歡迎訪客 ( 登入 | 註冊 )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Q&A 我想知道這是否是詐欺??? 呼叫高手大大, 詐騙新聞區 真假基金? 真假績效? 實地稽查Due Diligence?
FoX-Lover
張貼文章 06-23 2008, 19:07
發表於: #1


投資少尉
*****

所屬群組: 板主群組
發表總數: 447
註冊日期: 02-23-2006
來自: 傈僳之國
會員編號: 691




在這網站上發現
http://www.cherrie-shop.com/AIIT/product-2.html 台灣在前幾年有理專在推這檔CTA
Lake Shore 資產管理股份有限公司提供高資產投資者,以絕對報酬替客戶穩定累積財富,每年穩定的報酬率,講求絕對報酬的湖岸基金。
Lake Shore湖岸基金 商品優勢
1.無申購費用。 2.無手續費用。
3.無管理費用。 4.無贖回費用。
5.與客戶分享利潤。 (只有客戶獲利時才收取25%的獲利獎勵金。)
6.無閉鎖期。
7.變現性高,每週均可贖回。(投資的資金可依每星期五的估價結算,並於 5 個工作天內完成交割贖回。)
8.網路帳戶查詢與每月績效報表。
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

美國湖岸避險基金 應該是真的公司 但因期貨投資帳目不清 被凍結資產
Federal Court Extends CFTC Asset Freeze over Hedge Fund Lake Shore Asset Management Limited
http://www.cftc.gov/newsroom/enforcementpr...07.html

Release: 5353-07 For Release: July 17, 2007
More Than $238 Million of Funds that Lake Shore Has On Deposit Will Remain

Frozen
Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced today that on July 13, 2007, Judge Blanche M. Manning, of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, extended indefinitely the court-imposed asset freeze against Lake Shore Asset Management Limited (LAM) as part of a restraining order issued by the court against LAM on June 27, 2007 (see CFTC News Release 5349-07, June 28, 2007). The July 13 ruling stems from a hearing held on July 10, 2007.

As a result of the asset freeze order, more than $238 million of funds that LAM has on deposit will remain frozen until further order of the court. LAM is a registered commodity trading advisor (CTA) and commodity pool operator (CPO).

CFTC Files Contempt Motion Against LAM

Separately, on July 3, 2007, the CFTC filed a contempt of court motion against LAM for its continued failure to comply with the portions of the restraining order requiring it to produce records (see CFTC News Release 5351-07, July 5, 2007). The CFTC, in its contempt filing, alleges that LAM has neither allowed CFTC staff to inspect and copy its books and records, nor has it produced the requested documents to the CFTC, as mandated by the restraining order.

The court deferred ruling on the contempt motion at the July 10 hearing but granted the CFTC’s motion for expedited discovery and gave LAM until July 24, 2007, to file a written response to the CFTC’s contempt motion.

LAM contends that its failure to fully produce the customer account records and disclosure documents and hedge fund offering memoranda is grounded in unspecified Swiss bank secrecy laws and that the hedge fund did not intend to submit to the CFTC’s jurisdiction.

The following CFTC Division of Enforcement staff are responsible for this case: Diane M. Romaniuk, Ava M. Gould, Mary E. Spear, Don Nash, Scott R. Williamson, Rosemary Hollinger, and Richard B. Wagner. The CFTC also appreciates the assistance it has received from the National Futures Association (NFA).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
LAKE SHORE ASSET MANAGEMENT. LIMITED, et al.,. Defendants. 湖岸資產管理有限公司以及其他. 被告. 07 C 3598. ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER. 指定接管人之裁定 ...
www.robbevans.com/pdf/lakeshoreorder03chi.pdf

Bloomberg.com: U.S.- [ 翻譯此頁 ] 2007年6月28日 ... June 28 (Bloomberg) -- Lake Shore Asset Management Ltd., a hedge fund firm run by a former chairman of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange,
www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a9cPfV6bh7.0&refer=news


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
香港證監會 投資者教育網站 投資警報發布 並通報各國證監會
http://www.invested.hk (IMG:style_emoticons/default/thumb.gif)

名稱: Lake Shore Asset Management Limited
地址: 香港中環
交易廣場1期39 樓
網站: www.lakeshorefunds.com
備註:
於2007年9月13日美國法院對上述公司發出強制令。
閣下可點擊以下連結,瀏覽美國商品期貨交易監察委員有關報告了解個案的最新進展。
http://www.cftc.gov/customerprotection/cas...shore/index.htm
首次登載日期: 2007年10月22日

名稱: MPT Marketing Service / Mountain Peak Trading Limited 碳基金詐騙
類別: 無牌公司
地址:香港銅鑼灣勿地臣街 1 號 時代廣場蜆殼大廈 2912 室
網站:
www.mpt-asia.com 碳基金詐騙
www.mandarin-fund.com 碳基金詐騙
www.chinacarbonfund.com 碳基金詐騙
www.carbonfund.org 碳基金詐騙
備註:上述的香港地址屬於一間商務中心,他們看似以中國投資者為對象。
首次登載日期:2007年8月27日
註: 無牌公司往往採用與合法公司相若的名稱,令投資者混淆。

名稱:TAO Investment Management Company 碳基金詐騙
類別:無牌公司
地址:香港中環德輔道中 121 號 遠東發展大廈 7 樓 1 室
網站:
www.mpt-asia.com 碳基金詐騙
www.mandarin-fund.com 碳基金詐騙
www.chinacarbonfund.com 碳基金詐騙
www.carbonfund.org 碳基金詐騙

備註:上述的香港地址屬於一間商務中心,他們看似以中國投資者為對象。
首次登載日期:2007年8月27日
註: 無牌公司往往採用與合法公司相若的名稱,令投資者混淆。

本篇文章已被 FoX-Lover 於 05-31 2009, 06:09 編輯過
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ymbis
張貼文章 12-12 2008, 20:52
發表於: #2


投資少尉
*****

所屬群組: 板主群組
發表總數: 223
註冊日期: 02-19-2006
會員編號: 93




文中的BLM(伯納德•馬多夫投資證券公司=Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC)應該就是 Fairfild Sentry & Premio Select fund 的經理人~除非縮寫剛好一樣


偶也不知道~~牽涉到底多大
此事是因為朋友在香港私人銀行有開戶, 最近聽到理專暗示出清Fairfild sentry
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/silly.gif)
=============================================================
那斯達克市場的前主席伯納德•馬多夫(Bernard L. Madoff)週四被美國聯邦執法機構逮捕﹐此前一天他曾對自己的兩名高級雇員說﹐他的投資顧問業務是一個“巨大的龐氏騙局”。美國證券交易委員會(SEC)和聯邦政府週四還指控馬多夫曾從他的投資者手中詐騙了上百億美元。

SEC在一項民事起訴中指控馬多夫“正在進行一項規模達500億美元的龐氏騙局”﹐並要求法官查封馬多夫的公司及該公司資產。SEC紐約辦事處執法部門副主任安德魯•卡萊馬里(Andrew M. Calamari)說﹐我們起訴了一件令人震驚的詐騙案﹐該案涉及的規模極其之大。SEC指控說﹐馬多夫的公司在2008年初時管理的170多億美元資產似乎全都消失不見了。

聯邦調查局(FBI)特工西奧多•卡希奧皮(Theodore Cacioppi)在單獨的刑事指控中說﹐馬多夫的投資顧問公司以運營一個證券業務為手段欺騙其投資者﹐他在交易中虧賠了投資者的錢﹐卻從其他投資者支付的投資本金中拿錢謊稱投資回報支付給一些投資者﹐此舉導致投資者損失了上百億美元。

馬多夫的律師丹•霍爾維茨(Dan Horwitz)拒絕詳談這些指控。他在接受採訪時說﹐“伯納德•馬多夫長期在金融服務業擔任領導工作﹐他的從業紀錄白璧無瑕。他是個誠實的人。他希望努力從這一不幸事件中擺脫出來。” 今年70歲的馬多夫是伯納德•馬多夫投資證券公司(Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC)的創辦人和主要股東。這家公司主要以擔任股票買賣的中間人而聞名。馬多夫還領導著一項投資顧問業務﹐這一業務專為富人、對沖基金和其他機構投資者理財。

FBI在起訴書中援引馬多夫兩名高級雇員的話說﹐伯納德•馬多夫投資證券公司的自營交易和股票買賣中介活動是與該公司的投資顧問業務分開進行的。起訴書說﹐該公司投資者的損失主要由這家公司的資產管理部門造成﹐這一部門由馬多夫在公司辦公地的另一樓層運營。起訴書說﹐這兩位雇員表示﹐馬多夫對這家公司的財務聲明秘而不宣﹐他對該公司的投資顧問業務一直“含糊其詞”。

據一位瞭解該公司的人說﹐起訴書中未披露其姓名的這兩位高級雇員是馬多夫的兒子安德魯•馬多夫和馬克•馬多夫。馬克•馬多夫是這家公司的高級董事總經理兼首席合規長。安德魯•馬多夫是該公司交易業務負責人。這兩人的律師未回復記者的採訪電話。

----------------------------------------------------------
經濟日報╱記者黃俊苔、蔡靜紋/台北報導】2008.12.13 02:47 am

超級騙子曾任那斯達克證交所董事長的馬多夫,11日遭美國警方逮捕起訴。70歲的馬多夫有半世紀的股市從業經驗,此案震驚華爾街。圖為他在自家公司紐約的交易部門。

美國老牌避險基金Fairfield Sentry的代操公司馬多夫投資證券公司驚傳涉入鉅額詐騙,目前已知台灣國泰人壽與宏泰人壽分別投資該基金1,200萬美元與100萬美元。國內基金業者指出,國內購買Fairfield Sentry基金的機構不少,若該基金真如外電所言無法應付投資人贖回,台灣金融業恐再陷雷區。

國泰金控策略長李長庚昨(12)日表示,國泰人壽投資Fairfield Sentry基金共計1,200萬美元(新台幣4億元),已於10月底申請贖回,對方回覆將於本月底入帳1,400萬美元,「目前還是有獲利的」。

李長庚強調,國壽與馬多夫投資證券公司無合約關係,據國壽了解,Fairfield Sentry基金是美國一家具有相當規模的基金公司,其將旗下一檔基金委由馬多夫投資證券公司擔任顧問,「不能理解為何會牽扯上詐欺」,按理說,顧問公司不會碰到錢,李長庚表示國壽會進一步了解。

宏泰人壽總經理林英貴表示,該公司投資海外投資均有一定準則,對投資標的規模、績效排名等均設下守則。宏泰人壽投資Fairfield Sentry基金約100萬美元(新台幣0.33億元),宏泰本周已向該公司要求贖回。

林英貴表示,Fairfield Sentry基金委託馬多夫投資證券公司管理,但錢都是放在保管銀行中,馬多夫投資證券公司只負責操作而已,目前每日均定時報價,除非有檯面上看不到的情況,「從目前情勢看來還好。」

避險基金以私募方式銷售,款項匯出時投顧業者才需要將資料交給投信投顧公會存查,若國內法人機構直接與國外避險基金公司簽訂合約,公會就無紀錄可循。投信投顧公會秘書長蕭碧燕昨天表示,私募基金有投資者身分限制,購買Fairfield Sentry基金的個人投資人應不多。

3A亞洲資產管理聯席董事朱欽翔表示,Fairfield Sentry基金在業界名聲非常好,他印象所及,五年前投資者想購買這檔專門投資S&P 100股票與選擇權套利的基金,還要排隊申購,發生這種事情非常意外。

他預料美國避險基金公司將因此事重新洗牌。百利投顧經理謝秉容指出,馬多夫投資證券公司的負責人馬多夫在市場上非常有地位,該券商是市場上重要的造市者,涉入詐騙事件令人訝異。

本篇文章已被 ymbis 於 12-12 2008, 21:42 編輯過


--------------------
發表者貼圖..

