Does anyone have concrete evidence to trust FF?

Pages: 1

Does anyone have concrete evidence to trust FF?
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: Cerebus28

I'm quite frankly astounded by the trust placed in feeder fund. Now please don't get me wrong. I'm not here to discredit FF, nor am I here to make any unfounded assertions. Given the extraordinary performance and flexibility of FF, I would like nothing more than for it to be legit. I've been looking for something like FF for a VERY long time.

With that said, I'm also skeptical, as every investor should be. I'm merely here to ask the tough questions any serious investor should ask about any fund, and especially one that sells peace of mind by allegedly researching other funds.

From what I can tell there are four main pieces of evidence in favor of FF: (1) that there have not been any complaints about it, (2) no program it has sponsored has turned out to be a scam, (3) each program has a link showing FF is actually invested in it and (4) it's been around a long time.

In the HYIP world, that's astounding. But then again, in a land full of midgets, I suppose a 5 foot man looks tall.

Now on to the specifics...

Lack of complaints is indeed comforting; however, it's also anecdotal and doesn't necessarily mean anything. the MO of every scam HYIP is to pay in the beginning, make customers happy, and then suddenly dissappear after it gets an influx of funds. Thus, I don't necessarily take lack of complaints to mean much, because that's expected.

Secondly, regarding that no program FF has endorsed has turned out to be a scam...well, the Australian government is actually investigating one as a scam right now, so until that investigation is concluded, this isn't really a positive for FF.

Thirdly, regarding the links on the programs' web sites which show how much FF has invested in them...the only program that I could find any 3rd party indication of legitimacy on is Chartcandle. I found the hedge fund assocation reference to it. See, http://www.thehfa.org/membersites.c...m=2&startrow=10
This is great...a 3rd party reputable organization has given implied legitimacy to one of FF's programs. But wait! It seems that Candlechart does not actually have a FF link on its website! FF says this is because it's new. I find this disturbing, though. The one program that has some 3rd party legitimacy does not make any mention of FF. I couldn't find any other 3rd party legitimacy on the other programs, and on one of them, the Australian government is investigating it as a scam.

Fourth, FF has really not been around for that long. It's been around for about 2 years. Quite frankly, that's nothing. Yes, it's longer than most scams, but as far as investment funds of funds, or any other company, 2 years doesn't say much.

Taken in sum, I do not find the above to be objective, reasonable evidence to trust FF. If indeed Chartcandle comes to list FF on its site and the Australian government clears Clubinvest, then things will change. But strictly looking at the present situation, things look precarious.

Furthermore, there is something else that disturbs me greatly-- the lack of disclosure of the people who run FF. I understand that Matthew discloses his name here and there, as do others, but what I'm referring to is to list, in a straight forward way, the names and backgrounds of those who run FF. After all, we are talking about an organization with fidicuiary duties and which people are supposed to trust with their money. And the best they can do is the following?

"FeederFund is owned by a group of professional investors who are providing this service through part of a larger proprietary organisation. Costs are therefore negligible and there are no liens or other encumbrances on Members investments."

That's it? I understand everyone is entitled to privacy, but I find a lack of straightforward disclosure of identities, location, background, etc. to be absurd for money managers. These people sell trust, for God's sake! How am I supposed to trust a group of mystery men?!

So let me ask everyone here, just to make sure I'm not missing anything. Is there any REAL reason to trust FF or it's people? Or does the widespread trust in FF stem simply from the fact it looks good relative to the other "funds" out there?

Posted by: Cerebus28

I am going to try to contact ChartCandle to verify it has an assocation with FF. If it in fact does, then that will go a long way, in my opinion, to legitimize FF, since CandleChart is a member of the Canadian Hedge Fund Association.

Anyone else have suggestions to address the above concerns?

Posted by: FutureGizmo

your points are valid, Cerebus. i myself was a big fan of FeederFund some months ago and was already beginning to be a cheerleader for the program until i came upon posts like yours questioning FF. now, i'm just investing in FF as if it's not meant to last long. not that i don't want them to, but because that's how we should every investment program we see online. i do have a substantial investment in them (substantial by my own standards) though but it's just part of a bigger, diversified portfolio that i have.

yes, there are several points in favor of FF. but as you pointed out, those doens't really prove that FF is that real thing we're all looking for here in the online investing arena. in any case, FF is a welcome breather in this hyip world full of scams, lies, and more lies.

with regard to your second point about FF having no programs that turned out to be a scam, there actually was one program that FF recommended which eventually closed down. it's called ArbClub and although FF took it out of the list because it wasn't paying investors anymore, FF refunded all investors who were invested in it.

regarding your 3rd point, Fair Share Investing (FSI), a duly registered company in Canada where FF has an investment in, mentioned before that FF is indeed one of their investors. that's another point for FF i think.

i still like FF until now and i'd still recommend it to everyone but my advise would still be to diversify and to not put all your eggs in FF. with regard to your post, cerebus, i'd say they are indeed helpful and wise.

FGiz

Posted by: moremoe

Cerebus, you have micro analyzed a program that has accredited itself without fault to date. What is your point? If you are looking for high yield investments and then consider which are the relatively safe bets, FF has come through on top. It's as simple as that. Invest or leave it. And to say a fund is being investigated does not mean it has done anything wrong.

FF has been discussed endlessly in the various forums but in the end everyone agrees that it has been and continues to serve investors well. There are no garantees of future performance.

