM Australia Pty. Limited, the Australian branch. It is understandable that United States branch would be closing down, but there is no mention of Australian branch closing.
• Why did you remove the whole operations section ? Company is still operational.

Gouyoku (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Just a reminder

Any editor who is being paid to edit this article needs to declare their paid status, and who is paying them, per the Terms of Use. See WP:PAID for details. WP:COI may also apply.

I think this is particularly important as FXCM (and its then-officers) have formally agreed with the CFTC that

"Respondents agree that neither they nor any of their successors and assigns, agents, or employees under their authority or control shall take any action or make any public statement denying, directly or indirectly, any findings or conclusions in this Order or creating, or tending to create, the impression that this Order is without a factual basis".

The order documents "fraudulent misrepresentations" by FXCM, giving about a dozen examples. In layman's terms, FXCM admitted to lying to its customers and to regulators. I'm sure that neither FXCM nor Leucadia would want to violate the CFTC's order.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Proportion of accounts losing money

I haven't had time to look closely at this article — to even call it an article is giving at the benefit of the doubt — it's not much more than a barely organized collection bullet points in sentence form. It's barely more than a timeline of events.

However, one sentence jumped out at me. At the moment at the closing sentence of the body: In each quarter of 2014, between 67% and 70% of FXCM open customer accounts lost money

While this is sourced, one has to question why it's included. What, if anything, should the reader take away from the sentence? It is in the section titled "industry criticism", so supposedly it represents some form of criticism. I can imagine some naïve readers might think these are large values. However, unlike retail equity markets, where a substantial portion of customers can make money over time (even though most do lag industry benchmarks), FX is a zero-sum game before considering commissions, and commissions do exist, so one would expect without doing any analysis, that the proportion of accounts losing money would be in excess of 50%. While hard numbers are elusive, one industry study Suggest the industry average of profitable client accounts is about 29%. That's from 2010, and only one study so let's not use two decimals a precision let's round to 30% make money and 70% lose money roughly speaking. In that context, the customers of this particular organization are either doing close to the industry average or slightly better depending on how carefully you wish to parse. That's hardly a notable fact worth mentioning and certainly not in the criticism section.I'm not to remove it, as it is sourced but I'll identify it as one example in support of getting some other experts to review this article, and see if it can be improved.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: This page has been a matter of contention for some time now for a number of reasons (see previous comments on changes above from user Gouyoku). It requires review from a third party, hence why I've submitted this page for review. This page contains a number of errors, e.g. "FXCM, previously Forex Capital Markets" is the opening sentence to this article; but FXCM are still called Forex Capital Markets according to this ny.gov database page. FXCM is just a pseudonym. Another example is the second sentence, "It has offices in the United Kingdom, Germany, and France." FXCM are still headquartered in New York, however they're banned from trading in the United States. The distinction between their office locations and service areas is not clear and thus likely not helpful to a visitor. There are no doubt other errors present on the page.

I would also suggest that the first paragraph gives little indication about what this company does and it's background and is heavily weighted towards recent events, possibly violating recentism guidelines. I'm not totally sure on this hence why I've flagged it for a third opinion.

Lenticularphoto (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

There are so many issues it's hard to know where to start. For example I believe the company is now "Global Brokerage Inc." so I would think the opening sentence ought to say something like:

Global Brokerage Inc., formerly Forex Capital Markets, and often referred to as FXCM, ... --S Philbrick(Talk) 22:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

S PhilbrickThe % of losing accounts is quite important. Anybody who is investing money wants to know what the chance is of making money. The chances for making money with this company are pretty low. The numbers were reported by FXCM to the CFTC so can be taken as official, though I suspect they can be manipulated a bit. One of the problems with the article is that FXCM can not be considered to be a reliable source on anything - it has admitted in a consent decree to lying to its customers so anything they publish now is suspect. Everything prior to Feb. 6, 2017 is essentially irrelevant. FXCM does not issue any new statements other than SEC forms. In accounting there's something called the "ongoing business assumption" - accountants assess a company based on the whole operating business being greater than the sum of the parts. One of the SEC forms says that next year they can't guarantee that this assumption will be met - it may not be an ongoing business. Given that, next year's accounting statements will likely be "qualified". That's a death sentence for any financial business - who would invest with a broker that's not going to be around? Sure this is OR to Wikipedians, but when we've got a lack of reliable info, we just can't assume that this is an actual operating business. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

A few factual corrections:

• "admitted in a consent decree to lying to its customers" - CFTC ruling did not allege that FXCM admits to anything, and according to then FXCM Inc. 8-K filling from February, they "neither admit nor deny the allegations" (Item 1.01 [1]). It makes sense as corporations tend to settle instead of litigating when court costs would be higher than the penalty and/or chance of success would be low.
• "FXCM does not issue any new statements other than SEC forms." - one of the sources included in the article states that their trade volumes went up by 12% in March. This has been reported in April.
• "One of the SEC forms says that next year they can't guarantee that this assumption will be met" - do you mean the March 2017 GLBR 8-K filling? [2] If so, these are obligations are of GLBR and not FXCM. As you know, FXCM is jointly owned by GLBR and Leucadia.

@Sphilbrick: In short, the client-facing entity of FXCM did not change the name. Global Brokerage Inc. is one of the owners just like Alphabet Inc. is the owner of Google. You can verify this with one of their 8-K reports, for example [3].

Gouyoku (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

"The % of losing accounts is quite important. Anybody who is investing money wants to know what the chance is of making money. The chances for making money with this company are pretty low." - That's a serious misunderstanding of how the brokerage companies work. Traders do not invest money with them. Brokers are not fund managers. Traders actively trade using their own capital. Losing or not losing largely depends on the traders themselves rather than on the brokerage company. However, there is some indirect influence on that from the side of the broker too - the size of spreads, commissions, fees, execution quality, etc. Enivid (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

"Traders do not invest money with them." False

Sorry, that's not how the brokers work. Unless clients use some managed account program from the broker. Which as far as I know, was not offered by FXCM in 2014, and even if it was, that is not the bulk part of what is reported in quarterly profitability reports by the US brokers. Enivid (talk) 09:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

That was what FXCM admitted to in the consent order, that traders were putting their money directly into the hands of FXCM when they made a trade.

Could you please provide the direct quote concerning this? Enivid (talk) 09:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The above argument is also incredibly self-serving for brokers. If I broker were to tell every new customer that they only have a 30% chance of making money, pretty soon they wouldn't have any customers.

That would be a lie if a broker would be telling that to its prospective customers. The chance of making money depends on traders' action rather than on a broker. Besides, all the US FX brokers file such profitability reports every quarter. So, the information is available to new customers. Enivid (talk) 09:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

BTW "admitted in a consent decree to lying to its customers" is an accurate characterization of the CFTC-FXCM order. We don't have to write in legalese on a talk page, we write in plain English. If I wanted to put it in legalese it would be "FXCM accepted the CFTC's characterization of their communications with their customers as "fraudulent deception" for the purpose of the CFTC order - banning FXCM from the US market."

I think it is even more clear when you recognized that FXCM agreed never to deny that they lied to their customers (except in court cases not involving the CFTC). For example, if Drew Niv were to hold a press conference and I asked him the question "You lied to your customers for eight years about how their orders were handled, didn't you?." He could not answer "No we never lied to our customers" without getting into a world of legal troubles. See the reminder section above for how this applies to anybody working for FXCM, Global Brokerage, and likely Leucadia as well. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not persuaded that the information about losing accounts is quite important. I don't disagree with the statement " Anybody who is investing money wants to know what the chance is of making money." But that's a forward-looking statements in virtually all financial firms are explicitly precluded from forward-looking statements. And that's not what's in play here, it is a statement about past performance which is permitted. If you modify your statement to "anyone who is investing money would like to know how well similar investments have performed in the past" then I'll agree.

However, while I think it might be useful to offer some general comments in a general article about FX trading — I suspect some of the general public may not be aware of fundamentally different effects is from stocks bonds and real estate, I think it would be unreasonable to include such data on each and every firm. It might be relevant and I'd say this is up for debate, if the particular firms results are meaningfully different from the overall industry. Based on the very limited numbers given that isn't the case here. I'm slightly surprised, given their checkered history but the numbers reported are almost identical to industry averages so what's the point of discussing them here? I repeat, the specific article about FXCM is not the right article to provide readers with general information about FX "investing". (I deliberately put investing in quotes because while FX can be used by corporations as part of prudent risk management, When carried out by individuals it is more likely to be naïve speculation, and closer to gambling than investing.)

I'm not responding to your subsequent statements about whether FXCM is reliable, as they don't bear on the question of whether this specific sentence deserves inclusion. It isn't the case, for example, that it is being used to refute misleading statements from the company (unless I missed something but if I did those statement should remove removed)--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Gouyoku: Thanks for the clarification about the company name.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: your complaint about the % of losing accounts has several problems.

• I didn't put in that sentence. I just updated it with a source that actually talked about the subject and changed the numbers slightly to reflect the new source. I believe the original purpose of that sentence was to reflect that Niv's "85% losers" was out of date.
• 86 Percent Of Forex Traders Expect To Make A Profit, Only 30 Percent Do ultimately from an industry source (CitiFX). Traders expect a fair shot at making a profit, when they trade even though they really don't have a shot, they are being misled. We don't need to consider far out stories that essentially say they like giving their money away. We certainly shouldn't propagate those stories or fail to inform our readers of the facts.
• The logic fails totally. You're saying that since it's the same as others in the industry, we shouldn't report it. But of course we report that Starbucks serves coffee, even though everybody else in their industry does as well.
• There are only 3 retail forex brokers left in the US, all of them have a lower percentage of losers.
• There were about 50 forex brokers in the US 12 years ago, but most of them have been forced out for similar problems.