歲歲年年花相似
年年歲歲人不同
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FoX-Lover
張貼文章 12-14 2008, 02:32
發表於: #3


投資少尉
*****

所屬群組: 板主群組
發表總數: 447
註冊日期: 02-23-2006
來自: 傈僳之國
會員編號: 691



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aYXIoxUpmaU8&refer=home

依據這篇 有委託Bernard Madoff 開帳戶操作的有: (IMG:style_emoticons/default/y08.gif)

美國Fairfield Greenwich Group 老闆Walter Noel Fairfield Sentry Ltd. 基金 全部$7.3 billion

英國FIM Advisers 總裁Carlo Grosso Kingate Global Fund Ltd. 基金 全部$2.8 billion

義大利UniCredit銀行的鋒裕Pioneer Alternative Investments
投資長Luca Mengoni Primeo Select Fund 全部$280 million


瑞士Union Bancaire Privee (UBP) 最大的避險基金投資機構 M-Invest管理帳戶

英國Bramdean Alternatives Ltd 老闆Nicola Horlick 有佔公司管理資產9%
Rye Select Broad Market XL Portfolio


西班牙Banco Santander銀行的 瑞士Optimal Investment Services SA 經理人Dara Bahadori

麻州Massachusetts Mutual人壽的OppenheimerFunds旗下的
Tremont Group Holdings的
Rye Select fund

Sterling Equities Inc 老闆Fred Wilpon


-------------------------------------
表示沒有
Bernard Madoff往來的有: (IMG:style_emoticons/default/y25.gif)

佛羅里達Artemis Capital Partners 投資長Salomon Konig 拒絕過20多個有和Madoff有往來的組合基金

瑞士Gottex Fund Management Holdings 執行長Joachim Gottschalk

瑞士Julius Baer的 愛爾蘭 GAM

美國Legg Mason的 Permal

美國Castlestone Management 老闆Angus Murray

---------------------------------------------------------
UBP, Bramdean, Pioneer Invested With Madoff Funds (Update1)
By Tom Cahill and Katherine Burton

Dec. 12 (Bloomberg) -- European firms Union Bancaire Privee, Bramdean Alternatives Ltd. and Pioneer Alternative Investments were clients of funds invested with Bernard Madoff, who allegedly confessed to running “a giant Ponzi scheme.”

Bramdean, run by Nicola Horlick, had about 9 percent of its assets with funds that in turn had money with Madoff, including Rye Select Broad Market XL Portfolio, the London-based firm said today in a statement. Pioneer Alternative ran a fund with Madoff as its sole sub-manager. Union Bancaire and Optimal Investment Services SA are among a group of Geneva-based firms that had money with Madoff, investors said.

Madoff, 70, told employees before his arrest yesterday that his firm was “one big lie” and may have cost clients as much as $50 billion, law enforcement officials said. New York-based Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC had about $17.1 billion in assets under management as of Nov. 17, according to NASD records. At least half of its clients were hedge funds, and others included banks and wealthy individuals, according to the records.

“It’s tough years like this that show who is doing things they should never have been doing in the first place, because you suddenly can’t hide anymore,” said Angus Murray, founder of Castlestone Management Ltd., a money manager with about $700 million based in London and New York.

‘Solid, Steady Returns’
Pioneer Alternative invested “substantially all” of its about $280 million Primeo Select Fund with Madoff, according to a fact sheet on its Web site. Shwetha Reddy, a spokeswoman in Dublin for the unit of UniCredit SpA, declined to comment. Luca Mengoni, chief investment officer for Pioneer’s single-manager division, also declined to comment.

Bramdean’s Horlick, 47, didn’t return calls. “At the current time, the financial status of the holdings in Madoff-managed vehicles is uncertain,” Bramdean said in its statement.

Madoff’s firm told investors it had just eight losing months in seven years, returns that were difficult for some to resist.

“It was just too easy to sell,” said Salomon Konig, chief investment officer for Artemis Capital Partners LLC in Aventura, Florida, which invests with hedge funds. “Whenever a fund had money with Madoff, it raised a red flag,” said Konig, who said he rejected at least 20 funds of funds as potential investments for that reason alone. “It means that they didn’t do their due diligence they were supposed to and were chasing those returns.”

Shunning Madoff

Optimal, a fund of funds with about $8 billion under management, is among several Geneva-based investors with a holding in Madoff. UBP, the largest investor in hedge funds, had a managed account called M-Invest that was a direct conduit into Madoff, people familiar with the situation said.

Dara Bahadori, a managing director with Optimal in Geneva, declined to comment. Optimal is a unit of Spain’s Banco Santander SA. Jerome Koechlin, a spokesman for UBP, declined to comment.

Some of the largest European funds of hedge funds said they didn’t have any exposure to Madoff, mainly because they didn’t understand how returns were generated. Funds of funds invest in other managers for their clients.

“We do not have any exposure whatsoever with Madoff,” said Joachim Gottschalk, chief executive officer of Gottex Fund Management Holdings Ltd. of Lausanne, Switzerland, which has $13.5 billion invested in hedge funds. “We never felt the returns justified the risks.”

Fairfield Greenwich

Other firms that said they didn’t invest with Madoff include GAM, a unit of Zurich-based Julius Baer Holding AG, and Permal Group, a unit of Legg Mason Inc. of Baltimore.

The biggest loser might be Walter Noel’s Fairfield Greenwich Group, whose $7.3 billion Fairfield Sentry Ltd. invested with Madoff, three people familiar with the New York firm said.

Another client was Kingate Management Ltd., run by FIM Advisers LLP in London. The $2.8 billion Kingate Global Fund Ltd. invested with Madoff, they said. Carlo Grosso, head of FIM, didn’t return calls or e-mails today.

Rye Select fund is run by Tremont Group Holdings Inc., a unit of Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co.’s OppenheimerFunds Inc. Monteith Illingworth, a spokesman for Rye, New York-based Tremont, declined to comment.

Sterling Equities Inc., the investment firm led by Fred Wilpon that owns the New York Mets baseball team, said today it has accounts with Madoff, according to a statement.

To contact the reporters on this story: Tom Cahill in London at tcahill@bloomberg.net; Katherine Burton in New York at kburton@bloomberg.net Last Updated: December 12, 2008 15:55 EST

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FoX-Lover
張貼文章 05-03 2009, 13:46
發表於: #4


投資少尉
*****

所屬群組: 板主群組
發表總數: 447
註冊日期: 02-23-2006
來自: 傈僳之國
會員編號: 691



引用框

美國 related to futures interests 的 詐欺案 and published by CFTC are listed below:
http://www.cftc.gov/lawandregulation/enfor...tions/index.htm
http://www.cftc.gov/lawandregulation/enfor...chive/index.htm

I did not spend enough time to look through all of cases listed above.
If you find any CTA 詐欺 its client money, please post it here as well.


謝謝kuenyihhwang提供深入的訊息
去年2008上半年 除了已經有的證券和選擇權帳戶
我也曾考慮直接用自己名義在美國開帳戶由CTA操作 比透過間接管道安全(複委託 基金或債券等載具Vehicles)
主要是看上市場中立策略 但10-11月也是崩潰.... 還好沒有行動

本篇文章已被 FoX-Lover 於 05-30 2009, 12:17 編輯過
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ymbis
張貼文章 05-29 2009, 10:51
發表於: #5


投資少尉
*****

所屬群組: 板主群組
發表總數: 223
註冊日期: 02-19-2006
會員編號: 93



答案很簡單~~
你認為是詐欺就不要買~~


本篇文章已被 ymbis 於 05-29 2009, 10:51 編輯過


--------------------
發表者貼圖..

歲歲年年花相似
年年歲歲人不同
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bill_hkc
張貼文章 05-29 2009, 11:20
發表於: #6


投資少尉
*****

所屬群組: 進階會員
發表總數: 182
註冊日期: 02-28-2007
會員編號: 15185



我贊成,
如果是覺得是詐欺,就拿出來討論,弄清楚到底是不是,或者至少可以提醒別人.
有疑慮,除了自己不買以外,提醒別人還是有意義的.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FoX-Lover
張貼文章 05-29 2009, 19:21
發表於: #7


投資少尉
*****

所屬群組: 板主群組
發表總數: 447
註冊日期: 02-23-2006
來自: 傈僳之國
會員編號: 691



引用框(goodman123456789 @ 05-29 2009, 11:21) *
引用框(ymbis @ 05-29 2009, 10:39) *

他是由投資於transtrend然後舉槓桿170%~~200%...............
http://www.transtrend.com/
transtrend門檻1000萬美元~~
standard risk class績效起於1992~
enhanced risk class績效起於1995~
所以Tulip是一隻舉槓桿的feeder fund


Thanks again, ymbis.
You provide very good information.
但我的問題未被回答。

問題: 根據 Tulip Trend Fund Ltd (鬱金香基金)的備忘錄 (OFFERING MEMORANDUM), page 8, section 3.1 INTRODUCTION, Tulip Trend Fund Ltd (鬱金香基金) 是在 2003 年1月 在Cayman Islands 成立的. 鬱金香基金 在 1994-2002 年 不存在. 為什麼 鬱金香基金 有從 1994-2002 年的績效?
http://www.trend.ky/uploads/tools/charts/Tulip_A_EUR_en.pdf
我想知道這是否是詐欺? 如果它不是詐欺, 原因是什麼?