Posted by: Cerebus28

Quote:

Originally Posted by moremoe

Cerebus, you have micro analyzed a program that has accredited itself without fault to date. What is your point?

My point is that when you really micro analyze FF, the trust so many ascribe to it is unwarranted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moremoe

If you are looking for high yield investments and then consider which are the relatively safe bets, FF has come through on top.

Relatively safe? Relatively safe compared to what? To an outright ponzi scam, yes, FF appears quite safe, but compared to legitimate hedge funds, FF appears absurdly unsafe. They provide no 3rd party verification, no transparency and no real disclosure of the people who are behind FF. Objectively, not relatively, it seems that FF ranks on the very bottom safety wise. Yet everyone on the net speaks of it as if Mother Theresa herself is running it, backed with the full faith and credit of the US government. Thus, the facts and the perception of trustworthiness do not comport. So what am I missing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by moremoe

It's as simple as that. Invest or leave it.

What do you mean it's as simple as that? Of course it's not that simple. Any one with any sense will investigate an entity or person before they send money to it to be entrusted. They'll especially investigate it if there are red flags popping up, which there are with FF. I'm trying to get a definitive answer as to whether these "red flags" are legitimate cause for concern or nothing. Am I being unreasonable for asking these questions? Apparently you think so. If being so carefree with your money is okay with you, then so be it...

Quote:

Originally Posted by moremoe

And to say a fund is being investigated does not mean it has done anything wrong.

No, but it's about as clear a warning sign as you can get.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moremoe

FF has been discussed endlessly in the various forums but in the end everyone agrees that it has been and continues to serve investors well.

Yes, but is this conclusion justified? From what I gather it is not. I cannot find any real, concrete, persuasive reason to trust FF, only things which sort of mitigate concerns it might be a scam. If I am missing something, then please set me straight.

I started this thread to really get some substance of FF, if it exists. I've seen the million other forums which talk about FF, and they all amount to unwarranted cheerleading sessions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moremoe

There are no garantees of future performance.

True, but this is not about performance. This is about potential fraud and trustworthiness, something that has absolutely nothing to do with trading results.

Posted by: moremoe

i) I have seen many threads that involve a critical discussion about FF, rather than just 'cheer leading' Of course, you don't seem to allow for the satisfaction of thier many investors.
2). Your extensive analysis has found nothing untoward. It just doesn't meet your criteria.
3) You don't trust FF, so just forget about it.

I won't argue any further about this. In the end, you could be right, but I'm pretty sure you are not. Most people also feel that way, that's why FF is succesful. If you have any proof -real evidence that they are bogus, please share it. I would also point out that there have been quite a few major corporations in recent years, with many millions invested, that have -despite meeting all government criteria, turned out to be scams. You would likely have never seen that coming.

Of course the vast majority of offerings in hyip-land are scams. But if there are those who choose to invest in them, I don't feel the need to try to stop anyone unless I'm asked. You think FF is a scam. Fine. What's the point of creating debate when you are already predisposed? So you can tell us we are wrong? The only proof investors have is that it works. You have no evidence it doesn't work, or that it is up to no good. You only have your belief. so, no debate from me because there is no point.

Posted by: moremoe

One last comment; a reminder that you are in hyip land. I don't know if you are already invested, but the fact is that higher yield means higher risk. You have to adjust your criteria if you want significant profits. This is NOT a safe arena, so yes, safety is relative. Some of us are very successful: most are not, or achieve only a little. There are reasons for this, but demands for absolute scrutiny and transparancy will provide minimal results here unfortunately. One has to learn to read a prospective fund differently in order to determine its merits and calculate the risk. This has been my experience...

Posted by: Hardlyworkin

Cerebus28 welcome to the forum, glad to have you with us.

Posted by: golddust

Found an interesting commentary regarding Feeder Fund and DD here:
http://netmoneyblog.com/archives/28

Very interesting read and a pretty good blog. Updated regularly.

golddust

Posted by: moremoe

Read the blog; Pretty biased imo, based on a belief that "real world" investments are closer to what they say banks earn. (They don't seem to be aware of bank debentures!) Funny though, on one hand they say that any program offering 20% return has to be a ponzi, yet on another page they promote the Private Arbs Pool, which returns 20% per month! They say they know the trader. So I guess if they don't know the trader it must be a ponzi!

Aside from thier obvious contradiction, believing that forex trading cannot produce 20% or more monthly is the problem, and using belief as fact is misleading. As I said earlier, anyone who doesn't believe in a fund has that right of course, and they could even be correct. But to proclaim it to be a scam without fact or substance is just wrong.

Posted by: Cerebus28

Quote:

Originally Posted by moremoe

i) I have seen many threads that involve a critical discussion about FF, rather than just 'cheer leading' Of course, you don't seem to allow for the satisfaction of thier many investors.

No, I don't, because like I said, the MO of any ponzi scheme is to pay investors so that they generate trust and hype, and then suddenly run away with your money. Every single HYIP scam has paid for a certain period of time, and given FF pays less than most ponzis, it's not surprising they've been afloat longer than most ponzis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moremoe

2). Your extensive analysis has found nothing untoward. It just doesn't meet your criteria.

Nothing outward? The Australian government is investigating one of its programs as a scam.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moremoe

3) You don't trust FF, so just forget about it.

That's an interesting attitude you have there, which is basically, "shut up and don't ask questions." What sort of rational investor has that mindset?! A rational investor would welcome any and all scrutiny about those to whom he trusts his money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moremoe

I won't argue any further about this. In the end, you could be right, but I'm pretty sure you are not. Most people also feel that way, that's why FF is succesful.