So disregarding "who edited what for whatever reason," common sense, logic, and the facts, your argument might possibly have some potential.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Smallbones:Sorry but your "argument" aren't persuasive. As you know, my rationale had nothing to do with who added it. I'm not quite sure why you start out by saying you didn't add it. I addressed my points to the content, not to you. Linking to an article which claims that 86% of forex traders expect to make money is hardly relevant to a rationale expectation of profit (I'm actually surprised it is only 86%). What proportion of restaurant owners expect to make money in their venture? Almost 100%, but most fail. Please compare apples to apples. Re logic, your analogy fails. You claimed this is like reporting that Starbucks makes coffee. No, the analogy would be that FXCM is a retail foreign exchange market broker, which is exactly what we say. It isn't surprising that retail forex brokers are becoming thin on the ground, if you understand anything about the concept, but that's a subject for the general FX article, and not relevant for an article about a particular broker.

If anything, your response has persuaded me that I haven't missed anything, so I am removing the statement.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• They are marketing as an "investment product", so it is relevant to mention that over half the participants lose money. If they were marketing themselves as a casino, it would not be. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Are they? Because they are not offering it, they are offering brokerage services. Enivid (talk) 10:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

"brokerage services" are part of the financial industry, not the entertainment industry. It's certainly a legitimate criticism of this type of product as it is marketed. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"Investment product" suggests that the company will be active in profitability of clients, while "brokerage services" allow the clients to take an active role themselves while providing them with means of trading. Apples and oranges. As Sphilbrick (talk · contribs) already wrote - this kind of information belongs in a general FX article, not this one. Gouyoku (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

All you need to do is read the sources in the article, in particular the CFTC order. FXCM did promise to provide brokerage services to its customers, via its "no dealing desk" system, but the CFTC ruled that that was "fraudulent misrepresentation" that it was really using the old "dealing desk" system. So let's not pretend that they are just offering "brokerage services". Also their website uses the word "investment" extensively. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

"substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern"

The owner of FXCM, Global Brokerage, Inc., states in its SEC 10-Q that

(W)e believe that the potential delisting raises substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern as at May 15, 2017, the date that our financial statements were issued.

— p.61 SEC 10-Q

Please note that there are no "ifs" "ands" or "buts" about this. Its a simple statement about "substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern." Reuters quotes them here.

While this is *not* an official statement that "it's all over", it is an official statement that (paraphrased) "We believe that it soon could be all over".

Obviously this is hugely important to anybody who could have anything to do with the firm. It's the most important thing of all for anybody who is not being paid by them with cash in advance. The article should be rewritten with this in mind, but it cannot be assumed that the company is "all but dead." It is quite clearly only "substantial doubt" that it will continue living. But let us not rewrite the article trying to deny this "substantial doubt." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained multiple-edit revert

Five of my edits have been reverted by Smallbones (talk · contribs) with a vague explanation that doesn't really apply to any of them. Can you please explain here why have you reverted them? Thank you. Gouyoku (talk) 09:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Smallbones (talk · contribs) essentially owns this page; if you don't agree with their opinion about the way this page should be crafted then you might as well take your opinions to another Wiki page Lenticularphoto (talk)

@Gouyoku: please stop just removing referenced material. Just because you don't like the facts, you can't remove them from the article. Please be aware that you've reverted 3 edits in the last 24 hours. See WP:3RR. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@Smallbones:All my edits had logical explanation in the summary, none were affected by my feelings. Which edit are you referencing? Also, please point out the three reverts that broke the 3RR rule. Gouyoku (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• [4]
• [5]
• [6], all in 11 hours.

Please watch yourself. Feel free to add material, but just reverting sourced material added by others does not work. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The middle one was not a revert. More importantly, please explain why you have reverted my edits. I cannot improve if you do not tell me what was wrong with them. Gouyoku (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

You are simply removing things, e.g.

"The staff of FXCM's London operation have been told to seek other employment, according to unnamed sources cited by Reuters, though, as of February 24, 2017, the firm appears to be still trading in the United Kingdom and other countries in Europe. Its U.S. accounts were sold to Gain Capital. About 40,000 customer accounts were sold at about $375 each."

Sure, the company is now being run out of London - but that doesn't mean the office won't be closed down as well, or just with some people being cut back. In any case Reuters reported it and FXCM has never responded. Deleting the selling of customer accounts to Gain - why would you do that? It's hugely important to understanding what the company is all about, e.g. it's not in the US and isn't about to appeal that. Removing "In each quarter of 2014, between 67% and 70% of FXCM open customer accounts lost money." just repeats the silliness of saying that its customers don't care about their chance of making money. All this just looks like pure obstructionism to me. Then, of course, you did it all over again.

This company has lost $225+ million in cash less than 3 years ago, been caught lying to its customers (not to mention its shareholders in the IPO), and lost 98% of its market value. It would seem that we can put these facts into the article without all the obstructionism. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I would not call it "simply removing things" as not only did I also add and correct content, but my edits have reasons explained in the summary. I try to limit each edit to a single item for easier review, and I would appreciate if you did the same. Bundling all my recent edits into one revert throws the baby with the bathwater. To address the points you have made:

London staff told to seek other employment - In my opinion, moving the HQ to London office and closing the same office, which is implied here, does not make sense. As Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL, this should not be included. If the report was only about a portion of employees being laid off, as you suggest here, then the sentence was poorly constructed - it makes an impression the whole company is shutting down. If you still disagree, we could seek third opinion.

Selling customer accounts to Gain - that was a mistake in editing and I have corrected it. Thank you for pointing it out.

Proportion of accounts losing money - I have removed it according to the consensus here: [7] If you find yourself going against consensus, maybe it is time to consider that you are in the wrong.

Loss of $225+ million, lying to customers and losing of market value - I do not remember removing this content. Can you please point me at the diff?

Gouyoku (talk) 01:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the repetition in the first sentence that they trade other things than forex. It was already at the bottom of the 1st paragraph. I also removed the "joint ownership" mumbo-jumbo in the first sentence. Global Brokerage is the legal owner. Legal ownership is important because it determines in many cases who gets sued. The rather complicated corporate structure is explained in its own section.

WP:CRYSTALBALL is the right policy to quote here, as is WP:Reliable source. Since FXCM was kicked out of the US for fraudulent misrepresentation on feb. 7, they are not a reliable source - they lie. Anything that was cited to them that's not reported in another source (since Feb. 7), or in an official SEC filing, has no reliable source. Moreover we cannot assume that FXCM is an ongoing business. Global Brokerage and Leucadia have both said in SEC filings that we can't assume that. So anything that seems to assume that they are an ongoing business is WP:CRYSTALBALL material.

I hope we're all clear on that. Now stop the obstruction. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Since you are both here, I'll just note once for @Gouyoku: and @Lenticularphoto: that I've reopened the notice at WP:COIN#FXCM again Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe 49.9% of ownership is important enough to be mentioned in the beginning of the article. I'll refrain from re-adding it, but if someone else agrees they have my support. Your comment on legal ownership is an argument for inclusion of GLBR, but not a valid argument for removal of Leucadia.

The second part of your posting, while factually wrong, is not relevant to this thread. Please try to stay on topic and address my questions from earlier.

Gouyoku (talk) 09:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Deprod

I have deprodded this article but my reasoning was too long for the edit summary so here it is. "No longer [being] a valid entity" is not a valid rationale for deletion. If this subject has ever met the notability criteria for inclusion, then it will always meet it. If the person who nominated this article for prod still wishes to pursue deletion then please feel free to open another deletion discussion by following the three-step process at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks, —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

References

A gentleman from the UK

appears to have removed info from the first paragraph, saying that the material there is only relevant to the US. That's complete nonsense. When a financial company is banned from trading in it's home country, it's a major event. When it happens because of fraud, it usually means that the company will be closed down everywhere. When the company says in its SEC reports that it is in danger of closing down, that is usually the most important fact about the company. Notice that we are doing our readers a great disservice by not informing them of the questionable underpinnings (financial and otherwise) of the company. Their customers could lose a lot of money trading with them. About 70%of them do.

Frankly I'm tired of all the short-term SPAs who have come here and tried to obscure the facts about this company. Is it 6 in the last few months?

If you can come up with some sort of dispute resolution procedure, I'd be glade to join in. Just one request - everybody involved in that should declare if they are paid editors (per ToU) and indicate how they got to be interested in the article.

If you don't want to use a dispute resolution process, I will proceed to edit to include verified facts in the article to the best of my ability.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with undoing that deletion. These whitewashing attempts have to stop. We do seem to have an SPA problem here. Aglassofprosecco (talk · contribs) John Nagle (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Gentleman II from the UK

Note that I added this section header to distinguish this section from the one above. Gouyoku insists on reverting the header (twice now) and says something vague about me breaking some rule by adding the header. If I have broken a rule here, please quote it here, chapter and verse. Don't be obstructionist. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I have left you a message on your talk page about it. You are breaking the talk page guidelines that clearly state that you should "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning". I have explained how it changes the meaning in my reply below and got permission to modify the comment to its original state from Lqdr. Please acknowledge your understanding of this issue by reverting the comment to its original state and (re)moving the two comments we made here. Do not misrepresent other people. Gouyoku (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I haven't moved anything - I added a header. If you don't like it, tough. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

This addition resulted in a move of a comment to a new section. This is clearly against Lqdr wishes. Gouyoku (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Good morning Smallbones and John Nagle. I wanted to discuss the current state of the FXCM Wikipedia page with you in light of the ongoing discussions above. I am an independent PR agent who is working for FXCM on a contract basis and of course have an interest in this Wikipedia page from a professional perspective. I cannot speak to the previous contributors to this page but I am hoping that we can come to a resolution for the page moving forwards.