一點個人感想 以前大家都切磋過了 沒有新想法

AHL程式帳戶 (Man所屬子公司) <------ Man AHL基金 (Man 母公司自己發行)
Winton程式帳戶 (Winton Futures公司) <------ PAM管理期貨基金 (香港PAM公司獨立發行)
Transtrend程式帳戶 (荷蘭農業金庫子公司) <------鬱金香趨勢基金 (瑞士Progressive Capital獨立發行)
程式帳戶1988-1992開始有績效記錄 <-----右側都是Feeder Funds很晚才發行 都模擬帳戶的績效
這三個程式帳戶最低投資額都是1000萬美金. CTA帳戶也有1~10萬美金就可投資的, 良莠不齊被告詐欺多屬此

1. Ymbis大大其實已經回答你了
當初這檔亞洲沒有經銷商代理推出 沒沒無聞根本沒聽過 我們散戶自行挖掘研究 網友懷疑特別多 才經得起風暴考驗 基智討論版和這站有我們眾散戶的過程智慧 請爬文再來 2008春節假開始私下研議 延後到3-5月份才貼版討論丟給投資投資管道
http://www.moneyq.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18915

2. 任何基金(包括共同)1994-2003年的績效 我們投資人最好非要要看不可 這叫找罩門
尤其是研究1992-1994英國金融風暴 1997.8-1998亞洲金融風暴 1998.8-1999長期資本新興債風暴
一般人頂多只看2000.3-2003.3科技股泡沫期間的績效

3.任何基金本身不夠老的 上述時期沒有實際淨值的 務必去打她的罩門-逼出她的模擬績效或相對績效指標圖
通常我們碰到的狀況是反而是老基金明明有實際淨值卻故意蒙騙躲閃(因為很難看) Permal固定收益(原高收)1997發行 可是都會把公元2000年前的績效線型圖藏起來 美林固定收益組裝這兩檔 當然有1997-2000年模擬績效 來台做簡報 現場被我逼供 支吾其詞說簡報電子檔製做時 沒有放進那段

4. 共同基金隱瞞績效的手法也非常普遍 罄竹難書 難以用詐欺論罪 卻普遍有意圖詐欺 業界和投資人視為理所當然
除了上面明明有績效卻故意藏起來, 平均年績效和波動率和夏普值採計少於三年, 有採計三年以上的卻又故意不延伸到罩門時期的績效, 只誇耀淨值績效上漲段的波動率和夏普值, 迴避基金下跌段的波動率夏普值, 拒絕提供最大連續跌幅, 最大單月跌幅, 最久恢復期間....等數據, 利用基金改名(美名曰改策略換經理人)或合併, 清算舊基金等多頭熱潮又重新募基金(科技 金融 能源...)來正大光明漂白掉之前令人發窘的績效數據
普遍到聯X高收 美收 X蘭牌 富X牌.....的績效資料都是美化過的 我去電公司要罩門資料 好的就推拖等到忘掉 不好的知道你是內行投資人 會反擊甚至威脅你 渾然忘了你也有一萬美金在她的基金上.......狗吠火車 干有辦法?

本篇文章已被 FoX-Lover 於 06-01 2009, 20:52 編輯過
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FoX-Lover
張貼文章 05-29 2009, 21:52
發表於: #8


投資少尉
*****

所屬群組: 板主群組
發表總數: 447
註冊日期: 02-23-2006
來自: 傈僳之國
會員編號: 691



引用框(goodman123456789 @ 05-29 2009, 20:50) *
引用框
我不相信我的問題已被回答了。我問的是非常嚴肅的問題.
共同基金一個法定個体。在它可能有它的績效表現之前, 它必需 建立 first. 作為一個嚴肅的投資者,我們需要做适當的 DUE DILIGENCE (DD). 我理解和我相信資金或資金經理(Hedge fund 基金經理或 CPO 等等), 出版 不存在的資金表現績效來誘使投資者投資是 Against 法律。 如果共同基金的經理能出版非存在的績效表現. 您怎麼信任它的績效表現?比較Madoff 有何區別?
http://www.trend.ky/uploads/tools/charts/Tulip_A_EUR_en.pdf

在您投資之前,您必须首先回答這個問題, 您必须首先發現問題的答? (answer): 根據 Tulip Trend Fund Ltd (鬱金香基金)的備忘錄 (OFFERING MEMORANDUM), page 8, section 3.1 INTRODUCTION, Tulip Trend Fund Ltd (鬱金香基金) 是在 2003 年1月 在Cayman Islands 成立的. 鬱金香基金 在 1994-2002 年 不存在. 為什麼 鬱金香基金 有從 1994-2002 年的績效? 這是否是詐欺?
http://www.trend.ky/uploads/tools/charts/Tulip_A_EUR_en.pdf

Madoff 用詐欺論罪.
如果您讀某些 press report (PR) 由CFTC或NFA 出版. 由一些人張貼在這個論壇,您看見詐欺是嚴肅的問題。
資金經理(Hedge fund 基金經理或 CPO 等等), 出版 不存在的資金表現績效來誘使投資者投資是詐欺.

SEC 用詐欺論罪 Madoff.
CFTC/NFA 用詐欺論罪 many fund managers or Commodity Pool Operators (CPO) who are (hedge) fund managers. 詐欺 is NOT 理所當然. 詐欺 is NOT acceptable.


提供反思一下
1. 投資Madoff的基金 英國Kings Global, 美國Fairfield Sentry, Pioneer鋒裕資產的奧地利Primeo Select......這堆基金經理人有哪些有被起訴的?? 起訴法令的依據是? 政府監管單位是? 有確定是詐欺?
同樣道理 鬱金香基金如果要定她詐欺 條件是什麼? 和績效資料有關嗎? 恐怕是行不通的 廣告不實是有可能
DD不是我們投資人要做的 我們沒這義務也附不起這種成本 DD的重點在於基金結構 不在於績效(甚至無啥關係)
要定詐欺 在於
DD她的稽核師(PricewaterhouseCoopers) 基金財務帳戶操作帳戶(NewEdge...)的帳料真假

2. B. Madoff具有期貨券商和Adviser身分 被起訴的部分 小的不確定是這兩個哪一者
拿鬱金香來比照 相當於起訴Transtrend公司(荷蘭農業金庫附屬Rebeco資產公司的全資子公司-CTA角色)
或是她開戶操作的的期貨券商NewEdge公司犯了詐欺

3.CTA除了單獨帳戶外 基金形式全都是Feeder Fund (但一般我們不那樣講CTA)
投資帳戶當然要比基金形式早存在有實際績效述具 這是CTA投資人最在意的 當然就是防詐欺之重點所在
Madoff證券公司和它的會計公司 應該是合謀在這部分偽造個別客戶帳戶下的交易資料和持有資產
這就好像台股 你在XX證券的集管戶存摺記載你的持股都是虛擬的 買進賣出交易記錄也是虛構的
這個台股帳戶 你在網路上看到的都是假的 你網路下單都是假的 根本沒有在集中交易市場下單買賣
請問誰有在做DD 拿著自己的證券集管戶存摺 去證交所清點在那邊記存的股票和毎一筆買賣記錄有否發生??


本篇文章已被 FoX-Lover 於 05-29 2009, 22:57 編輯過
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FoX-Lover
張貼文章 05-30 2009, 00:32
發表於: #9


投資少尉
*****

所屬群組: 板主群組
發表總數: 447
註冊日期: 02-23-2006
來自: 傈僳之國
會員編號: 691



引用框(goodman123456789 @ 05-29 2009, 23:50) *
SEC 用詐欺論罪 Madoff.
Madoff' s受害者: http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/document...s_20081215.html
完整的Madoff' s受害者的目录: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/doc...tlist020409.pdf
不要成為下個受害者. 相似 Madoff' s受害者 的受害者

(1) 一個未被回答的問題: 根據 Tulip Trend Fund Ltd (鬱金香基金)的備忘錄 (OFFERING MEMORANDUM), page 8, section 3.1 INTRODUCTION, Tulip Trend Fund Ltd (鬱金香基金) 是在 2003 年1月 在Cayman Islands 成立的. 鬱金香基金 在 1994-2002 年 不存在. 為什麼 鬱金香基金 有從 1994-2002 年的績效?
http://www.trend.ky/uploads/tools/charts/Tulip_A_EUR_en.pdf
(2) 另一個未被回答的問題: Who commits 詐欺 in this case?


其實到剛剛我花了那麼多時間有在打字正面回覆(1) (2) 結果......一不注意 沒有中途先按回覆 又被Refresh洗掉了
版友有這種問題嗎? 好像超過20-30分鍾 版面會被洗一次 我打字很慢 又想當稍微有耕耘的版主
可是已經被洗無數次 好幾次我認為對網友很重要的 我很認真打的長文 打到一半 網頁居然自己更新掉 就不見了
搞得我抓狂 心情沮喪 好幾天

還有 我想每月定期轉貼一些第三方資料庫查的 各類型避險策略的指數狀況 貼來此格式欄位全部亂掉
要重新排版
還對不齊要一再調整 貼個數據要搞一兩個小時 又要時時面臨上面不定期什麼時候自動洗文
今年 最近幾個月我很少上來 實在抓狂得受不了了
大家有這種問題嗎? 還是短短回覆沒發顯這問題 我要打長文又慢慢思考 才有這問題??
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

剛才我不見的打字 實再不想再打了 當做我已經回覆得很細節了
重點是把Madoff的證券商顧問模式和鬱金香的基金模式的質疑放在同一比較
不同領域的制度規則 扯一起不對秤只會更混亂 難以釐清脈絡
Man AHL反而比鬱金香更像Madoff的可能
因為Man沒有把基金經理CTA顧問broker-dealer這三個角色分離開 鬱金香卻分開


本篇文章已被 FoX-Lover 於 05-31 2009, 01:54 編輯過
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
magga
張貼文章 05-30 2009, 10:53
發表於: #10


投資少尉
*****

所屬群組: 進階會員
發表總數: 101
註冊日期: 01-27-2008
會員編號: 28818



引用框(FoX-Lover @ 05-30 2009, 00:32) *
其實到剛剛我花了那麼多時間有在打字正面回覆(1) (2) 結果......一不注意 沒有中途先按回覆 又被洗掉了
版友有這種問題嗎? 好像超過20-30分鍾 版面會被洗一次 我打字很慢 又想當稍微有責任的版主
可是已經被洗無數次 好幾次我認為對網友很重要的 我很認真打的長文 打到一半 網頁居然自己更新掉 就不見了
搞得我抓狂 心情沮喪 好幾天

還有 我想每月定期轉貼一些第三方資料庫查的 各類型避險策略的指數狀況 貼來此格式欄位全部亂掉
要重新排版
還對不齊要一再調整 貼個數據要搞一兩個小時 又要時時面臨上面不定期什麼時候自動洗文
今年 最近幾個月我很少上來 實在抓狂得受不了了

大家有這種問題嗎? 還是短短回覆沒發顯這問題 我要打長文又慢慢思考 才有這問題??