A lot of people also feel that crystals cure cancer and the stars can predict your future, but that doesn't mean they're true. What others "feel" means absolutely nothing if their feelings are not substantiated by credible evidence. People, particularly in groups, tend to believe ridiculous things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moremoe

If you have any proof -real evidence that they are bogus, please share it.

First and foremost, I'd like to aquaint you with the difficulty of proving a negative. It's damn near impossible, logically speaking. Here, as an example, prove that Mother Theresa is NOT a criminal. Can you do it? Of course not. That would require you be able to examine everything she's ever done in her entire life, which is impossible. Similarly, I will never be able to prove that FF is NOT a scam, short of them being busted red handed. FF, however, could easily prove it is legit with a simple audit or by doing any of the things legit funds routinely do to prove their credibility.

Furthermore, it is my duty to prove they're a scam. It's the burden of FF to prove they're legit. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Despite what you may think, 20% per month, without a losing month, is ABSURD. Let me assure you that if FXIG were real, it's managers would:

1) Be written about non stop in every financial publication all over the world.

2) they'd have people with BILLIONS of dollars BEGGING them to manage it for them.

3) they could command ANY fee they wanted.

4) they would be in the history books as THE most successful money managers in the ENTIRE world.

Now as I gather, you don't see it that way. Apparently many people in the HYIP world have been led to believe that 20% per month is actually on the "low" side.

Well WAKE UP. In reality, if you could consistently return 20% PER YEAR, you would be as famous as George Soros. The greatest minds in the entire world with billions of research dollars at their disposal work 24/7 to find profitable trading systems, and have found nothing on par with some of the funds in FF's arsenal, particularly FXIG.

Don't believe me? Look here: http://www.iasg.com/mainframe.asp? These are legitimate hedge funds with billions under management. You'll notice that even the oldest, best performing ones with the highest fees do not come anywhere near FXIG or some of the programs on FF, yet their manages are multimillionaires and will be financial legends. They are able to command $500,000 minimums because the demand to have them manage money is so great and there's no way they'd bother with small time investors.

Yet no one has ever heard of the programs in FF...programs that allegedly are doing numbers that could rival the best multi-billion dollar hedge funds and make the managers filthy rich beyond their dreams and never have to deal with another individual customer again. Yet FXIG, Phoenix, etc do what? They chose instead to remain completely unknown and accept small sums in in egold and paypal? Does this make any rational sense to you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by moremoe

I would also point out that there have been quite a few major corporations in recent years, with many millions invested, that have -despite meeting all government criteria, turned out to be scams. You would likely have never seen that coming.

And this means what? Because some seemingly legit companies turned out to be scams, some seemigly illegit companies might not be scams? Ya, sure anything is possible, but just because a nun turned out to be a thief does not mean I should question any less the bum who is eyeing the $20 bill I left unattended. We're talking about probability here, not possibility, and any company with all the red flags of FF and FXIG is MUCH more likely to be a scam than Enron.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moremoe

Of course the vast majority of offerings in hyip-land are scams. But if there are those who choose to invest in them, I don't feel the need to try to stop anyone unless I'm asked. You think FF is a scam. Fine. What's the point of creating debate when you are already predisposed?

First of all, anyone who sees a program allegedly returning 20% per month should be predisposed to thinking it's a scam. No legitimate fund in the history of man kind has been able to do that. But that aside, I'm bringing this up to see if anyone can produce concrete evidence to trust FF. Before I relegate them to being a scam, I'd like to know I'm not missing something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moremoe

So you can tell us we are wrong? The only proof investors have is that it works. You have no evidence it doesn't work, or that it is up to no good. You only have your belief. so, no debate from me because there is no point.

If you cannot see how an offshore fund, exclusively using egold, which does not disclose the names of principles and whose "funds" are returning untenable gains is evidence of being a scam, then you are blind. That is not a belief. That's a rational survey of the facts.

Now I realize that anything is possible, which is why I'm making this thread. Perhaps FF and FXIG are real, but if that's the case, that's going to require some proof to back it up...proof that any LEGIT company would be glad to provide.

Posted by: moremoe

Good grief Cerebus! I doubt you are invested in any hyips -how could you be with your stringent criteria. So what the heck are you doing here, crusading to save us from ourselves? It doesn't seem that you are here to find out anything, but rather to demand proof that any hyips can meet your criteria in order to be declared legitimate.

But I will let you have the last word...

Posted by: Cerebus28

Quote:

Originally Posted by moremoe

Good grief Cerebus! I doubt you are invested in any hyips -how could you be with your stringent criteria.

HYIPs are basically scams. Any legitimate fund will not call itself "high yield" because it can never guarantee any sort of returns, let alone high ones. Therefore, you cannot call any fund that claims it really trades to be a HYIP. Again, "HYIP" is terminonology out of the ponzi world. You'll never see ANY legit fund do this.

So why am I here if I think all HYIPs are scams?

Because FF and it's member programs don't claim to be HYIPs!!!! They claim to be legitimate funds and traders! So believe me...I would never apply this level of scrutiny to a fund that's relatively straight forward it's a HYIP, i.e., a ponzi. The only reason I'm scrutinizing FF is because IT CLAIMS to not be a ponzi.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moremoe

It doesn't seem that you are here to find out anything, but rather to demand proof that any hyips can meet your criteria in order to be declared legitimate.

Since you keep asking me about my motivations, how about I ask you about yours...