The main bone of contention seems to derive from the insistence that the regulatory issues FXCM are currently undergoing should form part of the very first two sentences of this piece. The previous individuals who have edited this page are as aware as you are, Smallbones, that Google will use the first couple of lines from Wikipedia to form their knowledge graph information when a user searches for an FXCM branded term.

I am in no way here to suggest that the information relating to FXCM's current predicament shouldn't be thoroughly covered - it is information the Wikipedia readership have a right to know about - but to repeatedly insist that it needs to appear in Google for branded searches seems excessive and not befitting with the way recent news is treated on the rest of Wikipedia. Let me provide some examples:

• Greg Gianforte - Republican politician - Recently prosecuted and ordered to carry out community service for body slamming a reporter. No mention of this misdemeanour on his Wikipedia page until paragraph 3
• Wells Fargo - Wells Fargo is under an ongoing investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in relation to its accounts sales practices; this isn't mentioned till paragraph 4 of their Wikipedia page
• BP - Convicted with 11 counts of felony manslaughter, two misdemeanors, one felony count of lying to Congress, and agreed to pay more than $4.5 billion in fines and penalties - not mentioned until paragraph 5

Admittedly the BP reference is somewhat older but the other two are very recent (a myriad of other examples exist too i'm sure). So I'm curious why it is that the FXCM page should include the reference to their investigation when other pages do not comply to those same criteria? I'd like to refer to some of the points made in your previous statement:

"When it happens because of fraud, it usually means that the company will be closed down everywhere" Smallbones

Usually? FXCM have not been shut down everywhere - they can no longer service customers only in the United States. I'm not convinced that Wikipedia is the place for speculation and so don't understand how this argument can stand?

"Notice that we are doing our readers a great disservice by not informing them of the questionable underpinnings (financial and otherwise) of the company" Smallbones

Doing Wikipedia users a disservice by denying them information is of course a huge disservice. But insisting that the ongoing regulatory action is a foregone conclusion leading to FXCM being shut down globally is just your opinion. Advertising this on the first two lines of the FXCM page is highlighting FXCM's issues to the extreme, in particular when other pages don't follow the same format.

Following on from your message to Aglassofprosecco (talk · contribs), I will be flagging this page now for further moderation here and appreciate your response in advance. Many thanks. LQDR Lqdr (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Lqdr: The first thing you should do is read WP:Paid and WP:COI. Then you should fill out the template

{{Connected contributor (paid) |User1=InsertName |U1-employer=InsertName |U1-client=InsertName |U1-otherlinks=Insert relevant links, such as relevant affiliations, disclosures, article drafts written by paid editors, or diffs showing paid contributions being added to articles.}}.

• After the first equals sign, please put your user name, i.e. Lqdr
• After the second equals sign, please put your the name of your employer - I assume this is the name you give to your own company or the usual dba
• After the third equals sign, please put the name of your client - this is quite important in this case. Is your client the FXCM (group) or FXCM UK, or is it Global Brokerage, the official owner, or perhaps Leucadia, who might be called the beneficial owner (though I'm sure they wouldn't like that term)?
• After the fourth equals sign, please just put text identifying any other relevant affiliations, e.g. anybody who is supplying you with text to add to the article, any of those other firms noted above who are cooperating with you or encouraging your work

Then please copy the template, with your additions, to the top of this page, and the top of User:Lqdr

I must say that it is somewhat flattering that FXCM et al send so many folks to this page to try to change the article. The only thing I ask is that the next one know something about Wikipedia rules (and some finance knowledge would help as well).

What you can try to do is

• quote here any sentence in the article itself that you believe is factually incorrect. Please don't argue about whether the proper word should be, e.g. "headquartered in", "based in" or "run from". I'd consider that to just be spin and it is not worth my time to discuss it. Let's just talk about referenced facts.
• not mix up what is in the article, with what I've said on this page. This page is for somewhat informal discussion. Strict rules apply to the article itself. Please do not try to tell me what I can say on this page.
• not edit the article page itself.
• get your client(s) to release to the press or state in regulatory forms what they know about the firm's current predicament and regulatory problems. If your employer is not attempting to be completely truthful, IMHO you have no business editing here, even on this page.
• don't talk about "other stuff", e.g. BP or Wells Fargo. Enforcing our rules can be very time consuming and we are volunteers. We cannot correct all other articles, before correcting this one. Your arguments along this line will strike people as similar to a 5 year old saying "but Momma, Billy's mom lets him chew gum!"

So some polite, but direct truth-telling is in order here. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I've written a Wikipedia essay on dealing with conflict of interest problems. The section on company-related "happy talk" is relevant here.Wikipedia:Hints_on_dealing_with_conflict_of_interest_problems#Happy_talk. We've seen this many times before on Wikipedia. A company gets into serious legal trouble, this is widely reported in the press, the problem gets prominent mention in Wikipedia, and the company hires someone to make the bad news disappear. That doesn't work on Wikipedia. It can backfire on the company. If the whitewashing effort itself becomes newsworthy, which has happened, it can backfire badly. See Streisand effect. The bad stuff doesn't go away over time, either, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news aggregator. Wikipedia mentions bad things Standard Oil did a century ago.

Realistically, when a financial service does things bad enough that the entire company is booted out of US markets by financial regulators, that's going to be mentioned prominently in the article. This is a problem with the company, not Wikipedia. John Nagle (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Smallbones and John Nagle, I appreciate the time it takes to write out the message and provide the instructions that you did and for that I am grateful. I've created and updated my user page User:Lqdr as per your instructions. I understand that you'd like FXCM to send someone to this page with a comprehensive understanding of the rules of Wikipedia but as someone who understands the rules, I'm sure you know how broad and varied they are. Finding someone with sufficient knowledge of Wikipedia's guidelines isn't always an easy thing.

So to reiterate the point I made in the 2nd paragraph again, there is no contention whatsoever surrounding the factual accuracy of what has been added to the page. The only contention from our side is with regards to the use of that information in the 2nd sentence of the article. I understand from your points that each page should be judged on it's own merits - though there are obviously universal guidelines to abide by - but the notion that any recent news event comprises the whole history and is used to describe the company off the bat is misleading and doesn’t seem to fit the purpose of Wikipedia as a factual historical reference for knowledge. Information is typically provided in some sort of chronology that makes logical sense. The first few sentences about recent news events doesn’t fit that model. In fact it seems to go against the nature and essence of what Wikipedia is trying to provide to the end user.

Our only possible contention is regarding the positioning of the second sentence, "FXCM has been banned from trading in the United States for "fraudulent misrepresentation" to its customers." It's been almost 6 months now since the US FXCM ban and the placement of this info and subsequent visibility from a branded search in Google seems excessive and not befitting the history or broader offering FXCM provides.

If you can understand our perspective then perhaps you might be happy to leave the small changes I will now make to this page which are also aimed at increasing the readability of the first paragraph. Many thanks Lqdr (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Undid whitewashing by COI editor. Please do not do that. John Nagle (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The article may need more info about the Kevin White episode, Revelation Forex Fund, and the criminal conviction.[8] (CFTC, when fining FXCM: "Although FXCM was aware of warning signs that RFF was a fraud, FXCM failed to identify or report these warning signs in violation of its own compliance procedures, or that White’s operation of websites on behalf of the White Entities violated their exemption from registering as a commodity pool operator.") Mr. White is now Federal Inmate #22043-078[9] at United States Penitentiary, Beaumont, scheduled for release in 2022. John Nagle (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

An overview of CFTC and NFA cases against FXCM between 2005 and 2017 is already in the article and this case is not notable enough to call for separate listing. Gouyoku (talk) 01:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

A lot happened since I last had some free time.

@Lqdr: I see that your first post has been edited to change its meaning. It was clearly a response to the previous thread about notability of the USA ban. Would you like me to fix this for you? While you do bring up valid points, I agree that you should refrain from editing the article itself - as you have seen today, your edits will be reverted on grounds of COI without any consideration for their validity.

@Gouyoku: Many thanks for pointing that out and yes, if you would be so kind as to fix this that would be much appreciated. I will refrain from changing the article from now on and thanks for the feedback. Lqdr (talk) 07:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Smallbones: telling an editor they have no business editing a talk page is unacceptable.

@Smallbones:@Nagle: besides editing the post to disassociate it from the discussion, you are completely ignoring the points user makes. Please engage in discussion on the topic and refrain from using such deceptive tactics.

@Nagle: What you call "whitewashing", others call WP:NPOV and are opposed to this obvious vilification. By mentioning [Streisand effect] and bringing up a small controversy with no notability, you seem to be saying "do not complain about how bad this article or we'll make it worse". This is unacceptable. Additionally, the part of the essay you have linked to [10] can be equally relevant to opposite cases - editors interested in character assassination will not mention (or remove) anything positive. We see many insignificant details in this article but it is missing one notable development - NFA has been sued for the complaint filed against FXCM.