認真的版主, 辛苦啦!
網路是個便利, 但未必可靠的東西.
重要資料最好先在自己的編輯器(notepad, word....)打好字, 再貼上網.
這種毛病從早期bbs到現在的 gxxgle mail, documents 代代相傳. 常常愈認真寫, 愈讓人抓狂吐血! :banghead:
還是要給你拍拍手! :thumb:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FoX-Lover
張貼文章 06-01 2009, 10:25
發表於: #11


投資少尉
*****

所屬群組: 板主群組
發表總數: 447
註冊日期: 02-23-2006
來自: 傈僳之國
會員編號: 691



台灣的銀行界獨有(國外都沒有)的特定金錢信託這種複委託模式
提供了平台 逃避私募性質的有價證券初級發行所該有的程序和規範

引用框(mcs251 @ 04-29 2009, 10:34) *
二五○億 台版馬多夫 逾2萬人受害 更新日期:2009/04/29 03:25

美國PEM集團董事長彭日成被凍結資產與限制出境,台灣部分受災情況如何迄今成謎;據悉,包括渣打、華銀、安泰、萬泰、台中商銀、永豐香港分行在內,國內投資未到期的連動債與共同基金,合計逾七億美元,折合新台幣約兩百五十億元,受害人數超過兩萬名。
金管會主委陳冲等人上周三赴立院財委會備詢時,原本承諾三天內會把國人投資PEM集團的金額、型態、人數、銷售銀行等,翔實呈報給關切此案的立委費鴻泰等人,且會督促銀行善盡銷售責任,不過,一周過去,金管會不但承諾跳票,多數投資人因訊息不透明,連自己正面臨極大損失,可能血本無歸都不曉得。

金管會迄未揭露相關資訊

據悉,PEM集團在台子公司宜恩財富管理公司,上周六已邀集六家機構協商有關事宜,除了渣打銀行沒出席外,其餘五家銀行都派多名代表與會,但因連動債或共同基金所連結的資產是否確實存在?PEM美方代表無法給予明確答案,銷售銀行目前也只能見招拆招。

據悉,PEM雖是一家私募基金公司,但其在台銷售商品並非針對三十五人以下販售的私募基金商品,而是非常典型的「連動債」。二○○五年率先由渣打銀行引進,因由信託架構下的紙上公司GVEC擔任發行機構,商品不乏「GVEC保本保息」字眼,但各銀行取名不一,有的叫「安富尊榮」、「一本萬利」,也有叫「富利人生」。

熟悉此案人士指出,PEM在台賣的連動債,以美元計價為主,年期介於兩年半到四年,每半年付息一次,年利率視天期長短介於四%到六%,強調持有到期肯定保本,且保證半年給付一次利息,在渣打、華銀、安泰、萬泰、台中商銀五家銀行通路一度吸引定存族青睞。

投資人恐血本無歸都不知

相關人士說,PEM把在台灣等地募得的資金,拿去購買美國的次級市場壽險保單。舉例而言,七十歲以上的美國人買了一百萬美元保額的保單,以打八折方式,把保單轉讓給GVEC等發行機構,買方研判老人可能活不久,倘若兩三年後死亡,可領取一百萬美元的死亡給付,箇中價差,就是這些連動債的潛在投資報酬。

除保單之外,PEM的連動債也投資不少美國的度假村公司,把會費拿去做證券化包裝的證券化商品。

相關人士說,目前問題在於,PEM集團因負責人遭調查,加上這些連動債的發行機構GVEC只是一家紙上公司,名下到底有多少資產不知。最壞情況為,國內投資人可能只能拿回原始投入本金不到一成的金額,但這些重要資訊,金管會迄今都沒有揭露。 本則新聞由中時電子報提供 2009/04/29

---------------------------------------------------
台版馬多夫 六銀踩雷7億美元! 陳冲:已要求5/1提保障方案
更新日期:2009/04/29 10:42 記者顏真真/台北報導

美國加州「保盛豐集團」(Private Equity Management Group)董事長兼執行長彭日成被凍結資產與限制出境,台灣也成受災戶,金管會主委陳冲今(29)日表示,國內共有6銀行在台銷售相關商品約有7.462億美元,折合台幣近250億元,受害投資人約1萬6000人,不過,他強調,已要求銀行在5月1日提出投資人權益保障方案,同時,也委託國際法律事務所進行跨海調查及提出法律訴訟。

美國證券管理委員會已正式對彭日成提出控告,並凍結其資產,由於PEMG集團主要投資者都來自台灣,今日在立法院財委會也引發立委關切。

國民黨立委廖正井就質疑,國內銀行風控大有問題,美指稱彭日成的學經歷造假,連歷史悠久的華南銀行都受騙,真的很荒唐,據了解,華南銀引進該集團金融商品金額達2.2億美元,永豐銀更高有2.5億美元;國民黨立委孫大千也詢問金管會主委陳冲,目前國內受害投資人到底有多少人、金額有多少?

陳冲表示,其實這事情一發生,金管會就與美國證管會取得連絡共同調查、追蹤此案件,他們的任何行動也會告知我們,金管會上週也已邀銀行開會,除要求銀行要告知客戶目前及後續處理狀況,並要求5月1日必須提出保障投資人權益方案,此外,銀行也成立專案小組,清查PEMG集團在國內是否有資產。

至於到底是哪些金融機構在銷售PEMG的金融商品,國民黨立委費鴻泰表示,根據金管會給他的資料,包括華南銀行、永豐銀行、渣打銀行、安泰銀行、萬泰銀行、台中商銀,其中華南銀行有2.05億美元、渣打銀行有2.21億美元、永豐銀行有1.46億美元、安泰銀行有0.52億美元、萬泰銀行有0.48億美元、台中商銀有0.76億美元。

陳冲則指出,根據金管會初步統計,PEMG所有銷售額有7成是來自台灣,目前台灣銷售PEMG金融商品的金額約有7.462億美元,折合台幣約250億,投資人約有1萬6000人

不過,國民黨立委孫大千也進一步追問,在台投資人是不是真的會血本無歸?陳冲則說,以華南銀行來說,其實都做過對保,比一般連動債多做一個保全手續,但沒想到還是發生這種事,當然,如果保單貸款是真實的,應該還有機會。
------------------------------------------
PEM案!立院決議六家銀行暫停銷售海外信託商品
更新日期:2009/04/29 15:05

「PEM保盛豐集團」被美國證管會控告涉嫌詐欺,涉及國內一萬六千多位投資的兩百五十億元資金,被稱為「台版馬多夫案」。立法院財委會決議,華南、渣打、永豐、萬泰、台中商銀、以及安泰等六家銀行,將全面暫停銷售海外信託金融商品給一般自然人,立委費鴻泰說,這也包括一般的海外基金。金管會主委陳沖說,以後相關商品會採取審查制,如果受託銀行沒有善盡管理責任,必須負全責。(張雅惠報導)

從五年前開始,「PEM保盛豐集團」陸續透過國內六家銀行銷售海外信託基金,到目前為止,總計有一萬六千位投資人,分別透過渣打銀行買了兩億兩千多萬美元,透過華南銀行兩億零五百多萬美元,透過永豐銀行一億四千多萬美元,透過台中商銀、安泰銀行、萬泰銀行各有四千多萬到七千多萬美元不等。由於美國証管會SEC已經控告「PEM保盛豐集團」詐欺,但金管會毫無作為,立法院財委會決議,這六家銀行將全面暫停銷售任何以信託方式引進國內的海外金融商品,立委費鴻泰說,這包括一般的海外基金。

「你們把我們講的話當放屁了!都賣到台灣來了!我請問你,有沒有違法?」

這些銀行週五之前要提出保障投資人權益的方案。華南銀行總經理李正義說,銀行該負什麼責任,就會負責。金管會主委陳沖說,信託涉及發行人、保証人、受託人、保管人,銷售商品的銀行是受託人的角色,陳沖轉述華南銀行的說法,有透過海外聚點兌保,已經比一般信託更嚴謹了。

「按照信託法的規定,銀行要盡善良管理人的責任,如果沒有盡到善良管理人的義務,他就要負責,如果有盡到,法律上可能要有另外的解釋」

信託架構本身理應是資金獨立的,這是金管會並沒有審查信託商品的原因。但這起事件之後,陳沖說,會採取審查制。

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
goodman123456789
張貼文章 06-01 2009, 11:53
發表於: #12


投資少尉
*****

所屬群組: Banned
發表總數: 149
註冊日期: 05-15-2009
會員編號: 35055



.

本篇文章已被 goodman123456789 於 06-25 2009, 11:52 編輯過
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
goodman123456789
張貼文章 06-02 2009, 07:50
發表於: #13


投資少尉
*****

所屬群組: Banned
發表總數: 149
註冊日期: 05-15-2009
會員編號: 35055



.

本篇文章已被 goodman123456789 於 06-25 2009, 11:52 編輯過
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
goodman123456789
張貼文章 06-03 2009, 11:43
發表於: #14


投資少尉
*****

所屬群組: Banned
發表總數: 149
註冊日期: 05-15-2009
會員編號: 35055



.