Why are you here in this thread arguing with me? As I said before, a rational investor welcomes any and all scrutiny about the people whom he trusts with his money. Yet you seem to want to silence the questions. Why? Is it denial? Does it make you uncomfortable to think of the possibility that the offshore mystery men who hold your money may one day run away with it? That that there's no objective, verifiable reason to trust them? Or do you have a vested interest in hawking FF?

Posted by: moremoe

Thanks, you have answered my question! As for your "questions" -they are simply weak attempt to deflect my point; that you are here merely to rant against what you do not trust and insist that others see your light. You provide no evidence that you are right, yet insist that you must be.
Rather than argue about the legitimacy of these funds -which I stated at the outset may or may not meet everyone's criteria -I have tried to point out the flaws in your diatribe, wherein you are intent on convincing everyone that your view is the correct one. You mask the start of this thread in the form of a polite inquiry, which was never your intention. This is what I object to.

Up to a point you sparred reasonably well in this discussion, albeit with only a light jab. Having realized that this was not effective, owing to the fact that I have unmasked your true purpose for being in this forum, you now attempt to make it personal by implying that I have either a vested interest or am in some sort of denial, afraid to know the "truth" LOL. At this point you have lost the debate. You may continue to rant but your credibility is diminished.

Btw, I am not invested in FF. I was at one time but have since moved on to more productive offerings.

I know I said I'd let you have the last word and I really will this time. I'm not looking for victory here and I see no point in discussing this further. Perhaps someone else will engage you but I have other, far more rewarding, things to do with my time...

Posted by: Wondering

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerebus28

I'm quite frankly astounded by the trust placed in feeder fund. Now please don't get me wrong. I'm not here to discredit FF, nor am I here to make any unfounded assertions. Given the extraordinary performance and flexibility of FF, I would like nothing more than for it to be legit. I've been looking for something like FF for a VERY long time.

With that said, I'm also skeptical, as every investor should be. I'm merely here to ask the tough questions any serious investor should ask about any fund, and especially one that sells peace of mind by allegedly researching other funds.

From what I can tell there are four main pieces of evidence in favor of FF: (1) that there have not been any complaints about it, (2) no program it has sponsored has turned out to be a scam, (3) each program has a link showing FF is actually invested in it and (4) it's been around a long time.

In the HYIP world, that's astounding. But then again, in a land full of midgets, I suppose a 5 foot man looks tall.

Now on to the specifics...

Lack of complaints is indeed comforting; however, it's also anecdotal and doesn't necessarily mean anything. the MO of every scam HYIP is to pay in the beginning, make customers happy, and then suddenly dissappear after it gets an influx of funds. Thus, I don't necessarily take lack of complaints to mean much, because that's expected.

Secondly, regarding that no program FF has endorsed has turned out to be a scam...well, the Australian government is actually investigating one as a scam right now, so until that investigation is concluded, this isn't really a positive for FF.

Thirdly, regarding the links on the programs' web sites which show how much FF has invested in them...the only program that I could find any 3rd party indication of legitimacy on is Chartcandle. I found the hedge fund assocation reference to it. See, http://www.thehfa.org/membersites.c...m=2&startrow=10
This is great...a 3rd party reputable organization has given implied legitimacy to one of FF's programs. But wait! It seems that Candlechart does not actually have a FF link on its website! FF says this is because it's new. I find this disturbing, though. The one program that has some 3rd party legitimacy does not make any mention of FF. I couldn't find any other 3rd party legitimacy on the other programs, and on one of them, the Australian government is investigating it as a scam.

Fourth, FF has really not been around for that long. It's been around for about 2 years. Quite frankly, that's nothing. Yes, it's longer than most scams, but as far as investment funds of funds, or any other company, 2 years doesn't say much.

Taken in sum, I do not find the above to be objective, reasonable evidence to trust FF. If indeed Chartcandle comes to list FF on its site and the Australian government clears Clubinvest, then things will change. But strictly looking at the present situation, things look precarious.

Furthermore, there is something else that disturbs me greatly-- the lack of disclosure of the people who run FF. I understand that Matthew discloses his name here and there, as do others, but what I'm referring to is to list, in a straight forward way, the names and backgrounds of those who run FF. After all, we are talking about an organization with fidicuiary duties and which people are supposed to trust with their money. And the best they can do is the following?

"FeederFund is owned by a group of professional investors who are providing this service through part of a larger proprietary organisation. Costs are therefore negligible and there are no liens or other encumbrances on Members investments."

That's it? I understand everyone is entitled to privacy, but I find a lack of straightforward disclosure of identities, location, background, etc. to be absurd for money managers. These people sell trust, for God's sake! How am I supposed to trust a group of mystery men?!

So let me ask everyone here, just to make sure I'm not missing anything. Is there any REAL reason to trust FF or it's people? Or does the widespread trust in FF stem simply from the fact it looks good relative to the other "funds" out there?

By the time you wrote "Secondly, regarding that no program FF has endorsed has turned out to be a scam...well, the Australian government is actually investigating one as a scam right now, so until that investigation is concluded, this isn't really a positive for FF." the matter had been settled with the Australian Authorities.

Posted by: golddust

Quote:

the matter had been settled with the Australian Authorities.

Care to share the program being investigated and the settlement details? This is good information for both sides of the debate.

golddust

Posted by: Cerebus28

Quote:

Originally Posted by moremoe

Thanks, you have answered my question! As for your "questions" -they are simply weak attempt to deflect my point; that you are here merely to rant against what you do not trust and insist that others see your light. You provide no evidence that you are right, yet insist that you must be.