Now on the topic itself:

While I agree that the ban is important, it is not "must be second sentence!" important. It does not make sense to put it in the middle of describing the company. Putting the scandal in the front makes the article read like sensational news rather than an encyclopedic entry and undermines authority of the whole WP project. I find arguments used in this article to be lackluster: The ban was indeed a major event and that is why whole second paragraph and over half of the whole article are centered around it. The company is not being closed down everywhere, they have already confirmed that they do not expect to be sanctioned by FCA. FXCM did not announce a danger of closing down, GLBR did. Potential financial loses by WP readers, that happen to be FXCM customers, are not an argument as WP is not a place for financial advice. Gouyoku (talk) 01:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

First, being booted out of the US market by the CFTC is a significant event, and belongs near the top. We went through this at Banc De Binary a few years ago. Second, putting in "alleged" as regards the CFTC action is a serious distortion of what is happening. FXCM is not challenging the CFTC decision. FXCM settled their lawsuit with the CFTC in February, 2017.[11] They could have fought it in court, but didn't; they settled and paid the CFTC penalty. So "alleged" is totally wrong here. This new case, "1:17-cv-04245 Effex Capital, LLC et al v. National Futures Association et al", is about Effex Capital suing the National Futures association for "Libel, Assault, Slander", from the PACER court records. Effex Capital is concerned with being blamed for FXCM's problems. John Nagle (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Significant event, and belongs near the top - I agree, and edit done by Lqdr left it near the top. The point is, this information does not make sense in the middle of company introduction. We did not go through this at Banc De Binary as I was not part of that conversation.

On another note, addition of "alleged" is not only an accurate representation, but also required as per WP:NPOV. Settlement is not an automatic admission of guilt unless the settlement itself includes such admission, which it did not in this case. FXCM was not the only party indicated by CFTC and NFA in February and I believe the only reason CFTC is not being sued is that it anonymized Effex in their order as "HFT Co". If you would like to continue discussing this addition, please open a new section about it. This would prohibit Lqdr from taking further part in this conversation, as employees of FXCM are prohibited from denying any findings of the order. Gouyoku (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Note that Effex was not mentioned in this article until you put it here. The relevant ruling is in the CFTC v. FXCM, in which FXCM agreed with the allegations (for the purposes of the court order) and then agreed to the court order. They waived their right of trial and or appeal. So there is nothing "alleged" here. It's the finding of the regulatory agency and the US court. So Effex suing somebody other than the CFTC is irrelevant. FXCM agreed to the charges and the penalty. End of story. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a gross misrepresentation of the case. FXCM has been banned by both CFTC and NFA for the same reasons. NFA named Effex as the counterparty that was left anonymous by CFTC. If you read the articles sourced, you will see Effex claims are exactly the reasons CFTC gave for the ban. https://financefeeds.com/nfa-admits-complexity-issues-raised-effex-capitals-complaint/ additional source, not yet included on the page, will explain to you why this case is important to FXCM.

Moreover, settlement is not an automatic admittence of guilt. CFTC is not a court, so using "court order" is invalid. FXCM never agreed with the allegations, which I have sourced already on this talk page.

I propose we move the last few comments to a new section, as it has nothing to do with inclusion of the ban in the second sentence. Gouyoku (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

We'll just have to agree to disagree on who is making a"gross misrepresentation of the case." I don't understand why anybody would want to whitewash the case of a company lying to its customers and getting kicked out of the US for it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

And I don't understand why someone would like to vilify a company to the point it makes the article read like a hit piece rather than encyclopedic content. Wikipedia is better than this. If I did not intervene, the article would still talk about FXCM in past tense and have many other factual errors. Gouyoku (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The sentence you changed to "FXCM has been banned from trading in the United States for alleged "fraudulent misrepresentation" to its customers[4], which is now being challenged in court.[5][6]" is obviously wrong. Nobody is challenging FXCM's banning in the US. Nobody is challenging "fraudulent misrepresentation" by FXCM. A 3rd party has filed a lawsuit against a 4th party. FXCM has signed away their right to appeal and agreed to the settlement (being kicked out of the US, so there is no "alleged" about this. I'll change this back if you can't come up with a reference to the banning being appealed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is challenging FXCM's banning from the US - true. It is not true however that nobody is challenging the "fraudulent misrepresentation". Two parties banned FXCM - CFTC and NFA. Two companies were indicated in this case - FXCM and Effex. Now Effex is challenging NFA on the core arguments behind the "fraudulent misrepresentation" - they claim that Effex was not controlled by FXCM and was not their Dealing Desk. And once again - agreeing to a settlement is not an automatic admission of guilt. There is indeed nothing alleged about the ban, but we cannot write "fraudulent misrepresentation" without alleged part, even without the Effex v NFA case. Gouyoku (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I have modified the sentence to be more clear what is being challenged but you went ahead and removed it anyway. I believe that if you insist on the sentence with "fraudulent misrepresentation" to be second in the article, then due weight must be given to the recent doubts about the charge validity. Please give me ideas how it could be improved, but don't remove it outright. Gouyoku (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The inclusion of qualifiers on "FXCM has been banned from trading in the United States for "fraudulent misrepresentation" to its customers."are just wrong. Adding "alleged" or "charges of alleged" is just nonsense - the legal matter has been fully decided, no appeal is possible. FXCM does not dispute "fraudulent misrepresentation." Adding "which are now being challenged in court" is further nonsense nobody is challenging the order against FXCM. The fact that Effex has filed a lawsuit against the NFA is just "other stuff". Filing a lawsuit in itself means nothing and nothing has happened yet. A 3rd party filing a lawsuit against a 4th party means less than nothing.

Lqdr has addressed this all above. Re: "FXCM has been banned from trading in the United States for "fraudulent misrepresentation".

So to reiterate the point I made in the 2nd paragraph again, there is no contention whatsoever surrounding the factual accuracy of what has been added to the page. The only contention from our side is with regards to the use of that information in the 2nd sentence of the article. .... Our only possible contention is regarding the positioning of the second sentence, "FXCM has been banned from trading in the United States for "fraudulent misrepresentation" to its customers." It's been almost 6 months now since the US FXCM ban and the placement of this info and subsequent visibility from a branded search in Google seems excessive and not befitting the history or broader offering FXCM provides.

So from his point of view, it's all about moving the sentence down and off Google graph.

Let's just wait for Lqdr to weigh in. I think we'll be able to agree with what he wants to do. But the nonsense has to stay out. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Lenaldinhodietmar has been making SEO edits designed to eliminate "fraudulent misrepresentation" from the knowledge graph. This is quite easy to document, though I'm not sure I can post my screen shots on-Wiki. I have asked Lenaldinhodietmar whether he is a paid editor and he has not yet responded. I assume, however, that people don't do SEO for free. Just stop the nonsense. If you want to have a civilized discussion about it, please just state your case on this page. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Why do you insist on making a mess of the talk page ? Is it to confuse other editors to prevent them from joining the discussion? This and previous thread are about importance of having the US ban as second sentence. I will open a new thread for "SEO edits" and Effex court case. Please feel free to move your comments on these topics to the proper threads and try to stay on topic in the future.

I would like to remind you, that Lqdr will not be able to comment on the Effex case, as he is legally prohibited from "take[ing] any action or make[ing] any public statement denying, directly or indirectly, any findings or conclusions in this Order or creating, or tending to create, the impression that [the] Order is without a factual basis". Gouyoku (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

References

SEO edits

@Smallbones:, why did you remove[12] the full legal name of FXCM[13] from the lede? First sentence should include alternative names. Are you attempting SEO? Please do not engage in disruptive editing and remember you do not WP:OWN the article, so arguments that you "don't want" something are invalid. Gouyoku (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

See http://ir.globalbrokerage.info/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1144204-17-11076&CIK=1499912 and most recent annual report Nobody calls them Forex Capital Markets anymore. Ok, in the annual report they use "Forex Capital Markets" 28 times and "FXCM" 344 times, not to mention "Global Brokerage" 228 times. So you are talking about a piece of the whole under a name almost nobody uses anymore.

More importantly I am just sick of short-term SPAs being obstructionist on this article. I am not going to let you do SEO work on this article. If you don't like it file a complaint somewhere. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

You are the one doing SEO work, as both names were present in the first sentence from the very beginning of the article in 2010[[14]]. You even admitted to being interested in google charts while it should not matter at all. Thank you for linking to the GLBR annual reports that prove my point - "Forex Capital Markets" is the full name of the company and is still in use. Hardly anyone uses Advanced Micro Devices or International Business Machines Corporation but these names are also valid. I object to removal of content that does not improve the article and has blatant goals irrelevant to the WP project. Gouyoku (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: this has been discussed in an RfM[15]. Gouyoku (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Effex court case

@Smallbones:, you are repeating the same flawed argument again. The ban case is not limited to FXCM and CFTC but also includes NFA and Effex. This is not an opinion but a fact that can be backed up by direct quotes from secondary sources, for example: [16]

(...)the litigation involving FXCM after the broker had to leave the US retail Forex market following settlements with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the National Futures Association (NFA).

Why is this Preliminary Injunction Motion so important? Of course, if the NFA takes down the publications, this will be a win for Effex Capital and its CEO. More importantly, however, the claims made in these publications serve as the basis for a number of legal cases launched against FXCM, Global Brokerage Inc (NASDAQ:GLBR), previously known as FXCM Inc, Drew Niv, William Ahdout and other (former and current) principals of FXCM, as well as Effex Capital.