本篇文章已被 goodman123456789 於 06-25 2009, 11:53 編輯過
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
飛天金融家
張貼文章 08-25 2009, 10:24
發表於: #15


投資新兵
*

所屬群組: 新手會員
發表總數: 5
註冊日期: 08-24-2009
會員編號: 36087



引用框(FoX-Lover @ 05-29 2009, 19:21) *
引用框(goodman123456789 @ 05-29 2009, 11:21) *
引用框(ymbis @ 05-29 2009, 10:39) *

他是由投資於transtrend然後舉槓桿170%~~200%...............
http://www.transtrend.com/
transtrend門檻1000萬美元~~
standard risk class績效起於1992~
enhanced risk class績效起於1995~
所以Tulip是一隻舉槓桿的feeder fund


Thanks again, ymbis.
You provide very good information.
但我的問題未被回答。

問題: 根據 Tulip Trend Fund Ltd (鬱金香基金)的備忘錄 (OFFERING MEMORANDUM), page 8, section 3.1 INTRODUCTION, Tulip Trend Fund Ltd (鬱金香基金) 是在 2003 年1月 在Cayman Islands 成立的. 鬱金香基金 在 1994-2002 年 不存在. 為什麼 鬱金香基金 有從 1994-2002 年的績效?
http://www.trend.ky/uploads/tools/charts/Tulip_A_EUR_en.pdf
我想知道這是否是詐欺? 如果它不是詐欺, 原因是什麼?


一點個人感想 以前大家都切磋過了 沒有新想法

AHL程式帳戶 (Man所屬子公司) <------ Man AHL基金 (Man 母公司自己發行)
Winton程式帳戶 (Winton Futures公司) <------ PAM管理期貨基金 (香港PAM公司獨立發行)
Transtrend程式帳戶 (荷蘭農業金庫子公司) <------鬱金香趨勢基金 (瑞士Progressive Capital獨立發行)
程式帳戶1988-1992開始有績效記錄 <-----右側都是Feeder Funds很晚才發行 都模擬帳戶的績效
這三個程式帳戶最低投資額都是1000萬美金. CTA帳戶也有1~10萬美金就可投資的, 良莠不齊被告詐欺多屬此

1. Ymbis大大其實已經回答你了
當初這檔亞洲沒有經銷商代理推出 沒沒無聞根本沒聽過 我們散戶自行挖掘研究 網友懷疑特別多 才經得起風暴考驗 基智討論版和這站有我們眾散戶的過程智慧 請爬文再來 2008春節假開始私下研議 延後到3-5月份才貼版討論丟給投資投資管道
http://www.moneyq.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18915

2. 任何基金(包括共同)1994-2003年的績效 我們投資人最好非要要看不可 這叫找罩門
尤其是研究1992-1994英國金融風暴 1997.8-1998亞洲金融風暴 1998.8-1999長期資本新興債風暴
一般人頂多只看2000.3-2003.3科技股泡沫期間的績效

3.任何基金本身不夠老的 上述時期沒有實際淨值的 務必去打她的罩門-逼出她的模擬績效或相對績效指標圖
通常我們碰到的狀況是反而是老基金明明有實際淨值卻故意蒙騙躲閃(因為很難看) Permal固定收益(原高收)1997發行 可是都會把公元2000年前的績效線型圖藏起來 美林固定收益組裝這兩檔 當然有1997-2000年模擬績效 來台做簡報 現場被我逼供 支吾其詞說簡報電子檔製做時 沒有放進那段

4. 共同基金隱瞞績效的手法也非常普遍 罄竹難書 難以用詐欺論罪 卻普遍有意圖詐欺 業界和投資人視為理所當然
除了上面明明有績效卻故意藏起來, 平均年績效和波動率和夏普值採計少於三年, 有採計三年以上的卻又故意不延伸到罩門時期的績效, 只誇耀淨值績效上漲段的波動率和夏普值, 迴避基金下跌段的波動率夏普值, 拒絕提供最大連續跌幅, 最大單月跌幅, 最久恢復期間....等數據, 利用基金改名(美名曰改策略換經理人)或合併, 清算舊基金等多頭熱潮又重新募基金(科技 金融 能源...)來正大光明漂白掉之前令人發窘的績效數據
普遍到聯X高收 美收 X蘭牌 富X牌.....的績效資料都是美化過的 我去電公司要罩門資料 好的就推拖等到忘掉 不好的知道你是內行投資人 會反擊甚至威脅你 渾然忘了你也有一萬美金在她的基金上.......狗吠火車 干有辦法?
我知道的訊息是tulip fund是2004年4月發行,至於在這之前的績效應是模擬績效,也就是以這檔基金的程式交易模組將1994~2003的市場行情套入所產生的績效值
很多新成立的基金都是用這種方式以便讓投資人知道他們可以在將來依照這個程式交易模組所創造的績效。至於所謂詐欺?我不很認同,因為這檔基金從2004~2009的績效表
現就如同它之前做的模擬績效一樣出色,這一點是無庸置疑的。
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dislcose2009
張貼文章 08-25 2009, 14:19
發表於: #16


投資少尉
*****

所屬群組: 一般會員
發表總數: 116
註冊日期: 08-25-2009
會員編號: 36092



引用框(飛天金融家 @ 08-25 2009, 10:24) *
我知道的訊息是tulip fund是2004年4月發行,至於在這之前的績效應是模擬績效,也就是以這檔基金的程式交易模組將1994~2003的市場行情套入所產生的績效值
很多新成立的基金都是用這種方式以便讓投資人知道他們可以在將來依照這個程式交易模組所創造的績效。至於所謂詐欺?我不很認同,因為這檔基金從2004~2009的績效表
現就如同它之前做的模擬績效一樣出色,這一點是無庸置疑的。


飛天金融家:

1. Are there any documents or web-sites published by tulip fund CLEARLY discloses that 在2004 之前的績效是模擬績效 (per your statement above)?

2. If you see such disclosure information, please provide us the source of your information.

3. If tulip fund does not CLEARLY disclose that such 績效 (before 2004) is 模擬績效, that is misleading investors in my opinions. 模擬績效 is NOT the real 績效. They can not be mixed. Fund management has responsibility to CLEARLY disclose that without misleading its prospective investors.

4. Misleading investor is BIG issue in financial industrial. My understanding is that misleading is considered a type of frauds. Below are just some examples (BofA, Merrill Lynch and Citi). You can just google SEC + misleading, you will see a lot of examples.

5. BofA pays $33M SEC fine for misleading investors --- see: http://www.fox23news.com/business/story/Bo...-P8YXrPTCA.cspx

6. SEC charges Merrill Lynch with misleading pension consulting clients --- see: http://hedgeweek.com/articles/detail.jsp?content_id=290878

7. Citi in talks with SEC over its misleading the investors --- see: http://www.ecommerce-journal.com/news/1576...g_the_investors

I reply your above post for the sole purpose of educate the members/visitors in this forum to be aware of misleading and fraud in their investment. If a financial company is not willing to CLEARLY disclose what is its REAL/LIVE performance and what is its 模擬績效, how can you even trust its performance data (no matter how good or how bad)?

Furthermore, are you a programmer? Do you understand that it is relatively easy for a programmer to create a trading system to generate good 模擬績效? How can a company use 模擬績效 and mix it with real live performance without CLEARLY disclose that to its prospective investors? Without CLEARLY disclose that, the prospective investor is going to assume that the whole performance data as published by the fund management is the real live performance not 模擬績效. This is a BIG issue. This is misleading in my opinions. That is the reason SEC takes action aggressively against BofA, Merrill Lynch and Citi as you can see on the PRs cited above.

Please give some more though about the serious issue we are discussing herein. Post your opinions again if you would like to.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
飛天金融家
張貼文章 08-25 2009, 16:25
發表於: #17


投資新兵
*

所屬群組: 新手會員
發表總數: 5
註冊日期: 08-24-2009
會員編號: 36087



引用框(dislcose2009 @ 08-25 2009, 14:19) *
引用框(飛天金融家 @ 08-25 2009, 10:24) *
我知道的訊息是tulip fund是2004年4月發行,至於在這之前的績效應是模擬績效,也就是以這檔基金的程式交易模組將1994~2003的市場行情套入所產生的績效值
很多新成立的基金都是用這種方式以便讓投資人知道他們可以在將來依照這個程式交易模組所創造的績效。至於所謂詐欺?我不很認同,因為這檔基金從2004~2009的績效表
現就如同它之前做的模擬績效一樣出色,這一點是無庸置疑的。


飛天金融家:

1. Are there any documents or web-sites published by tulip fund CLEARLY discloses that 在2004 之前的績效是模擬績效 (per your statement above)?

2. If you see such disclosure information, please provide us the source of your information.

3. If tulip fund does not CLEARLY disclose that such 績效 (before 2004) is 模擬績效, that is misleading investors in my opinions. 模擬績效 is NOT the real 績效. They can not be mixed. Fund management has responsibility to CLEARLY disclose that without misleading its prospective investors.

4. Misleading investor is BIG issue in financial industrial. My understanding is that misleading is considered a type of frauds. Below are just some examples (BofA, Merrill Lynch and Citi). You can just google SEC + misleading, you will see a lot of examples.

5. BofA pays $33M SEC fine for misleading investors --- see: http://www.fox23news.com/business/story/Bo...-P8YXrPTCA.cspx

6. SEC charges Merrill Lynch with misleading pension consulting clients --- see: http://hedgeweek.com/articles/detail.jsp?content_id=290878

7. Citi in talks with SEC over its misleading the investors --- see: http://www.ecommerce-journal.com/news/1576...g_the_investors

I reply your above post for the sole purpose of educate the members/visitors in this forum to be aware of misleading and fraud in their investment. If a financial company is not willing to CLEARLY disclose what is its REAL/LIVE performance and what is its 模擬績效, how can you even trust its performance data (no matter how good or how bad)?

Furthermore, are you a programmer? Do you understand that it is relatively easy for a programmer to create a trading system to generate good 模擬績效? How can a company use 模擬績效 and mix it with real live performance without CLEARLY disclose that to its prospective investors? Without CLEARLY disclose that, the prospective investor is going to assume that the whole performance data as published by the fund management is the real live performance not 模擬績效. This is a BIG issue. This is misleading in my opinions. That is the reason SEC takes action aggressively against BofA, Merrill Lynch and Citi as you can see on the PRs cited above.

Please give some more though about the serious issue we are discussing herein. Post your opinions again if you would like to.

很謝謝你的指教,如果方便的話可否下次以中文回覆。
在這裡我要說的是,我們都知道我們討論的是避險基金,而不是公開發行的基金,我想這兩者的差異大家都略知一二。
第二我再重述一次,暫且不論它1994~2002的績效是怎麼來的,2003~2009的績效是所有投資人可以共同檢驗的。
第三據我所知tulip fund在國內或國外都是以境外基金私募的方式募集,因此如果您知道境外基金私募的程序就不至有上述的疑問。
當然投資人合理的懷疑一檔基金其績效的正確性是決對可以被接受的,但如同前面所講的,它是避險基金而且是以境外基金私募的方式募集,
你能說什麼呢?有時後投資本來就是這樣,一個願打一個願挨,天皇老子八竿子打不著。
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dislcose2009
張貼文章 08-26 2009, 06:49
發表於: #18


投資少尉
*****

所屬群組: 一般會員
發表總數: 116
註冊日期: 08-25-2009
會員編號: 36092



引用框(飛天金融家 @ 08-25 2009, 16:25) *
很謝謝你的指教,如果方便的話可否下次以中文回覆。

I am sorry that it is 不方便 in my end, since my computer does not have the software to support the function of entering Chinese character.