Since you apparently missed the subject line of this thread, I'll repeat, yet again, why I am here-- to see if there is any concrete reason to trust FF.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moremoe

Up to a point you sparred reasonably well in this discussion, albeit with only a light jab. Having realized that this was not effective, owing to the fact that I have unmasked your true purpose for being in this forum, you now attempt to make it personal by implying that I have either a vested interest or am in some sort of denial, afraid to know the "truth" LOL.

Forget HYIPs, can I have some of what you're smoking?

I made this personal? Are you kidding? I've posted nothing but specific holes in FF's credibility, and rather than address the substance of what I'm saying, you instead try to redirect this thread on to my alleged motivations. Thus, it was YOU, who made this personal. If that were not the case, you would not be obsessed with my alleged ulterior movites.

It's clear that you have a zealous faith in FF, even though it's apparently unwarranted, and you'll dismiss any suggestions to the contrary as a hidden conspiracy to rant and convince. Truth is, I'm here to find a reason TO TRUST FF. I would LOVE it to be real. Who wouldn't? If FF were legit, I would put 10K in it and retire to the bahamas in 2 years, to never work another day in my life. So please don't tell me I'm only here to poo poo FF. I'm here to find a reason to trust a mysterious entity before I send them thousands of my hard earned money. But alas, you'll never accept that. So be it.

At any rate, this nonsense has gone on long enough, and it is my fault for taking this discussion down to your level by questioning your motives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moremoe

At this point you have lost the debate. You may continue to rant but your credibility is diminished.

Good of you to declare victory. LOL. I wasn't aware we were sparring or debating. I came here to find the truth about FF, not argue with some internet character named "moremoe." Try not to be so narcisistic. This isn't about you or who is "winning."

Quote:

Originally Posted by moremoe

I know I said I'd let you have the last word and I really will this time. I'm not looking for victory here and I see no point in discussing this further. Perhaps someone else will engage you but I have other, far more rewarding, things to do with my time...

Enjoy.

Posted by: Cerebus28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondering

Feeder fund leaves the impression that it Clubinvest is still under investigation. You'd think FF would be the first to announce if they were exclupated. Care to produce a link?

Posted by: golddust

Quote:

At any rate, this nonsense has gone on long enough, and it is my fault for taking this discussion down to your level by questioning your motives.

I think this thread has been productive not nonsense, as it goes to the 'blind faith' that drives many investors by force of numbers (re FF) to invest. However, as evident by the above comment, you have made it personal by implying that somehow your level is higher, or someone else's is beneath you.
Also, I don't think it is necessary to take a jab at 'wondering' with contrary sarcasm (which is lacking grammatical sense btw) :

Quote:

Feeder fund leaves the impression that it Clubinvest is still under investigation. You'd the FF would be the first to announce if they were exclupated. Care to produce a link?

-
in consideration of the fact that I already asked the question -

Quote:

Care to share the program being investigated and the settlement details? This is good information for both sides of the debate.

So please cool your jets and let "wondering" respond, and save the "personal agenda" for TG or other forums that enjoy the sizzle.

golddust

Posted by: Cerebus28

Quote:

Originally Posted by golddust

Also, I don't think it is necessary to take a jab at 'wondering' with contrary sarcasm (which is lacking grammatical sense btw) : -

No sarcasm whatsoever intended. I'm bringing up a legitimate point-- FF is in the business of selling trustworthiness; therefore, any news that one of its programs has been excuplated is CRUCIAL to the continued success of their business. And so if 'wondering' is correct, and the government has cleared Clubinvest, and FF has not mentioned anything about it, it makes FF look like it's asleep at the wheel, neglecting a crucial element of their business...if that's the case, that is another brick in the wall of evidence that does not bode well for FF.

Posted by: poldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerebus28

I am going to try to contact ChartCandle to verify it has an assocation with FF. If it in fact does, then that will go a long way, in my opinion, to legitimize FF, since CandleChart is a member of the Canadian Hedge Fund Association.

Anyone else have suggestions to address the above concerns?

Good point I think we all share that thought...

Let me add some spice to your post :-)
anyone can join the canadian hedge fund association have you seen their requirements ?

as for clubinvest they are not accused of scamming anyone only to have tried to recruit members in a country in which they are not licensed
now I am not sure about this new "problem" they have we'll see
In reality noone can be sure 100% that our money is safe whether it's FF or Refco :-)
it's a risky business and this doesn't necessarily mean that the administrator is a dishonest person but sometimes these funds walk a very thin line, it's easy to break a regulation .

So I guess you have to make the best and pick those programs that appear to be well ran by the administrators , FF is certainly above average as there are others in the same position

Posted by: poldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerebus28

Now I realize that anything is possible, which is why I'm making this thread. Perhaps FF and FXIG are real, but if that's the case, that's going to require some proof to back it up...proof that any LEGIT company would be glad to provide.

You seem to miss a major difference between an hedge fund and off shore investing.. the off shore program is offshore therefore not regulated what this means is that they can pretty much do anything they want to generate a profit unlike hedge funds and mutual funds which are regulated by the SEC and have limitations on what and where they generate profits..
you seem to have some knowledge of traditional investing so you should know for example that a mutual fund manager cannot own more than a small percentage of foreign stocks, absolutely no real estate holdings and definitely no forex or commodities.

