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)
Mike, I followed this link to the new page, but that post showed no link to the cftc page, just a blank line. But when I did a Quote of your post there, the link did show in the Edit window: https://www.cftc.gov/MarketReports/financialfcmdata/index.htm . (I just pasted in here in this post, and I notice it isn't showing on Preview, but the Edit window does have it. Open a Quote and you will see it is there, but shows blank here.)
I probably should make a post in the changelog about this, but since this current I'll make it here unless you would prefer to have it there as well.
Bob.
When one door closes, another opens.
-- Cervantes, Don Quixote
Things were heating up over there. AMP replied with a bunch of lip service, promoting themselves and bashing this forum (see below). Others started asking more questions specifically pertaining to how AMP is handling their customers who were caught in the May Crude Oil contract with negative pricing. The forum founder stepped in, deleted a bunch of comments and closed down the thread due to "legal matters"
AMP GLOBAL:
Ok, guys....this is really getting out of scope. AMP has always been extremely risk management focused.
This customer's account was not closed due to the account balance. It was closed for compliance reasons.
We did have 8 customers caught in the May Crude - Negative pricing situation. This did NOT affect our operations or cause us any liquidity issues.
We actually took the time to figure out updated risk management for this new negative pricing reality (to try to help our customer NOT get into this situation again). https://news.ampfutures.com/temporary-margins-increase-energies-complex-april-2020
We are seeing more "fake news" campaign started on another forum by its hostile owner. He is trying to start another defamation campaign in order to please his sponsors - who are AMP competitors or generate any activity in his dead forum or it is just personal (all is our opinion).
Also "fake news" that we are not accepting big accounts. We are NOT closing accounts due to their size.
As previously stated, we have no account maximum and as low as $100 account minimum. We support all our customers like professionals - both BIG and SMALL.
We have been here for over 12+ years providing direct support and clear, accurate answers to ET users. So again, continue to ask us anything...(except about internal compliance procedures)
We are continuing to grow and expand our services for our customers. We are in the final stages of releasing very BIG solution.
Let's examine the facts, and see if AMP can follow along while we play tag across forums...
1. It's not "fake news" just because you don't like it. I realize that politics of late has coined the phrase, but it's just a cop out from anyone who doesn't like what you are telling them in order to reinforce their beliefs. Educate yourself, and start by never repeating the phrase "fake news" to anyone as a defense, but instead actually making useful defensible arguments.
2. It was not started by me. I am only guessing he is referring to the lawsuit, and I would like to remind him of the FACTS. Check here:
This is a public notice that AMP GLOBAL CLEARING aka AMP FUTURES TRADING has filed a lawsuit against nexusfi.com (formerly BMT) regarding posts on nexusfi.com (formerly BMT). This is not the first time AMP TRADING has used attorneys in an attempt to manipulate …
That thread contains detailed factual information. Factual as in proven by court records and transcripts. Not just cop out BS like "fake news".
The FACT is, AMP sued our community because I refused to remove content that put them in a negative light (the content was proven genuine). Period. That's the difference between me and other forums like the one he is posting on. Around $25,000 was spent defending that lawsuit, and guess what - AMP lost. Go read the thread.
3. Dead forum? In fact, last month we were less than 1% away from our highest new member numbers EVER in the history of our site (10+ years). Our monthly impressions are also growing steadily YoY, and have exploded higher recently. The FACTS don't support his claim.
4. Generated content to please our sponsors? That's just idiotic. In the same post he is referring to, I literally recommended IBKR which is not a site sponsor and in fact a competitor to our sponsors.
Why am I spending time responding? Because I believe it is not enough to just allow people like Dan Culp from AMP Global to claim "fake news" when they don't like something, and leave it at that without checking them.
We (all of us) must take time to stand up/speak up and educate these people. Teach them how to better arm themselves with facts from multiple reliable sources if they are just repeating something without having a defensible and fact based argument. Worse yet, if they know full well what they are doing is wrong when they say "fake news" just to deflect attention --- then it's even more important that we take the time to correct them. Otherwise, this new normal of crying "fake news" is just going to continue to spiral out of control.
AMP posted that they wouldn't discuss it publicly. But yet the customer asked why the account was closed, and they wouldn't tell him privately either. By phone or email.
Here is the main AMP review thread, getting back on topic for this subject:
First they overcharged commission than what they agreed and it took more than 2 weeks to refund that $2.
It took too many phone calls and emails to get my $2 back.
How convenient for AMP, wouldn't you say? AMP by the way is a site sponsor for ET.
If Baron and his site have any integrity, he would link my above reply to Dan in his thread. He would also not close a thread just because it's a negative opinion of a sponsor. And he would cite and post the specific legal notice he received (yeah right -- there is no such thing) explaining why he is forced to close the thread for "legal matters".
Attaching a PDF record of that thread, just in case it somehow were to get deleted or in case AMP should do some "legal matters" against us like they did for ET apparently.
Yes, and let it be known your pdf is missing the last segment of the conversation because Baron deleted a bunch of posts before he closed it.
Dan most likely reported the thread when a post asked AMP (Dan) how they were handling the 8 customers that were affected by negative pricing in the May Crude Oil contract.
What I have heard is Dan is harassing customers and threatening formal collection proceedings, despite the fact that the trading platforms AMP offered to customers (and supported) failed at $0.00, leaving customers unable to execute orders with their oil contracts. AMP was not prepared with proper risk management in place even though they were forewarned by CME advisories.
Would you want to put your money in the hands of someone like this?