引用框(飛天金融家 @ 08-25 2009, 16:25) *
在這裡我要說的是,我們都知道我們討論的是避險基金,而不是公開發行的基金,我想這兩者的差異大家都略知一二。

We are not talking about the fund is a 避險基金 or a 公開發行的基金. What we are talking about is the performance data provided by the fund management company the true real/live performance or not? I am sure you do not imply that the fund management of 避險基金 (either 國內或國外, 境內 or 境外, 私募 or 公開發行, etc) can (or have a right to) mislead its prospective investors in its performance data in any way.

Do you?

引用框(飛天金融家 @ 08-25 2009, 16:25) *
第二我再重述一次,暫且不論它1994~2002的績效是怎麼來的,2003~2009的績效是所有投資人可以共同檢驗的

I think (I believe or in my opinions) you miss the point and you miss it BIG.

The FIRST issue to be answered is what is the “1994~2002的績效”?
Is it REAL/LIVE 績效 or 模擬績效 or even FAKE 績效?

(A ) If it is a REAL/LIVE 績效, why it is a real one? Based on my limited knowledge, the fund does not even exist in such time frame.

(B ) If it is 模擬績效 and if the fund management does not CLEARLY disclose that to its prospective investors, this becomes a BIG issue. In this case, the rest of performance (2003~2009的績效) becomes questionable as well. In this case, in my opinions, 2003~2009的績效 has no meaning at all.

In this case, if we can not trust 1994~2002績效, how can we trust its 2003~2009的績效?
We really can NOT 暫且不論. We have to 論 it first before we make any investment with them ..….
If it is 模擬績效, why the 模擬績效 is only from 1994 to 2002, why not even early than 2002?
How do you know for sure that is a 模擬績效?

(C ) Is it a FAKE 績效?

So, in my opinions, the questions are still remained.
WHAT is the 1994~2002績效?
WHAT starts from 1994?
Why not starts early than 1994?
What is the significant of 1994?
WHY the fund has the 1994~2002績效 if it does not even exist in that time frame?
Is it REAL/LIVE 績效 or 模擬績效 or even FAKE 績效?
If it is 模擬績效 or even FAKE 績效, does the fund management CLEARLY disclose that in all of its promotion material (online or offline) sent to or published and viewed by its prospective investors?
If not, why not?
If yes, where is such disclosure statement?
Do all of its prospective investors receive such disclosure statement before become investors?

Do you see the point? Please post me back if you still do not see the point. I will be more than happy to see that you can see the point even you may not agree to the point.

引用框(飛天金融家 @ 08-25 2009, 16:25) *
第三據我所知tulip fund在國內或國外都是以境外基金私募的方式募集,因此如果您知道境外基金私募的程序就不至有上述的疑問

In my opinions, the performance data of any funds (either 國內或國外, 境內 or 境外, 私募 or 公開發行, etc) must CLEARLY DISCLOSE the FACT/nature of the performance. The fund management really can NOT mislead its prospective investors in the performance data. In my opinions, most (if not all) investors are virtually mainly based on such performance data to make investment decision. In my opinions, there is NO execute for misleading in the performance data (even though performance calculation error may occur some time). If the fund management can mislead its investors in its performance data, what else it can not mislead?

引用框(飛天金融家 @ 08-25 2009, 16:25) *
當然投資人合理的懷疑一檔基金其績效的正確性是決對可以被接受的,但如同前面所講的,它是避險基金而且是以境外基金私募的方式募集,
你能說什麼呢?有時後投資本來就是這樣,一個願打一個願挨,天皇老子八竿子打不著。

One of reason I intentionally take some time to reply your post is that some time I feel very sad when I saw people from/in Taiwan was misleaded by the direct or indirect promoters to invest based on some questionable promotional materials and eventually lost their hard earned money or even all of their life time savings.

In my opinions, the investors shall not invest in something they do not understand especially when invest in any of “offshore hedge funds”.

If you would like to, please disclose:

1. Do you (or any of your relatives or friends or significant party) have any financial or none-financial relationship with tulip fund and/or its management company either directly or in-directly?
2. If yes, what kind of relationship?
3. Are you an investor of tulip fund?
4. Are you a promoter of tulip fund?
5. Do you directly or in-directly work for tulip fund and/or its management company?
6. Do you directly or indirectly work for Taiwan government in any capacity of directly or indirectly approving 境外基金 in Taiwan?

However, you do not have to disclose that publically if you do not want to.

Please feel free to post me back again if you would like to.


===================================================================

Webmaster --- Please feel free to delete my posts if you feel my posts are not appropriate for this forum.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
飛天金融家
張貼文章 08-26 2009, 17:18
發表於: #19


投資新兵
*

所屬群組: 新手會員
發表總數: 5
註冊日期: 08-24-2009
會員編號: 36087



引用框(dislcose2009 @ 08-26 2009, 06:49) *
引用框(飛天金融家 @ 08-25 2009, 16:25) *
很謝謝你的指教,如果方便的話可否下次以中文回覆。

I am sorry that it is 不方便 in my end, since my computer does not have the software to support the function of entering Chinese character.

引用框(飛天金融家 @ 08-25 2009, 16:25) *
在這裡我要說的是,我們都知道我們討論的是避險基金,而不是公開發行的基金,我想這兩者的差異大家都略知一二。

We are not talking about the fund is a 避險基金 or a 公開發行的基金. What we are talking about is the performance data provided by the fund management company the true real/live performance or not? I am sure you do not imply that the fund management of 避險基金 (either 國內或國外, 境內 or 境外, 私募 or 公開發行, etc) can (or have a right to) mislead its prospective investors in its performance data in any way.

Do you?

引用框(飛天金融家 @ 08-25 2009, 16:25) *
第二我再重述一次,暫且不論它1994~2002的績效是怎麼來的,2003~2009的績效是所有投資人可以共同檢驗的

I think (I believe or in my opinions) you miss the point and you miss it BIG.

The FIRST issue to be answered is what is the “1994~2002的績效”?
Is it REAL/LIVE 績效 or 模擬績效 or even FAKE 績效?

(A ) If it is a REAL/LIVE 績效, why it is a real one? Based on my limited knowledge, the fund does not even exist in such time frame.

(B ) If it is 模擬績效 and if the fund management does not CLEARLY disclose that to its prospective investors, this becomes a BIG issue. In this case, the rest of performance (2003~2009的績效) becomes questionable as well. In this case, in my opinions, 2003~2009的績效 has no meaning at all.

In this case, if we can not trust 1994~2002績效, how can we trust its 2003~2009的績效?
We really can NOT 暫且不論. We have to 論 it first before we make any investment with them ..….
If it is 模擬績效, why the 模擬績效 is only from 1994 to 2002, why not even early than 2002?
How do you know for sure that is a 模擬績效?

(C ) Is it a FAKE 績效?

So, in my opinions, the questions are still remained.
WHAT is the 1994~2002績效?
WHAT starts from 1994?
Why not starts early than 1994?
What is the significant of 1994?
WHY the fund has the 1994~2002績效 if it does not even exist in that time frame?
Is it REAL/LIVE 績效 or 模擬績效 or even FAKE 績效?
If it is 模擬績效 or even FAKE 績效, does the fund management CLEARLY disclose that in all of its promotion material (online or offline) sent to or published and viewed by its prospective investors?
If not, why not?
If yes, where is such disclosure statement?
Do all of its prospective investors receive such disclosure statement before become investors?

Do you see the point? Please post me back if you still do not see the point. I will be more than happy to see that you can see the point even you may not agree to the point.

引用框(飛天金融家 @ 08-25 2009, 16:25) *
第三據我所知tulip fund在國內或國外都是以境外基金私募的方式募集,因此如果您知道境外基金私募的程序就不至有上述的疑問

In my opinions, the performance data of any funds (either 國內或國外, 境內 or 境外, 私募 or 公開發行, etc) must CLEARLY DISCLOSE the FACT/nature of the performance. The fund management really can NOT mislead its prospective investors in the performance data. In my opinions, most (if not all) investors are virtually mainly based on such performance data to make investment decision. In my opinions, there is NO execute for misleading in the performance data (even though performance calculation error may occur some time). If the fund management can mislead its investors in its performance data, what else it can not mislead?

引用框(飛天金融家 @ 08-25 2009, 16:25) *
當然投資人合理的懷疑一檔基金其績效的正確性是決對可以被接受的,但如同前面所講的,它是避險基金而且是以境外基金私募的方式募集,
你能說什麼呢?有時後投資本來就是這樣,一個願打一個願挨,天皇老子八竿子打不著。

One of reason I intentionally take some time to reply your post is that some time I feel very sad when I saw people from/in Taiwan was misleaded by the direct or indirect promoters to invest based on some questionable promotional materials and eventually lost their hard earned money or even all of their life time savings.

In my opinions, the investors shall not invest in something they do not understand especially when invest in any of “offshore hedge funds”.

If you would like to, please disclose:

1. Do you (or any of your relatives or friends or significant party) have any financial or none-financial relationship with tulip fund and/or its management company either directly or in-directly?
2. If yes, what kind of relationship?
3. Are you an investor of tulip fund?
4. Are you a promoter of tulip fund?
5. Do you directly or in-directly work for tulip fund and/or its management company?
6. Do you directly or indirectly work for Taiwan government in any capacity of directly or indirectly approving 境外基金 in Taiwan?

However, you do not have to disclose that publically if you do not want to.

Please feel free to post me back again if you would like to.


===================================================================

Webmaster --- Please feel free to delete my posts if you feel my posts are not appropriate for this forum.