Hedge funds have somewhat less restrictions and it is reflected by the big fat earnings.

What I am trying to say is you cannot compare a regulated fund to an offshore investment, they have been around forever only the past few years the term HYIP is making it look like it's a new thing but it's not.

The earning comparison is not possible because they are on a different dimension to traditional standards yes 20% a month is ludicrous
offshore maybe not so much.
Just think of a regular insured offshore bank compared to a US bank

US bank Emigrant saving money market account pays 4.00% yearly and this is the highest paying Money Market in the US

Offshore bank regular saving account 10-20%+
twice as much how do they do that ??
they have different (loose) regulations on how to generate income

If a US millionaire was to make huge profits by investing offshore do you think you will read about it in the papers ??

Posted by: awty

Quote:

Originally Posted by moremoe

(They don't seem to be aware of bank debentures!)

Nuff said on where you're coming from, thanks. And, I do believe that Cerebus has some good points.
Just my opinion,
Jeff

Posted by: Cerebus28

Quote:

Originally Posted by poldo

That's not really true. Hedge Funds are not under any restrictions by the SEC as to how they make their money (assuming it's legal). If they want to invest in poker players and rare paintings, they can do that. They don't have to tell anyone their strategies either. It's mutual funds only which are tightly restricted.

Now I know that onshore hedge funds are subject to some regulation, which takes the form of getting blue skied in certain states, not advertising to non-accredited investors, etc., but the regulation of hedge funds does not in any way regulate the legal ways in which they trade.

Quote:

Originally Posted by poldo

What I am trying to say is you cannot compare a regulated fund to an offshore investment, they have been around forever only the past few years the term HYIP is making it look like it's a new thing but it's not.

But that's precisely my point. You CAN compare hege funds, not mutual funds, to offshore HYIPS. True hedge funds deal in forex, commodities, stocks, bonds, venture captial, arbitrage and every other means of making money under the sun. They're NOT restricted in how they trade. Therefore, we can compare hedge funds to HYIPS. They do the same thing. Somehow mutual funds got mixed up in all this, which is just confusing matters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by poldo

If a US millionaire was to make huge profits by investing offshore do you think you will read about it in the papers ??

No, you will not, but the hedge funds I posted in that link are not well known at all, yet have billions under management. I think the website must be located offshore, because US websites are not permitted to show you hedge fund performance without making sure you're an accredited investor first. I can assure you that on that website is a great collection of many different hedge funds spanning years. None of these hedge funds are restricted in how they trade and many are located off shore-- again, you will not find any with consistent performance the likes of which you find on FF.

Posted by: tulasu

A lot of you know that I've been a forum-rat for years, and recently I've noticed everywhere I go, at least in forums where urls are permitted in sig files, Feederfund.

I see whole threads of people raving about Feederfund. Some of those people are quite new to this hyip arena. So, I don't think it would take too much imagination to figure out that these newbies are parroting something an 'oldie' has told them, but in fact, they know nothing more than that Feederfund has been around for 2 years.

Frankly, I have my own doubts about FF, although my reasons are a little different than those of Cerebus, because I don't attack things from the same direction. I've found the reasoning all very interesting, though, and would love to see complete responses to the points raised, but will not expect to find them as we usually don't. Not in hyip.

My issue has to do with the greed factor. We're all here to make money. So it's not that I wouldn't expect Matthew to take something off the top for his trouble. But 25%?? Now I've heard the reasons why some don't mind that, but that's them, not me. Since he has very minimal expenses, I consider that excessive.

And then there is the fact that he has made an agreement of some sort with FXIG that Feederfund has exclusive rights to pools. There are laws against that sort of practice in some fields.

So, those who wish to participate in FXIG must have $5K they're willing to put at risk, or they must be willing to let Matthew rake 25% off the top of their returns. I have a bit of a hard time with what appears to be gouging.

Now, I could be wrong on this, but I was under the impression that Feederfund has removed at least one program from their list. One I don't remember anything about, but the other was some sort of arbitrage or sports betting outfit that didn't perform for one reason or another. To assume that someone (like Matthew) is going to have a 100% positive track record isn't reasonable. I know people are touting all over the place that FF has never backed a loser. But I don't believe that to be true. He's as human as the next guy.

Nor do I think the episode with another private program was handled with professionalism, although it apparently was all resolved to the satisfaction of both parties in the end. But to publicly berate another admin without first attempting to resolve the issue privately seriously undermined Matthew's credibility in some circles.

I tend to leave such things that Cerebus has brought up to those who seem so adept at them, and look at things from a more social or human standpoint. The character of a program's admin plays a very large role in how I view the program they run.

While I wish everyone well who is in FeederFund, it isn't on my list and probably never will be. But the one negative of this thread has been the 'personal' that's been added. That's too bad. Was an interesting discussion outside of that.

However, in the end, I agree that each of us has to look at what's available on a program and decide if that's enough to satisfy our own risk levels. If it doesn't, then we just don't go in. I'm in other programs that don't provide all the documentation that some would require, but for one reason or another, I'm okay with that. But there are other programs that wouldn't get a second glance if it weren't for their complete transparency. Yes, it's all rather personal ... and even a little mysterious, but just like traders' themselves, if it works you stick with it.

Posted by: golddust

Quote:

While I wish everyone well who is in FeederFund, it isn't on my list and probably never will be. But the one negative of this thread has been the 'personal' that's been added. That's too bad. Was an interesting discussion outside of that.