Notability of this is well established, and to give it due weight, must be included with the mention of "fraudulent misrepresentation" allegations. Do not remove it just because you do not like it. Gouyoku (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

You are just repeating the same nonsense again. FXCM submitted the order to the CFTC for their approval. Legally, "fraudulent misrepresentation" is their own words, approved by the CFTC. They cannot appeal it. It is a settled matter legally. They are kicked out of the US. What Effex does with the NFA has no bearing on the case. More pure obstructionism on your part. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting the sources. The only part of the order that FXCM submitted was point VI. - Offer of settlement[[17]], and it does not include this wording. NFA admitted the case is complicated and sources explain why it is relevant to FXCM. I am going to request official help with resolving our recent disputes. Gouyoku (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you acting as FXCM's lawyer now? If so you need to make a paid editor declaration. I'd really rather hear from Lqdr who has declared that he is acting on FXCM's behalf here. If everything is fine with FXCM concerning the facts given in the article, I don't see where you personally have any complaint. The order is between the CFTC and FXCM (and their execs) only. The CFTC banned FXCM from the US because of "fraudulent misrepresentation". There is simply no question of that. Effex's complaint against the NFA has no bearing on that. Stop the BS. I can, I hope, come to a consensus with somebody who is open about who they are representing. But somebody who is just spouting nonsense - please don't bother me or the article anymore. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting sources. The case is between CFTC, NFA, FXCM and Effex. Your refusal to acknowledge it, despite all the sources supporting it, does not change the facts. What FXCM itself wishes about the article is irrelevant, as Wikipedia is supposed to be based on secondary sources coverage. Also, once again you accuse me of being a paid editor. As this is a serious accusation, please provide evidence or retract your claim. You have done it so many times, it is getting hard to interpret it as anything other than personal attacks. Gouyoku (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I hope everyone had some good rest. Since our last encounter, FXCM made a statement about the allegation: "Global Brokerage Inc., which changed its name from FXCM Inc. earlier this year, said it did not admit to any allegations as part of its February settlements with the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the National Futures Association."[18]. As we had no chance to talk about this case in the course of our mediation, I will add it again. Since FXCM made a statement, previous arguments against this are no longer valid. Gouyoku (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

No more games

Four registered editors, including a declared representative of FXCM, were blocked as sockpuppets at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gouyoku/Archive and then an IP address traceable to the company made 2 disruptive edits. All the socks were blocked after making similar edits to @Gouyoku: and the IP, which Gouyoku repeated several minutes ago. Pinging @Courcelles:, the blocking admin for the socks, to see what he'd like to do.

I'm frankly tired of SPAs+ messing with this article. Gouyoku has taken me to ANI, Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/FXCM, and Dispute Resolution without proving anything except that he can get his friends blocked. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

We must state verifiable facts based on reliable sources. So far, I've not seen one reliable source denying that FXCM deceived its customers with the "no dealing desk" claim. Some of the edits have gone too far in trying to mitigate this. The conflict of interest editing and sockpuppetry are unacceptable.

That being said, regardless of any misconduct by FXCM here or in the markets, we should make the article format consistent with other corporate articles. It is standard to link the {{Official website}} both in the external links and in the infobox. To do otherwise, we would need a compelling reason, supported by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. —Guanaco 06:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It must be pointed out that edits made by the blocked editors were not similar to the one I just did. It would be against the settlement for representatives of FXCM to make a claim the reason for ban was untrue. That being said, please continue the discussion in the proper thread[19]. Reasoning for the edit are explained and sources supporting it are provided there. Gouyoku (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Although... ?

The following was put in the lede "Although it was banned from providing services to traders in the United States for defrauding its customers, the company still operates out of the USA but targets international clientele." Is this supposed to mean that FXCM has traders or customer support people in New York who are in contact with their clients? if so, we'd need to see a reference, since the reference we do have says:

"The entire FXCM operation is now run out of London, with FXCM Group LLC now being headed by CEO Brendan Callan, who has run FXCM’s European operations including FXCM UK out of London for most of the company’s history.

"The US operation has been effectively reduced to a holding company, whereby the formerly named FXCM Inc – now called Global Brokerage Inc (NASDAQ:GLBR) – manages its 50.1% stake in the operating company."

Meanwhile, we should be thinking about what happens when GLBR is delisted from NASDAQ. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure if SEC filings are a good reference, but according the latest Form 10-Q FXCM Group, LLC is providing FX trading services to clients worldwide and is still based at 55 Water Street New York, NY 10041. Enivid (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I see the 55 Water Street address (as executive offices), I don't actually see "providing FX trading services worldwide" although presumably somebody does this from somewhere. The connection between the NY address and the trading services is not in that document, and it would be OR to put that in the article. There's also this statement "The Corporation is primarily a holding company with limited business operations" and a note about layoffs in the US. An earlier SEC filing had a small unspecific section on sub-leasing out its then-current space in the US Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Please see the screenshots: services, address. Enivid (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but those extracts simply do not say that they conduct trading or customer support (i.e. operations) out of that office. When we have a ref that says "The entire FXCM operation is now run out of London, with FXCM Group LLC now being headed by CEO Brendan Callan, who has run FXCM’s European operations including FXCM UK out of London for most of the company’s history. "The US operation has been effectively reduced to a holding company, whereby the formerly named FXCM Inc – now called Global Brokerage Inc (NASDAQ:GLBR) – manages its 50.1% stake in the operating company."

We'd need something that explicitly contradicts that. How's this for a solution - You write to FXCM/GLBR and ask them to put out a press release explaining where they run their operations, and perhaps address many of the questions arising from the likely delisting on November 2, 2017 and the likely default that will result. If any reliable news source picks up the story we will then have a reference to cite. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement. All of the PR releases begin with NEW YORK in capitals. Regardless of the misleading opening sentence and questionable source about running its entire operation out of London, it is outright incorrect and 55 Water Street is the official headquarters. As others have raised this issue before, it's unnecessary for the opening sentence in the bio of a company to explicitly state the ban + the false information following. Request a press release. Additionally, I suggest you do a quick search on Linkedin for FXCM employees in the US- there are hundreds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ss1215 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have neither interest nor time for that. If the available sources do not justify the changes I proposed, we can just wait for some news or reports that would clarify this stuff and then update the article respectively (if necessary).Enivid (talk) 09:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not clear what FXCM does at 50 Water St. They had the entire 50th floor, and they had a trading floor there.[20]. They're apparently stuck with the space through 2026.[21] Their current trading floor is at 10 Lower Thames Street, 8th Floor, London.[22]. No idea what they're doing with their 60,000 square feet in New York. John Nagle (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Enivid, I think you definitely have both the interest and time to correctly figure it out before declaring false information is true because you refuse to look into it. Actually, thanks to User:Nagle, the sourced reference [23] clearly answers this in two different places: "Our company headquarters is located at 55 Water Street, 50th Floor, New York, NY 10041, with other U.S. offices in Plano, TX, Chicago, IL and San Francisco, CA. Outside the U.S., we have offices in London, Paris, Berlin, Milan, Athens, Bulgaria, Hong Kong, Sydney, Melbourne, Tokyo, and multiple offices in China." as well as "Our principal executive offices are located 55 Water Street, FL. 50, New York, NY 10041 and our telephone number is 212-897-7660". Now, is that enough to change the false statement of running corporate headquarters out of London? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ss1215 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Bankruptcy

Note that GLBR filed for bankruptcy reorganization on December 11, 2017 as previously announced. I'd put reliable sources in for the expected bankruptcy, but now only have a a company press release to confirm the actual bankruptcy (republished by NASDAQ). I don't think this should be a problem, but please do check it out if you have your doubts.

There's a certain amount of BS that is accompanying the previous bankruptcy intention announcement. It goes something like this: GLBR will benefit from the bankruptcy, its creditors will also benefit, the operating subsidiary FXCM Group will not be affected, so everything is just hunky-dory. That's not how bankruptcies work. The plaintiffs in the various lawsuits are being left out of that equation. The Group will have a new owner most likely, the only question is who? Since we don't have any reliable source about what is likely to happen in bankruptcy, I'll suggest we leave it alone until we do have RS. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

This looks like a better source [24] but everything is still very incomplete. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Parking this link, might be useful in the future. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Help Requesting Edits

I am from FXCM and would like to request edits with the page. I realize that there are requirements I need to follow since I am from the company. Prior to making any request, I want to make sure that I am doing things correctly by disclosing my affiliation. In addition to declaring here on the talk page of the article, is there any other location I need to do so?--Formilds (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

After reading through the guidelines further, I believe that the above disclosure would suffice. Please correct me if I am wrong and let me know the correct disclosure needed. I will also propose edits below. Thank you. --Formilds (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Early History Edit Request

Propose to update the first paragraph of the history section to reflect the early history more accurately. The early name of Shalish Capital is not in the sources currently in the article or the others. It also removes the terminology of "one of the largest US futures brokers at the time" as this is not specific to FXCM. The new version also includes five additional sources for verification. The second paragraph also includes information about the results of the bankruptcy proceedings from Refco.

Current version:

Forex Capital Markets was founded in 1999 in New York, and was one of the early developers of online forex trading. Initially, the firm was called Shalish Capital Markets, but after one year, rebranded as FXCM. In January 2003, FXCM entered into a partnership with Refco group, one of the largest US futures brokers at the time. Refco took a 35% stake in FXCM and licensed the FXCM software for use by its own clients. Refco filed for bankruptcy on October 17, 2005, a week after a $430 million fraud was discovered, and two months after its initial public offering of stock. Refco's CEO Phillip R. Bennett was later convicted of the fraud.[38] FXCM became entrenched in the Refco bankruptcy proceedings for several years.

