Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
Looking for a futures broker and wonder whether the ratings from Atlas are valid?
I really like what I read about Matt and his team at Optimus, but Vision Financial is rated #50 by Atlas. That seems to be only marginally better than PFGBest/Peregrine Financial, which was rated #41, now busted for fraud.
Plus, did a BASIC search at NFA on Vision Financial and found ten regulatory actions and fines against them for general conduct, record keeping, trade practice, and sales practice. Not being too savvy about the regulatory stuff, it may well be that these types of actions are typical within the industry.
Seems reasonable to be concerned about Vision, but don't want to rely too heavily on the Atlas Ratings without knowing more about them... and don't want to give undue weight to the NFA info without knowing more about that process.
Would appreciate opinions from others who are more knowledgeable in this area.
I'd post the link to the BASIC search results on Vision, as well as the Atlas Ratings, but haven't made the requisite five posts yet, so not allowed to post links.
Can you help answer these questions from other members on NexusFi?
1. Let me see if I can help you get your post count up.
2. The one positive thing that came about due to the PFG fiasco is that traders are now taking due diligence seriously .
3. In regards to regulatory actions,for each broker you are interested in, take the number of actions and divide it by the number of years they have been in business. Then compare the brokers by their "action index". Rosenthal Collins has a lot more actions, but they have been in business for 90 years.
Read the actions and determine how serious they are. ex. I read one concerning Rosenthal Collins. A customer who lost $30,000 trading futures in his self directed account, filed a complaint against RCG to get his money back ,claiming RCG should never have allowed him to open an account since he claimed to be mentally disabled, even though he had acquired two college degrees and a mortgage and could show no proof he had ever informed RCG of his alleged disability.
4. For what it's worth, PFG cleared through Jefferies, who is rated at #54.
I'm just a simple man trading a simple plan.
My daddy always said, "Every day above ground is a good day!"
After the PFG collapse I've been evaluating my futures brokers to determine whether my capital is adequately protected. I'm certainly not panicking but it is clear regulation is poor and the required legislation to protect my capital is some time …
Perhaps we should start our own rating process? Some of the most interesting factors in my view are the structure of the FCM (controlled by whom/how many/audited by/....) and their business model (what do they derive income from? FCM, prop trading, interest rates....).
Also very important and a good starting point:
And one more question: Who the hell is Atlas and how do they do their rating?
Thanks for the suggestion. Not too concerned about Vision's arbitration issues because it looks as though most complaints did not stick. BTW, thanks for the help in getting to five posts!
The information they posted is simply taking data they assembled and creating a chart.
Kinda like the charts we trade with a SMA.
The SMA does not mean anything and the chart does not care about it.
But it is simply using historical data to create a measure of what has happened.
It does not predict the future or tell you of a coming crash or boom.
If you wish, you can assemble your own data and do you own comparison of that data.
Maybe you can come up with a better way to compare brokers that would benefit all.
Rejoice in the Thunderstorms of Life . . .
Knowing it's not about Clouds or Wind. . .
But Learning to Dance in the Rain ! ! !
I agree with you . The problem is deciding how to weight each category...
1. Should funds in excess of required deposits be weighted by size or percentage?
2. Should large firms with huge balance sheets be weighted heavier than small firms? If so, how does a small broker who offers excellent customer service get started?
3. How do you weight years in business? Is an older firm secure or a dangerous dinosaur? Is a newer firm a risk or are they more technologically astute?
Atlas appears to put a lot of weight on CFTC complaints. Rosenthall Collins is rated near the bottom. Is that because they deserve to be , or is it because they have been in business for 90 years and have accumulated a normal number of complaints per year?
I'm just a simple man trading a simple plan.
My daddy always said, "Every day above ground is a good day!"