Agree with you there Tulasu, and this-

Quote:

The character of a program's admin plays a very large role in how I view the program they run.

is probably the main reason that I have not joined FF. I just do not feel the chemistry with the program and how it is 'run'. I know lots of people feel safe and secure with their funds there, and I suppose there is no reason they shouldn't.
Maybe it would be better if I/we didn't know, like most other programs, how much of a slice the admin takes or all about the program venture possiblilities or rejections.

I think it is too much information that keeps me from enjoining FF. That and I tend to resist the 'masses', never been one for peer pressure, or FF in my sig line.

golddust

Posted by: clifton

Nice to see other FF sceptics here. One thing which draw my oppinion about FF down is exactly that special relation between Matthew and FXIG and intrudcing FXIG and PSHI at all. Folks, i was on something with Matthew but was stupid enough to leave a small track back to me, so now i can't continue this investigation alone. If someone is interesting in helping me to check MC's honesty, please PM me

Posted by: tulasu

What do you have in mind, Clifton?

Tulasu

Posted by: clifton

A provocation for Matt, tulasu

Nothing special just standard way to check his honesty

Posted by: Devilboy

Hey what a good forum! And what a good discussion!

I've also been looking long and hard at both FeederFund and FXIG. I've even spoken to people (on Skype) that's met both Matthew (not his real name) and the FXIG duo. Still I'm not 100% convinced. And I don't think I will be until I see a report from an audit or something.

Couple of notes though:

- The Club Invest debacle is now over. The only thing ASIC did not like about them was the fact that they sold a financial product in AU without registering with them first. They are making some changes and they will be back soon. Club Invest is very open for any DD you want to do - you can even go to their office (in Vanuatu) and look at the paperwork for yourself if you want. As far as I'm concerned they are legit with real traders and everything.

- FeederFund just got a listing on SensaTrust. I trust the ST guys - they know what they are doing. They DO know Matthew's real name and address, so at least someone out there has the details. That makes it hard for Matthew to disappear if he wants to cut and run. SensaTrust did NOT verify any of the programs FF invests in (except 4X Club) and they can't say that FXIG or Phoenix or ITS or whatever is legit.

Posted by: Cerebus28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devilboy

They DO know Matthew's real name and address, so at least someone out there has the details.

Matthew is not his real name?! What the hell??? Why in God's name is the manager of an allegedly legit money pool using an alias??? I've never heard something so shady in my life...wow, just wow...

Posted by: Devilboy

No Matthew Calder is definitely an alias.

Posted by: ydutil

If Matthew is using an alias, then I beleive in his case, it is completely justifiable. Considering the large scale of FF, if I were an investor I would be more than happy to know that Matthew is trying to keep his identity private and away from governement intervention or other parties.

Posted by: golddust

Quote:

if I were an investor I would be more than happy to know that Matthew is trying to keep his identity private and away from governement intervention or other parties.

That he uses an alias is a common thing in HYIP/online investing, for protection from investors.That is why there is so much fake information in WHOis/domain registry information.
If any gov't or gov't agency becomes interested in him, they will have a record of his aliases, or will procure it. The same goes for fake domain registry information.

If you don't want to deal with aliases and false information associated with HYIP, consider alternative ways to make hi yield - casino gambling, forex trading, MLMs ...?
Or just go the conventional, safe and traditional ways like trading registered securities, IPOs, options or futures, bonds, mutual funds, CDs...?
I agree, it would be "nice" to know, or believe we know who we are dealing with when online investing, but the reality is even if you are as honest as Mother Teresa, if your identity is known, you become very vulnerable to 'things that happen'.

golddust

Posted by: Cerebus28

Quote:

Originally Posted by golddust

That he uses an alias is a common thing in HYIP/online investing, for protection from investors.

If you're running a legit operation, then why would you need to hide from investors?

Posted by: tulasu

Read a few pages in TalkGold and you'll know why some feel the need to hide from investors. Even those who aren't downright vicious can be inconsiderate enough to phone in the middle of the night because they didn't consider the time zone they were calling.

Frankly, I couldn't care less if I have someone's real name. I've been using a nick name virtually all of my life - but I guarantee you, Tulasu is the same me, whether I'm here at Weblife, over there at ProjectPCF or in my real world home.

While I'm like the next guy and like having real information, I'm of the firm belief what really matters is character coupled with competence. Joe Blow isn't going to be any better because he's not really Joe, but rather, Bob.

So over time, a nice compromise has been developed. Many admins will entrust their personal identification papers and trading records with someone who is well known online and who has generally proven themselves trustworthy to those who have been around for awhile.

What will get my knickers in a twist though is these forum admins or program admins who expect full disclosure from their participants but expect to maintain their own privacy.

JMHonestO.

Posted by: moremoe

well said Tulasu...

Posted by: golddust

Thank you Tulasu. (Or whoever you are...

)
I think if there was a greater understanding of false identity/ aliases, and 'right to privacy', there would be a greater reliance on those programs like Sensa Trust (for example, there are others), who procure the true information, yet respect the public identity program owners/admins have chosen.
The result - more people investing in "true" opportunities regardless of true identity of the admin/owners.

golddust

Posted by: value4money

Sensa Trust also has a reputation to live up to, so I think they will make every effort to discover the truth before they will accept a program as genuine.

Posted by: golddust

Very good point!

golddust

Posted by: Cerebus28

Quote:

Originally Posted by tulasu

Read a few pages in TalkGold and you'll know why some feel the need to hide from investors. Even those who aren't downright vicious can be inconsiderate enough to phone in the middle of the night because they didn't consider the time zone they were calling.