Proposed version:

Forex Capital Markets was founded in 1999 by Drew Niv and five other associates. In 2003, the company sold a 35% equity stake to Refco, a U.S. futures broker. As a part of the agreement, FXCM allowed Refco to license the FXCM software for use by Refco clients. By 2005, FXCM's platform had 70,000 customers and a revenue of roughly $260 million. In October 2005, Refco filed for bankruptcy protection after it was revealed that its CEO, Phillip R. Bennett, had failed to disclose $430 million in debt. Bennett was later convicted of fraud in 2008.

In November 2005, Refco agreed, in part, to sell its 35% stake back (which included 15,000 customer accounts) to FXCM for $110 million. In March 2006, however, Refco's creditors disallowed the deal and, later, denied a separate $130 million bid by FXCM. Refco's stake in FXCM was eventually sold to a consortium of buyers, including Lehman Brothers Holdings.

References

Reply 01-AUG-2018

 Unable to review edit request

Your edit request could not be reviewed because it is unclear in portions of the request which references are connected to which claim statements. When proposing edit requests, it is important to highlight in the text which specific sources are doing the referencing for each claim. Note the example below, which mirrors the first half of your edit request:

N INCORRECT

The sun is pretty big, but the moon is not so big. The sun is also quite hot.

References

---

      1. Sjöblad, Tristan. The Sun. Academic Press, 2018, p. 1.
      2. Duvalier, Gabrielle. "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 51(78):46.
      3. Uemura, Shū. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2018, p. 2.

In the example above there are three references provided, but they are all placed at the end of the passage. This placement fails to indicate which reference applies where. Your edit request similarly does not specify where the references you have provided are to be placed, and which particular claims they cover. These links between material and their source references must be more clearly made, as shown in the next example below:

Y CORRECT

The sun is pretty big, but the moon is not so big. The sun is also quite hot.

References

---

In the example above, the links between the provided references and their claim statements are made clearly. In the second half of your request, the references are spaced more appropriately, as in the example above. The same cannot be said for the first half in which references are bunched together. This should not be the case, especially when there is plenty of room and lots of claims in this first part for them to spread out to.

Kindly reformulate your edit request so that it aligns more with the second example above in its entirety, and feel free to re-submit that edit request at your earliest convenience. Regards,  spintendo  03:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I spaced out the references, although they all have an overview of the company and contain all of the information mentioned in the paragraph above. I simply used three different ones as stronger support. However, I spread them out to make sure that they are more in line with how you instructed. --Formilds (talk) 04:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that, it's much appreciated. One more thing, if you could disclose on your talk page the nature of your COI with this company and whether you are paid. I see that you've placed it here on the talk page alredy, if you could do so on your own talk page too that would be great thank you!  spintendo  04:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. I asked about disclosure above but no one responded so thank you for directing me. I put the notice on my talk page now. Let me know if there is any other location where the disclosure needs to be made. Thanks again for reviewing the request. --Formilds (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The proposed text to be added might encounter slight difficulty fitting in the exact location where you specified it to go. For instance, the information in your proposed section deals with events up till the year 2005 (e.g., "In November 2005, Refco agreed,"). Adding the section to the article in the location which you've specified would have the sentence immediately following your addition beginning with events which occurred in 2003 (e.g., "In 2003, FXCM expanded overseas when it opened an office in London "). This is a full 2 years before the events covered at the end of your proposed section (2005). Reading the information in this way may be slightly disorienting, as the reader would find themselves being told about events in a backwards fashion. A better proposal would have this text more integrated into the overall flow of the text surrounding it. Please feel free to rewrite this section as needed in your proposal, taking care to include other sentences around it, altering them as needed, and then submit that proposal here to see if we can get it to fit better. When ready to proceed, go ahead and create a new level 2 heading at the bottom of the talk page and below that add a new edit request template. Also, wanted to thank you again for taking care of the filling-out of your disclosure, that was much appreciated! Regards,  spintendo  06:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Spintendo, I agree with you 100%. The only thing is that the sentence order in article is what is already there. I only proposed changes to the current paragraphs that are already there. This is one of many issues with the article that I would like to propose changes for, but I didn't want to propose large chunks all at the same time. I will take your advise and incorporate the next sentence into a proposal below, including proposing some changes to the order of the content. Thank you so much for the advice. --Formilds (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

In fact, I have a lot of edits that I would like to propose. If you think it would be easier to do them all at once, please let me know. I just wanted to do it in smaller chunks so that it was easier to review. Thanks for the help. --Formilds (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

New edit request - history section

Based on the discussion and advice in the section above, I would propose updating the history section with the following information. The first two paragraphs would be replaced with the new proposed paragraphs.

Current version:

Forex Capital Markets was founded in 1999 in New York, and was one of the early developers of online forex trading. Initially, the firm was called Shalish Capital Markets, but after one year, rebranded as FXCM. In January 2003, FXCM entered into a partnership with Refco group, one of the largest US futures brokers at the time. Refco took a 35% stake in FXCM and licensed the FXCM software for use by its own clients. Refco filed for bankruptcy on October 17, 2005, a week after a $430 million fraud was discovered, and two months after its initial public offering of stock. Refco's CEO Phillip R. Bennett was later convicted of the fraud.[38] FXCM became entrenched in the Refco bankruptcy proceedings for several years.

In 2003, FXCM expanded overseas when it opened an office in London which became regulated by the UK Financial Services Authority.[39]

Proposed version:

Forex Capital Markets was founded in 1999 by Drew Niv and five other associates. In 2003, the company sold a 35% equity stake to Refco, a U.S. futures broker. As a part of the agreement, FXCM allowed Refco to license the FXCM software for use by Refco clients. By 2005, FXCM's platform had 70,000 customers and a revenue of roughly $260 million. In 2003, FXCM expanded overseas when it opened an office in London which became regulated by the UK Financial Services Authority.

In October 2005, Refco filed for bankruptcy protection after it was revealed that its CEO, Phillip R. Bennett, had failed to disclose $430 million in debt. Bennett was later convicted of fraud in 2008. In November 2005, Refco agreed, in part, to sell its 35% stake back (which included 15,000 customer accounts) to FXCM for $110 million. In March 2006, however, Refco's creditors disallowed the deal and, later, denied a separate $130 million bid by FXCM. Refco's stake in FXCM was eventually sold to a consortium of buyers, including Lehman Brothers Holdings.

References

This proposal does not include changes that the rest of the text in this section should have. The general idea is that elements of different paragraphs flow together chronologically, so that you dont have one paragraph describing occurrences in one year and the next paragraph describing occurrences in a previous year, while the paragraph after these then describes occurrences 2 years after the year mentioned in the first paragraph. These elements should all come in order to how they occurred. The exception to this would be in different sections describing events which occurred in one context. These events may have occurred at different times with respect to the events concerning another context, which is why they would be placed in a different section. It would be alright if the dates in the different sections did not align with events in another section. The proposal you have suggested all occurs within one section, but has dates which do not chronologically flow with the other dates in this section.  spintendo  16:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Propose move of the pre-bankruptcy section

In order to keep things in more chronilogical order, I would propose moving the "Pre-bankruptcy corporate structure" section under the history section, just after the "financial issues" section. --Formilds (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

New Edit Request - History Section

I transposed two sentences in the above request, but these events happen in the same context. I have now corrected so that things are in the correct chronological order. Based on the discussion and advice in the section above, I would propose updating the history section with the following information. The first two paragraphs would be replaced with the new proposed paragraphs.

Current version:

Forex Capital Markets was founded in 1999 in New York, and was one of the early developers of online forex trading. Initially, the firm was called Shalish Capital Markets, but after one year, rebranded as FXCM. In January 2003, FXCM entered into a partnership with Refco group, one of the largest US futures brokers at the time. Refco took a 35% stake in FXCM and licensed the FXCM software for use by its own clients. Refco filed for bankruptcy on October 17, 2005, a week after a $430 million fraud was discovered, and two months after its initial public offering of stock. Refco's CEO Phillip R. Bennett was later convicted of the fraud.[38] FXCM became entrenched in the Refco bankruptcy proceedings for several years.

In 2003, FXCM expanded overseas when it opened an office in London which became regulated by the UK Financial Services Authority.[39]

Proposed version:

Forex Capital Markets was founded in 1999 by Drew Niv and five other associates. In 2003, the company sold a 35% equity stake to Refco, a U.S. futures broker. As a part of the agreement, FXCM allowed Refco to license the FXCM software for use by Refco clients. In 2003, FXCM expanded overseas when it opened an office in London which became regulated by the UK Financial Services Authority. By 2005, FXCM's platform had 70,000 customers and a revenue of roughly $260 million.

In October 2005, Refco filed for bankruptcy protection after it was revealed that its CEO, Phillip R. Bennett, had failed to disclose $430 million in debt. In November 2005, Refco agreed, in part, to sell its 35% stake back (which included 15,000 customer accounts) to FXCM for $110 million. Bennett was later convicted of fraud in 2008. Refco's stake in FXCM was eventually sold to a consortium of buyers, including Lehman Brothers Holdings.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Formilds (talk • contribs) 02:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Reply 21-AUG-2018

   Clarification needed  

1. FXDailyReport is a press release.

A:This sentence and reference were already in the article. If the sources is not suitable, I would say we remove it from the proposal as well as the actual article since it is there already.