看到你逐條的回覆,實在很感謝你的用心。不過你在文中對我的質疑,令我礙難接受,因為你近乎有些不禮貌。
首先你說你的電腦不支援中文系統所以”不方便”使用中文回覆,但你文中又提到你為台灣的投資人感到非常難過因為投資發起人根據一些可疑的宣傳材料,讓他們最終失去了他們的血汗錢,甚至他們生活的全部積蓄。我要說的是如果你真那麼關心台灣投資人,請你趕快將你的電腦升級為中文版,因為你在這裡發表文章都是用英文,我真的不知道有多少人看的懂你在說些什麼?
再來就是你說我”miss the point”其實我並沒有,倒是我認為你並沒有看懂我在說什麼;如果我們的對話再這樣南轅北轍,那說實在我們應該結束對話。
又你一再的提到tulip fund在2004之前的績效是REAL/LIVE 績效 or 模擬績效 or even FAKE 績效?這個問題你應該去問發行的基金公司,而不是來質問我,因為我不能代表Transtrend B.V回答你的問題。
最後我要告訴你的是你無權質疑我是一位investor or promoter或你說的relationship。我們在公開的網路上討論一件事情,總會碰到正反兩面不同意見的人你不能因為別人跟你持不同意見或看法就去質疑別人,若是你可以這麼無禮的對跟你看法不同的人做這樣的質疑,那我是否也可以質疑你:
1. 你是不是Transtrend B.V的競爭對手或任職於其競爭對手的公司?
2. 你刻意的質疑這檔基金的績效是否別有用心?難到天底下所有的基金都沒問題只有tulip fund有問題?
3. 你是否曾經投資過Transtrend B.V所主持的基金,但結果並不理想?
4. 你是一位investor亦或是Financial practitioners?

看到我這樣對你的質疑你感覺如何?如果你願意回答上列四個問題我會洗耳恭聽。
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dislcose2009
張貼文章 08-27 2009, 05:47
發表於: #20


投資少尉
*****

所屬群組: 一般會員
發表總數: 116
註冊日期: 08-25-2009
會員編號: 36092



引用框(飛天金融家 @ 08-26 2009, 17:18) *
看到你逐條的回覆,實在很感謝你的用心.

Are you sure you 感謝我的用心?
Sorry I did not feel or get it, I need to work harder in my end to feel or get your 感謝!
But, thanks for say that any way!

引用框(飛天金融家 @ 08-26 2009, 17:18) *
不過你在文中對我的質疑,令我礙難接受,因為你近乎有些不禮貌。

對你的質疑 = 近乎有些不禮貌 ?
對 some one else (not you) 的質疑 != 近乎有些不禮貌 ?
不對你的質疑 =近乎有些禮貌 ?

So to 質疑 or not to 質疑?
In my opinions, any one better to 質疑 then not to 質疑!
Do you agree?

引用框(飛天金融家 @ 08-26 2009, 17:18) *
首先你說你的電腦不支援中文系統所以”不方便”使用中文回覆,但你文中又提到你為台灣的投資人感到非常難過因為投資發起人根據一些可疑的宣傳材料,讓他們最終失去了他們的血汗錢,甚至他們生活的全部積蓄。我要說的是如果你真那麼關心台灣投資人,請你趕快將你的電腦升級為中文版,因為你在這裡發表文章都是用英文,我真的不知道有多少人看的懂你在說些什麼?

Thanks for your suggestions. I may do that when the time comes…… But no firm schedule or commitment in my end.

By the way, it is not necessary “升級”!
“中文版 to English 版” != “升級 or down grade”
“English 版 to 中文 版” != “升級 or down grade”

引用框(飛天金融家 @ 08-26 2009, 17:18) *
再來就是你說我”miss the point”其實我並沒有,倒是我認為你並沒有看懂我在說什麼;如果我們的對話再這樣南轅北轍,那說實在我們應該結束對話。


我沒有看懂你在說什麼?
Are you really sure 我沒有看懂你在說什麼?
How do you sure?

In my opinions, 你沒有看懂 我看懂你在說什麼! That is the reason you said “我沒有看懂你在說什麼”!
你懂我在說什麼?

引用框(飛天金融家 @ 08-26 2009, 17:18) *
又你一再的提到tulip fund在2004之前的績效是REAL/LIVE 績效 or 模擬績效 or even FAKE 績效?這個問題你應該去問發行的基金公司,而不是來質問我,因為我不能代表Transtrend B.V回答你的問題.

Did I 質問你?
What make you feel I質問你?
Why you feel you are the one been 質問?
Why on one else feel they are been 質問?

I asked the reasonable questions in public forum to response to your public post.
If you can directly answer the questions, please answer them directly otherwise, just said you do not know the answer or just say nothing.
Is that that difficult?
There is nothing wrong to say “I do not know the answer”.

Did you say” 因為這檔基金從2004~2009的績效表
現就如同它之前做的模擬績效一樣出色,這一點是無庸置疑的。” in your posts?

無庸置疑?

Did you also say “暫且不論它1994~2002的績效是怎麼來的,2003~2009的績效是所有投資人可以共同檢驗的”?

You made such statements early publically in your post. I was just challenging your statements. You said that is 模擬績效. I asked you how do you know that is 模擬績效? What document you have to support your statements? Please answer that! If you can not support your statements, please just say so.

You said 可以共同檢驗, why you feel offended when I 檢驗 it?
Even you said 可以共同檢驗, you really mean 不可以共同檢驗!
If you mean不可以共同檢驗, why not just say so?

Did you imply that Transtrend B.V is the 基金發行公司 (the fund management company)?

Do you have any document to support that Transtrend B.V is the 基金發行公司 (the fund management company)?

Did you further imply that Transtrend B.V is the one who published the performance data (from 1994 to 2009) of tulip fund?

Do you have any document to support that such performance data of Tulip Funds is published by Transtrend B.V?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dislcose2009
張貼文章 08-27 2009, 05:49
發表於: #21


投資少尉
*****

所屬群組: 一般會員
發表總數: 116
註冊日期: 08-25-2009
會員編號: 36092



引用框(飛天金融家 @ 08-26 2009, 17:18) *
最後我要告訴你的是你無權質疑我是一位investor or promoter或你說的relationship.

That does not have to be 最後. That shall be 最先! In my opinions, you mean 最先 not 最後!
Any one can 質疑 any thing (including “最後 v.s. 最先” as I just intentionally 質疑 you to make a point)!
Do you agree?
In my early post, did I say you do not have to disclose if you do not want to?
After I said that, why you still strongly feel offended?
WHY?
Please advise us.

引用框(飛天金融家 @ 08-26 2009, 17:18) *
我們在公開的網路上討論一件事情,總會碰到正反兩面不同意見的人你不能因為別人跟你持不同意見或看法就去質疑別人,若是你可以這麼無禮的對跟你看法不同的人做這樣的質疑,那我是否也可以質疑你:

質疑 = 這麼無禮?
Are you a “non質疑able” person?
You made statements in a public forum and people can not 質疑 your statements and/or you?
WHY?
What make you feel that way?
What make you so special?
What make you feel that your statements are “non質疑able” and/or you are a “non質疑able” person?
Please advise us.

引用框(飛天金融家 @ 08-26 2009, 17:18) *
1. 你是不是Transtrend B.V的競爭對手或任職於其競爭對手的公司?

Do you imply that Transtrend B.V is the one who is 基金發行公司 (the fund management company) and/or who published the performance data of Tulip Fund?

Do you have any document from Transtrend B.V to support that?
If you do, please let us know.

引用框(飛天金融家 @ 08-26 2009, 17:18) *
2. 你刻意的質疑這檔基金的績效是否別有用心?難到天底下所有的基金都沒問題只有tulip fund有問題?

May I ask you WHY you posted your very FIRST post and just talk about Tulip Fund? Do you 別有用心?

難到 you do not have any interest to talk about any other of 天底下所有的基金, except Tulip Fund?

Why you felt so offended when you or your statements are reasonably questioned?

Why you are so attach to Tulip Fund?

引用框(飛天金融家 @ 08-26 2009, 17:18) *
3. 你是否曾經投資過Transtrend B.V所主持的基金,但結果並不理想?

Do you imply that Tulip Fund is Transtrend B.V所”主持”的基金?
Do you have any document to support your statement?
If you do, please let us know.

What do you mean “主持”?
Please define it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dislcose2009
張貼文章 08-27 2009, 05:51
發表於: #22


投資少尉
*****

所屬群組: 一般會員
發表總數: 116
註冊日期: 08-25-2009
會員編號: 36092



引用框(飛天金融家 @ 08-26 2009, 17:18) *
4. 你是一位investor亦或是Financial practitioners?

How about you? Why not you tell us?

引用框(飛天金融家 @ 08-26 2009, 17:18) *
看到我這樣對你的質疑你感覺如何?如果你願意回答上列四個問題我會洗耳恭聽。

You asked me 感覺如何?
I 感覺 very good.
I do not see any problem of you 對我的質疑.
I appreciate you 對我的質疑.
質疑 is good.
You shall 質疑 every investment opportunity offered by some one else or even every statements made by the entities involved directly or indirectly.

會洗耳恭聽?
(A ) 有聽 = 有進?
(B ) 有聽 = No進?
(A ) or (B ) ?

Based the questions you asked. In my opinions, I clearly understand that you do NOT understand some relationships between the entities involved in a fund (either offshore, onshore, hedge, mutual, private or public etc) and you misunderstand some important things/points. I am very sorry to say that. Hope that will not hurt your feeling!

Furthermore, I intentionally do not directly answer your questions (that does not imply that I can not answer your questions directly, I just intentionally choice not to answer).

Please be advised that even if you choice to directly answer my questions, that does not mean I will or will not or have to or have not to answer your questions directly or indirectly.

So to answer my questions to back up your statements or not is solely your choice. Again, you do not have to answer if you choice not to. You are the one who have to make the call. In my opinions, to increase your credibility in this forum, to answer my questions may not be a bad idea. By the way, I do not feel I have a need to answer your questions to increase my credibility in here.

By the way, 飛天金融家, based on your name, can I ask (or question) you again?

(A ) Are you a REAL 金融家 or a FAKE 金融家?
(B ) If you are a REAL 金融家, do you associate with any bank(s)?
(C ) Are the banks you associated with (if any) REAL bank(s) or FAKE bank(s)?
(D ) If REAL bank(s), what are the name(s) of bank(s)?
(E ) Is the currency used by such REAL bank(s) (if any) a REAL currency or a FAKE currency?
(F ) If it is a REAL currency, what is that?
(G ) If it is a FAKE currency, why? Please advise us.
(H ) If you associate with FAKE bank(s), why? Please advise us.
(I ) If you are a FAKE 金融家, why fake that? Please advise us.
(J ) If you are a FAKE 金融家, do you only associate with FAKE bank and use FAKE currency?
(K ) Or, you are able to fake into a REAL bank?
(L ) Since you are a “飛天金融家”, are you also a “dig ground 金融家” as well?