Okay, I can appreciate that, but the solution isn't to make yourself look like a con man by using an alias. The solution is to do what thousands of other people who want privacy do-- don't give out your phone number or home address.

I've decided to put about 5% of my portfolio in FF, knowing that it's the extremely risky portion of my portfolio; nonetheless, I still maintain that either FF is doing something shady or is making a valiant effort to appear shady, even if they aren't, e.g., egold, aliases, offshore, too-good-to-be-true returns...

Posted by: golddust

I have to wonder why you feel you need to invest in FF at all?
And if you consider FF -

Quote:

the extremely risky portion of my portfolio;

what do you think is not?

Not trying to be arguementative, just curious.

golddust

Posted by: Cerebus28

Quote:

Originally Posted by golddust

I have to wonder why you feel you need to invest in FF at all?

Because if FF is legit, it's basically THE pefect fund of funds I've been looking for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by golddust

And if you consider FF [extremely risky] -

what do you think is not?

Any reputable fund that's either registered with the US govt or that offers full disclosure. In other words, any fund that I'm assured won't run away with my money overnight, which FF could do, or if they did steal my money, I'd have legal recourse.

Posted by: clifton

Your points are good, Cerebus. However i doubt you can find many such funds in the online HYIP world

Posted by: Cerebus28

Quote:

Originally Posted by tulasu

My issue has to do with the greed factor. We're all here to make money. So it's not that I wouldn't expect Matthew to take something off the top for his trouble. But 25%?? Now I've heard the reasons why some don't mind that, but that's them, not me. Since he has very minimal expenses, I consider that excessive.

Well, assuming FF is legit, I think Matthew is entitled to charge whatever he wants. As far as I know, FF is the only fund of its kind offering the little guy access to big funds, the kind which you normally need thousands to get into, and many of which are otherwise off limits. Add into that all the headaches of dealing with the little guy, and I think he's charging a reasonable fee.

Posted by: SupaMonkey

It has been sometime since this conversation took place, what are your thoughts on FF now Cerebus (and anyone else for that matter)?

Has the inclusion of Nsfg (who are undeniably legit) altered your opinion?

Posted by: golddust

IMO, the addition of NSFG to FF is a win-win situation. Certainly lends to FF's credibility to add a program already known to be legit. In addtion, it will make FF more attractive to members and possible new members* who otherwise would not be able to join NSFG** except at a high price.
* - there is some indication that FF will be opening in the near future for new members, who will have to be referred in by existing members.
** - It is also possible to join NSFG through "advanced" membership at the Gold Horizons forum.

golddust

Posted by: clifton

I admire the inclusion of NSFG as well

Posted by: SupaMonkey

I got this link from Narsil over at HyipD. I'm not from the US but can anyone here give me their opinion on it pls.

http://www.ssb.state.tx.us/orders/2006/1614.pdf

Thanks

Posted by: golddust

I could not get the link to open. Could be me. Anyone else able to?

golddust

Posted by: forwardone

Hi golddust, I was able to open it with Acrobat, no problem.

Posted by: fxloot

Quote:

Originally Posted by SupaMonkey

I got this link from Narsil over at HyipD. I'm not from the US but can anyone here give me their opinion on it pls.

http://www.ssb.state.tx.us/orders/2006/1614.pdf

Thanks

Link download was fine............

opinion......stay away from hyips

Posted by: poldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by SupaMonkey

I got this link from Narsil over at HyipD. I'm not from the US but can anyone here give me their opinion on it pls.

http://www.ssb.state.tx.us/orders/2006/1614.pdf

Thanks

It means Leopard fund is in big trouble and they will probably have to stop
what they are doing unless they comply with the law on registred funds
FF will have to remove them

Posted by: SupaMonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxloot

Link download was fine............

opinion......stay away from hyips

Ok, so how do i earn enough money to be able to live off in 5 years?

What i mean is live off the ROI because all of it will be invested one way or another.

Posted by: fxloot

Quote:

Originally Posted by SupaMonkey

Ok, so how do i earn enough money to be able to live off in 5 years?

What i mean is live off the ROI because all of it will be invested one way or another.

Give me a day or 2 and i will open a folder here and i will share with everyone something very unique..........10% return last month

regards fxloot

Posted by: golddust

OK, I don't know why Acrobat won't open this file for me, but once again I am confronted with the awful prospect of needing to reload my computer, I know I am missing some critical dll files and this could be the reason. But not to digress, can someone just give me the gist of the document so I can make follow up on the next 'thing' with FF?

Thanks!

golddust

FXloot - looking forward to what you have going on!

Posted by: clifton

In very short there is a C&D order against leopard fund from the state of Texas. I am quite clueless when it comes to US law, so i can hardly comment on this

Posted by: forwardone

I wonder why Texas has initiated this when the ones who run the program are based in Nevada?

It was issued on May 16, 2006. Someone at HYIPd has managed to copy and paste the order, though there`s nothing particularly revealing in it.

Posted by: golddust

FF has posted nothing about this in their news; in fact the site is not up except for a new html. page. Didn't Texas also get in the face of PIPs?

golddust

Posted by: candy

FF has been ddosed again.
Site is back with new message.

Posted by: golddust

I got the message about the ddos attack and sounds like they are closing in on whoever is doing that. I didn't see any comments relating to Leopard Fund though. Did anyone?

golddust

Posted by: forwardone

Hopefully promised refunds will be made by FF.