Actually, I found it in a Financial Times reference here but that is also "paywalled" (you would need to answer their survey or sign in which is a pain and I wouldn't ask you to do). So if it cannot be accessed then we should just remove it from the article and request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formilds (talk • contribs) 01:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 Reply  If this was already in the article, then I'm not sure why it was added to the request. Requests to add new information should not be intertwined with text that is already existing in the article and for which there is no desire to either add or remove.  spintendo  12:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

1. No problems with the claims backed by the New York Times.

A:Thank you.

1. The WSJ and Financial Times are behind paywalls, in which case it would be helpful if the quote parameter in the references were utilized.

A:I can do that; however, can you provide clarification? Are you wanting me to add the actual wording from each article into the quote parameter? I believe that is what you mean but I don't want to assume.

 Reply  Yes. That way the reviewer can access the info without having a subscription.  spintendo  11:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

1. The claim regarding Refco's creditors disallowing a deal and denying a separate bid by FXCM is from a piece by Chris McMahon, where the author states "The bottom line is former RFX customers had their money tied up for nearly a year after a deal was in place that may have returned their money in full, and in the end they ended up with a fraction of their account value as opposed to the secured creditors who nixed the deal and ended up being paid in full." Writing such as that makes me believe that the piece is an editorial. It is definitely worded as such. Is there another source we can use here? Please advise.

A:I see what you mean. It is likely the best reference available. There are others, but they are also similar publications and I don't think they have the same type of oversight as a media outlet such as New York Times or Wall Street Journal. What I will do is revise the request above by removing the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formilds (talk • contribs) 01:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 Reply  If that is the only reference available, perhaps its best to leave it out. He seems to be laying out facts, but delivers them in such a way that makes them sound like an argument, whereas other journalists will have a way of conveying info that they dont need to argue. Also by using the term "bottom line" it makes the piece sound as if hes paraphrasing wherever it is that hes getting his info from. I would have thought that the REFCO creditor deal would be more easily referenced and we could dispense with McMahon's piece.  spintendo  11:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Regards,  spintendo  04:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Spintendo. I hope that clarifies everything. If you can let me know about the quote parameter I will get that added to the request. Thanks again. --Formilds (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Declined

Please be mindful that a single word can create controversy so in my opinion it is best to use a "request edit" template for each sentence to be changed. Thinker78 (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The COI editor was going to use the quote parameter to try and help with the references which were behind paywalls. Beyond that, I believe that the request was pretty much complete. Of course if there was anything missing please open a new request to let us know ASAP. Thank you!  spintendo  04:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

More Edit Requests

I am back to propose changes to the page. I know you want sentence by sentence changes but there is so much content on the page that it is difficult to do. When one sentence is changed, it changes the context of the paragraph and ultimately results in the moving of other sentences. However, I did it both ways so that it will be easier (hopefully) for those reviewing. These changes are applicable to the first four paragraphs of the page.

CURRENT VERSION

(Here is the current version as it exists on the page as of October 15, 2018) FXCM, also known as Forex Capital Markets, is a retail foreign exchange broker, now run from London after being banned from United States markets for defrauding its customers.[2][3][4] Its former parent company, Global Brokerage, Inc. filed for bankruptcy on December 11, 2017.[5][6][7] The operating company, known as FXCM Group, is now owned by Jefferies Financial Group,[8] which changed its name from Leucadia National Corporation in 2018.[9]

FXCM allows retail clients to speculate on the foreign exchange market and provides trading in contract for difference (CFDs) on major indices and commodities such as gold and crude oil. Global Brokerage shareholders lost over 98% of their investment since January 2015.[10]

On February 6, 2017 the firm agreed to pay a $7 million penalty to settle a suit from the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) involving fraudulent misrepresentation by FXCM to its customers and to regulators. FXCM withdrew its CFTC registration and agreed not to re-register in the future, effectively banning it from trading in the United States.[11] Three top managers resigned under regulatory pressure and the majority owner of the firm changed its name to Global Brokerage Inc., effective January 27, 2017.[12][13][14][15]

A Managing Director of Leucadia National Corp, which before the bankruptcy held a 49.9% equity stake in the operating company,[16] was appointed chairman of the FXCM Group board.[17] Its U.S. accounts were sold to Gain Capital. About 40,000 customer accounts were sold at about $375 each.[13][18]

PROPOSED VERSION (Here is the proposed final version as outlined line by line below)

FXCM, also known as Forex Capital Markets, is a retail foreign exchange broker currently based in London. FXCM allows retail clients to speculate on the foreign exchange market and provides trading in contract for difference (CFDs) on major indices and commodities such as gold and crude oil. The exchange's operating company, FXCM Group, is owned by Leucadia.

In February 2017, the firm agreed to settle a suit with the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) after FXCM was accused of fraudulent misrepresentation involving its customers and regulators. Its parent company changed its name to Global Brokerage, Inc. (formerly FXCM, Inc.) that month. The parent company and three founding partners were ordered to pay a $7 million penalty and withdraw their CFTC registration, effectively ending the exchange's U.S. operations. Its U.S. accounts (around 40,000 in total) were sold to Gain Capital for $375 apiece.

Global Brokerage filed for bankruptcy in November 2017, but officially reorganized in February 2018. While the company technically owns a 51% equity stake in FXCM Group, its agreement with Leucadia and FXCM about future distributions of cash flows places its real economic interest in FXCM at 10 to 50%. Leucadia remains the de facto parent company of the FXCM Group.

References

SENTENCE BY SENTENCE

• First sentence change from: "FXCM, also known as Forex Capital Markets, is a retail foreign exchange broker, now run from London after being banned from United States markets for defrauding its customers" To - "FXCM, also known as Forex Capital Markets, is a retail foreign exchange broker currently based in London." The rest of the information, specifically "after being banned from United States markets for defrauding its customers" will be moved in part the second paragraph. Itdoesn't seem appropriate for the opening sentence. It is more of a coatrack and that information is more suitable in the third paragraph where it talks about it being banned from US Markets (keeping everything together).

• Move first sentence of second paragraph - "FXCM allows clients to speculate on the foreign exchange market and provides trading in contract for differences on major indices and commodities such as gold and crude oil. - to the second sentence of the first paragraph. In keeping with common lead sections for Wikipedia, this describes more of what the company does.

• Move second sentence of first paragraph - "Its former parent company, Global Brokerage, Inc. filed for bankruptcy on December 11, 2017" - to the first sentence in the third paragraph. Rewriting it slightly to reflect the actual dates of bankruptcy filing and reorganization. The new sentence should read - "Global Brokerage filed for bankruptcy in November 2017, but officially reorganized in February 2018."

• Remove the last sentence of the first paragraph - "The operating company, known as FXCM Group, is now owned by Jefferies Financial Group,[8] which changed its name from Leucadia National Corporation in 2018.[9]" - and replace with - "The exchange's operating company, FXCM Group, is owned by Leucadia." - the structure of the company is explained in the body of the article so not necessary to have all of the previous company names in the first paragraph.

• The current second paragraph would be eliminated based on the moves and changes above.

• The new second paragraph (or the current third paragraph), shoudl read - "In February 2017, the firm agreed to settle a suit with the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) after FXCM was accused of fraudulent misrepresentation involving its customers and regulator" - which is only a slight change from the current. It is clearer settlement.

• The current second sentence of the third paragraph remains from a move above.

• Combine the first and second sentences of the third paragraph to read as follows - "The parent company and three founding partners were ordered to pay a $7 million penalty and withdraw their CFTC registration, effectively ending the exchange's U.S. operations" - this clears up wording so it is easier to understand that operations in the US ceased and a penalty was levied.

• Add the following as the last sentence to the third paragraph (or new second paragraph) - "Its U.S. accounts (around 40,000 in total) were sold to Gain Capital for $375 apiece" - this gives an account of what happened to the US accounts once trading in the US ceased. It is currently the last sentence in the fourth paragraph but should be moved up so that it falls inline with the events of operations ceasing in the US.

• I believe that with those moves, additions, and changes, there should be only three paragraphs. The third paragraph (above) contains much of the same context but reworded.

NOTE - Above I went through line by line and hopefully got it right. However, I put everything into what the actual opening paragraphs would be like with the changes above so that you can see it all laid out. Let me know if there are any questions or you need additional clarification for any of the changes. --Formilds (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Reply 15-OCT-2018

  Unable to review edit request  

1. "The current second paragraph would be eliminated based on the moves and changes above." —in other words, delete something because you've written something different to take its place. This requires a more developed rationale in order to proceed.
2. The reason why this is in the lead is because it was an event which irrevocably altered how the company was to operate.
3. None of the references which would inevitably need to be deleted with the removal of certain sentences have been identified in your request. Instead of identifying the full reference, a number placed within brackets (i.e., [2]) has been inserted into text labeled as "current text". These numbers are not linked in any way to references located on the talk page.
4. The one substantive change you've proposed is the change of operating company name from JFG to LNC. This change of acronyms may be more about window dressing though. Can you confirm that the people involved in JFG are the same as those with LNC? Please advise.  Spintendo  05:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Notes

Comment 26-OCT-2018

Spintendo, I am confused as the response above does not address all of the requests. What I am looking to do is have someone review all of the proposed edits that are in my sandbox. The current article does not list the history correctly as there seems to be a confusion of ownership throughout the years. The copy in my sandbox better defines it and also reads more neutral than the current article, including the opening paragraphs. I was looking through recent requests for COI edits which led me to find another similar request which was handled without all the need to break down each and every section. I would request that the draft article in my sandbox be reviewed and the changes updated to the live page. --Formilds (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I also left a message on the talk page of Chetsford who did the review of the article on Move (company).--Formilds (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Formilds: I believe I've reviewed all the requests you've placed before me. If you have others, or have revised some of the earlier problematic requests, please feel free to re-submit them here at your earliest convenience.  Spintendo  02:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Spintendo: There is actually a request above from October 27, 2018. I left more of a detailed explanation on the talk page of Chesterford. --Formilds (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Formilds, I am going to take a look at the draft but note that I will likely only use it as a guide for any edits that I include in the page. My review will be more of a review of the current page compared to your draft to see if there is a way to improve the current page, not just add language that the company is requesting. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Formilds, I notice on your draft that you removed much of the information associated with the company's legal troubles. While there may be some WP:UNDUE issues, I cannot see why it would be warranted to remove the issues. Can you explain your rationale for the removal?--CNMall41 (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@CNMall41:. Thank you for looking at the draft. I did not remove negative information and it is not my intention to do that. I just put the information in proper context with the history. I even kept headings that were negative such as "loss of license" and "legal issues." The goal is to have the article read more clearly with regards to ownership structure and where the legal issues fall within the company history. It is not even my goal to have information such as a list of our services or awards. Just looking to have this read more neutral and keep the history accurate with regards to the legal issues. If the negative information must be in its own sections I understand, but think that it is better to have it within the context of the history.

I even highlighted the areas of the draft that contained negative information which is over 50% of the draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formilds (talk • contribs) 02:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I will take a look in a few days. In the meantime, please remember to sign your comments. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Formilds, with all due respect, this company has a ton of legal issues and they are very difficult to wade through. The current page is difficult to decipher but so is the draft you presented. I am going to wait for feedback from others on the bankruptcy section below prior to doing any further edits. Even though you have a COI, you are welcome to engage in the discussion as long as you do not make edits to the article itself. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Formilds, I implemented quite a bit of your request. Although, I did not remove all of the negative information you requested such as the part about the number of total actions and the sentence about the class actions that were filed. There is also a reference you invoked as "MWGlobal" but cannot locate it in the draft you left in your sandbox. Please provide me with the link to this. For others watching the page, I left more detailed edit summaries than normal. I am just wondering about opinions for the lede at this point and I will start a new thread below but the COI request can be considered closed. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

References Questions

Going through the page, I found a few publications which I am not sure about reliability. They appear to be industry publications so hopefully someone can opine about their use. I will search and can likely find better sources but would like to know just in case.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• LeapRate
• FXRate
• Finance Feeds
• Finance Magnates
• FXdailyReport

These are OK sources from my experience: LeapRate, Finance Feeds, Finance Magnates. All three have some kind of editorial standards. I have never heard of FXRate or FXdailyReport. Enivid (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Enivid. I am waiting for Formilds to respond in the last section prior to doing anything else with the page. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Bankruptcy section

I placed this here for discussion. I replaced the COI users request for the bankruptcy wording as it does indeed make thing clearer. The wording below looks like a court transcript of the play by play of the bankruptcy. Not sure what, if any, of the below should be worked back into the section but leaving it here for discussion.--CNMall41 (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Prior to the bankruptcy in the US, the parent company, Global Brokerage Inc (formerly called FXCM Inc.) was publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange until early 2017, and then on NASDAQ until its delisting in December 2017, soon after it announced its bankruptcy filing. Global Brokerage owned a 74.5% interest in Global Brokerage Holdings, which owned 50.1% of FXCM. Leucadia National Corp owned the other 49.9%, plus debt worth $123 million as of March 31, 2017. FXCM owned all the operating companies including FXCM UK. Leucadia did not own any shares in Global Brokerage.

Ken Grossman was CEO of Global Brokerage. Drew Niv, who had earlier resigned the position, was interim Chief Executive Officer of Global Brokerage until about May 15, 2017. Grossman had an unusual contract to pay him $600,000 in base salary plus a bonus of $1,000,000 if he stayed in the position for a full year, but with his tenure to terminate in one year.

At FXCM Group Brendan Callan was the CEO and Jimmy Hallac of Leucadia was Chairman of the Board. COO David Sakhai receives base compensation of $600,000 per year plus a $1,000,000 bonus. Eduard Yusupov, the head dealer, received $600,000 in base pay. Global Brokerage, Inc. had a market capitalization of about $12 million in May 2017. Cash generated by FXCM was first applied to pay off the debt owned by Leucadia, which had the right to force a sale of FXCM in January 2018 if the debt was not paid.

FXCM owned about 34.5% of the ECN FastMatch which was sold to the Euronext exchange for $153-$163 million. FXCM realized about $55.6 million on the sale.

At least three sets of lawsuits were filed against the parent firm, Global Brokerage, Inc. Shareholders contend that they were misled by the company's initial public offering prospectus or otherwise defrauded by management. Former customers contend that they were defrauded by the claim that they were trading on a "no dealing desk" system. In the UK Daniela Shurbanova filed a suit claiming that trades that resulted in $460,000 in profits for her were simply cancelled. FXCM said that the trades were cancelled because the prices they quoted were changed more slowly than actual market prices, and that Shurbanova was trading to take advantage of the price discrepancies.

FXCM reported negative earnings of $28.2 million for the quarter ending March 1, 2017 and held $141.7 million in cash. They owed $121 million to Leucadia. Global Brokerage owed another $163 million to convertible note holders.

The market capitalization of Global Brokerage, Inc. (known as FXCM, Inc. until 2017) fell by 90% in 2015 and an additional 58% in 2016. On February 7, 2017 it fell by another 50% with the stock price ending at $3.45. The share price continued to drop to $2.00 on May 25, 2017 with a market capitalization of about $12 million. Before Global Brokerage declared their intention to seek bankruptcy protection in November, 2017, its shares were trading at about $1.30, and then fell another 27% to $0.95 by November 22. On July 25, 2018 Global Brokerage shares traded at $0.07, giving the company a market capitalization of less than $600,000.

The prepackaged bankruptcy was scheduled to be officially closed on June 14, 2018, but proceedings continued until about August 1. Noteholders were expected to be issued new securities as previously agreed. Provisions releasing managers and directors of the company from liability in civil suits are not expected to be adopted.

References

• Comment - The class action lawsuits for the IPO are already listed previously in the article so not sure why they need to be relisted here. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

How should the lede be phrased

The company has quite a bit of negative information to include, but not sure the current lede is reflected of the page history, especially after the implementation of several COI request (above). Here is the proposed wording by the COI editor. I would rather get a consensus on this prior to implementing any on the actual page. Note that I copied and pasted directly from User:Formilds/sandbox.--CNMall41 (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

FXCM, also known as Forex Capital Markets, is a retail foreign exchange broker currently based in London.[2] FXCM allows retail clients to speculate on the foreign exchange market and provides trading in contract for difference (CFDs) on major indices and commodities such as gold and crude oil.[3][4] The exchange's operating company, FXCM Group, is owned by Leucadia.[5]

In February 2017, the firm agreed to settle a suit with the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) after FXCM was accused of fraudulent misrepresentation involving its customers and regulators.[6] Its parent company changed its name to Global Brokerage, Inc. (formerly FXCM, Inc.) that month.[7][8] The parent company and three founding partners were ordered to pay a $7 million penalty and withdraw their CFTC registration, effectively ending the exchange's U.S. operations.[6] Its U.S. accounts (around 40,000 in total) were sold to Gain Capital for $375 apiece.[9]

Global Brokerage filed for bankruptcy in November 2017, but officially reorganized in February 2018. While the company technically owns a 51% equity stake in FXCM Group, its agreement with Leucadia and FXCM about future distributions of cash flows places its real economic interest in FXCM at 10 to 50%. Leucadia remains the de facto parent company of the FXCM Group.[5][10]

About the company or by the company CEO

I removed this for a second time in as many days since it is not related to the company. Just because the CEO makes a statement about the industry doesn't mean that it is about the company or belongs on the company page. Would be happy to discuss and get a consensus if there are people who feel otherwise. Also, if we are including CEO quotes about the industry, why we would include this one in particular and not others?--CNMall41 (talk) 07:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

More Revert, But No Discussion!

Smallbones, I understand your want to make sure that negative information about this company is covered in Wikipedia. However, it is covered extensively. There is also a process for discussing edits and you seem to cross the line of WP:5P2 and WP:5P4. The edits I made were discussed not only on this page but also in detailed edit summaries. The edits I implemented were not as-is from the company and if you actually look, you will see that all the negative information about the company is in there (in fact, there is very little positive other than a few facts). However, you reverted them all saying "revert to last Alaney2k, per discussion at WP:COIN." Your revert caused the re-introduction of WP:SYNTH and edits that were not WP:NEUTRAL.

The discussion you mention was a report filed by you, basically stating that edits requested by a COIN editor are tainted if implemented by me since they originated from a company you are "running out of patience" with. The most relevant statment I see from the COIN report is from an admin who said - "Since the COI issue was previously flagged, and since Formilds is going through all the correct steps, there is nothing left for this board to resolve. User:CNMall41 is doing just what they are supposed to do in handling requests from a COI-affected editor. The material is not forever 'tainted' by originating from a proposal by User:Formilds. It is to be reviewed like any other proposed content."

There has bee NO policy base reason you have given for your reverts and NO discussion from you about the edits. I have reverted you a final time prior to filing an ANI report and ask that you discuss here. Please start to WP:AGF and not use Wikipedia to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2020

michael should be replaced as www.forexwolf.in 111.223.2.232 (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. GoingBatty (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)