I was just joking with you using your name to make some points. Hope you will not feel offended again. And also hope you see the points. I really hope you will smile as you are reading my post as I am now while I am writing it.

By the way, I may not post or reply your posts again, unless, there is a strong reason (at my sole judgment) for me to do that.

However, please feel free to post me back again if you would like to. I do come back to this forum from time to time just for fun, as the fun I am having now replying your post. So, if you do not see my post again, that does not mean or imply that I do or do not see your post.

I wish you and your family the best, 飛天金融家. 88.

I also wish good investments to any and every one who reads this post.

=========

Webmaster --- Please feel free to delete my posts if you feel my posts are not appropriate for this forum.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
飛天金融家
張貼文章 08-27 2009, 11:00
發表於: #23


投資新兵
*

所屬群組: 新手會員
發表總數: 5
註冊日期: 08-24-2009
會員編號: 36087



引用框(dislcose2009 @ 08-27 2009, 05:51) *
引用框(飛天金融家 @ 08-26 2009, 17:18) *
4. 你是一位investor亦或是Financial practitioners?

How about you? Why not you tell us?

引用框(飛天金融家 @ 08-26 2009, 17:18) *
看到我這樣對你的質疑你感覺如何?如果你願意回答上列四個問題我會洗耳恭聽。

You asked me 感覺如何?
I 感覺 very good.
I do not see any problem of you 對我的質疑.
I appreciate you 對我的質疑.
質疑 is good.
You shall 質疑 every investment opportunity offered by some one else or even every statements made by the entities involved directly or indirectly.

會洗耳恭聽?
(A ) 有聽 = 有進?
(B ) 有聽 = No進?
(A ) or (B ) ?

Based the questions you asked. In my opinions, I clearly understand that you do NOT understand some relationships between the entities involved in a fund (either offshore, onshore, hedge, mutual, private or public etc) and you misunderstand some important things/points. I am very sorry to say that. Hope that will not hurt your feeling!

Furthermore, I intentionally do not directly answer your questions (that does not imply that I can not answer your questions directly, I just intentionally choice not to answer).

Please be advised that even if you choice to directly answer my questions, that does not mean I will or will not or have to or have not to answer your questions directly or indirectly.

So to answer my questions to back up your statements or not is solely your choice. Again, you do not have to answer if you choice not to. You are the one who have to make the call. In my opinions, to increase your credibility in this forum, to answer my questions may not be a bad idea. By the way, I do not feel I have a need to answer your questions to increase my credibility in here.

By the way, 飛天金融家, based on your name, can I ask (or question) you again?

(A ) Are you a REAL 金融家 or a FAKE 金融家?
(B ) If you are a REAL 金融家, do you associate with any bank(s)?
(C ) Are the banks you associated with (if any) REAL bank(s) or FAKE bank(s)?
(D ) If REAL bank(s), what are the name(s) of bank(s)?
(E ) Is the currency used by such REAL bank(s) (if any) a REAL currency or a FAKE currency?
(F ) If it is a REAL currency, what is that?
(G ) If it is a FAKE currency, why? Please advise us.
(H ) If you associate with FAKE bank(s), why? Please advise us.
(I ) If you are a FAKE 金融家, why fake that? Please advise us.
(J ) If you are a FAKE 金融家, do you only associate with FAKE bank and use FAKE currency?
(K ) Or, you are able to fake into a REAL bank?
(L ) Since you are a “飛天金融家”, are you also a “dig ground 金融家” as well?

I was just joking with you using your name to make some points. Hope you will not feel offended again. And also hope you see the points. I really hope you will smile as you are reading my post as I am now while I am writing it.

By the way, I may not post or reply your posts again, unless, there is a strong reason (at my sole judgment) for me to do that.

However, please feel free to post me back again if you would like to. I do come back to this forum from time to time just for fun, as the fun I am having now replying your post. So, if you do not see my post again, that does not mean or imply that I do or do not see your post.

I wish you and your family the best, 飛天金融家. 88.

I also wish good investments to any and every one who reads this post.

=========

Webmaster --- Please feel free to delete my posts if you feel my posts are not appropriate for this forum.

純脆的東方人在初次與人交談是非常有教養及有禮貌的除非對方自以為是的驕傲無禮,這是東方與西方,文明與野蠻的明顯分際。我不知 貴方為何略懂中文,是為了進入華人市場而苦學,亦或你是的家族混種的關係,請恕我如此質疑你的血統。
電腦軟體在亞洲,英文版改為中文版這叫Up Grade,這樣你聽懂了嗎?請問你是人在亞洲還是在美洲?
其它你寫那麼多,對不起我沒空看,生命應該浪費在其它美好的事物上而不是在這理跟你無聊的對話,我待會而還跟朋友約好去做日光浴,不會在這裡繼續跟你爬格子。
好吧!你說了那麼多不就是在說TULIP FUND在2004之前是假的嗎?我已經應你的要求盡量去找資料。其實早先就有人把該網址貼在這個討論版上,只是有人不知是眼睛長在頭頂上沒看到。

PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RETURNS. THE VALUE OF YOUR INVESTMENT MAY GO UP OR DOWN.
Returns from December 1993 to March 2003 are simulated results based on the actual performance of the Standard Risk USD subset (due to longer history) of the Diversified Trend Program composite track record of the Fund's trading advisor with pro-forma adjustments made for the Fund's fee and notional funding particulars. As such, such returns do not represent actual returns of the Fund during such time periods prior to April 1, 2003. Hypothetical performance results have many inherent limitations, some of which are described below. No representation is being made that the Fund will or is likely to achieve profits or losses similar to those shown. In fact, there are frequently sharp differences between hypothetical performance results and the actual results subsequently achieved by any particular trading program. One of the risks of hypothetical performance results is that they are generally prepared with the benefit of hindsight. In addition, hypothetical trading does not involve financial risk, and no hypothetical trading record can completely account for the impact of financial risk in actual trading
上列這些聲明文字位於下列網址開啟後畫面上所顯視出績效表的下方處(請參考下面網址):
http://www.trend.ky/uploads/tools/charts/Tulip_A_EUR_en.pdf
P.S 我不會繼續再跟你瞎扯了簡直浪費我的時間
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
飛天金融家
張貼文章 08-27 2009, 11:29
發表於: #24


投資新兵
*

所屬群組: 新手會員
發表總數: 5
註冊日期: 08-24-2009
會員編號: 36087



引用框(dislcose2009 @ 08-27 2009, 05:51) *
引用框(飛天金融家 @ 08-26 2009, 17:18) *
4. 你是一位investor亦或是Financial practitioners?

How about you? Why not you tell us?

引用框(飛天金融家 @ 08-26 2009, 17:18) *
看到我這樣對你的質疑你感覺如何?如果你願意回答上列四個問題我會洗耳恭聽。

You asked me 感覺如何?
I 感覺 very good.
I do not see any problem of you 對我的質疑.
I appreciate you 對我的質疑.
質疑 is good.
You shall 質疑 every investment opportunity offered by some one else or even every statements made by the entities involved directly or indirectly.

會洗耳恭聽?
(A ) 有聽 = 有進?
(B ) 有聽 = No進?
(A ) or (B ) ?

Based the questions you asked. In my opinions, I clearly understand that you do NOT understand some relationships between the entities involved in a fund (either offshore, onshore, hedge, mutual, private or public etc) and you misunderstand some important things/points. I am very sorry to say that. Hope that will not hurt your feeling!

Furthermore, I intentionally do not directly answer your questions (that does not imply that I can not answer your questions directly, I just intentionally choice not to answer).

Please be advised that even if you choice to directly answer my questions, that does not mean I will or will not or have to or have not to answer your questions directly or indirectly.

So to answer my questions to back up your statements or not is solely your choice. Again, you do not have to answer if you choice not to. You are the one who have to make the call. In my opinions, to increase your credibility in this forum, to answer my questions may not be a bad idea. By the way, I do not feel I have a need to answer your questions to increase my credibility in here.

By the way, 飛天金融家, based on your name, can I ask (or question) you again?

(A ) Are you a REAL 金融家 or a FAKE 金融家?
(B ) If you are a REAL 金融家, do you associate with any bank(s)?
(C ) Are the banks you associated with (if any) REAL bank(s) or FAKE bank(s)?
(D ) If REAL bank(s), what are the name(s) of bank(s)?
(E ) Is the currency used by such REAL bank(s) (if any) a REAL currency or a FAKE currency?
(F ) If it is a REAL currency, what is that?
(G ) If it is a FAKE currency, why? Please advise us.
(H ) If you associate with FAKE bank(s), why? Please advise us.
(I ) If you are a FAKE 金融家, why fake that? Please advise us.
(J ) If you are a FAKE 金融家, do you only associate with FAKE bank and use FAKE currency?
(K ) Or, you are able to fake into a REAL bank?
(L ) Since you are a “飛天金融家”, are you also a “dig ground 金融家” as well?

I was just joking with you using your name to make some points. Hope you will not feel offended again. And also hope you see the points. I really hope you will smile as you are reading my post as I am now while I am writing it.

By the way, I may not post or reply your posts again, unless, there is a strong reason (at my sole judgment) for me to do that.

However, please feel free to post me back again if you would like to. I do come back to this forum from time to time just for fun, as the fun I am having now replying your post. So, if you do not see my post again, that does not mean or imply that I do or do not see your post.

I wish you and your family the best, 飛天金融家. 88.

I also wish good investments to any and every one who reads this post.

=========

Webmaster --- Please feel free to delete my posts if you feel my posts are not appropriate for this forum.

我剛才要關掉網頁時,突然撇見你竟然在質問我"飛天金融家"這個名稱,我的天啊你該不會是瘋了吧!
你盡然還說我是"dig ground 金融家",我發覺你不但非常無禮而且用詞遣字非常聳動,如果你要說我是
dig ground 金融家請拿出證據來,這幸好只是一個討論版,要不然在正式的場合我可以提出誹謗的法
律告訴。就用你對我的質疑回你吧!你是不是一位dig ground 金融家?哦不好意思我跟朋友約的時間快
到了,bye bye
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dislcose2009
張貼文章 10-01 2009, 03:19
發表於: #25


投資少尉
*****

所屬群組: 一般會員
發表總數: 116
註冊日期: 08-25-2009
會員編號: 36092



Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) Commodity Pool Operator (CPO) are federal regulatory designations issued by CFTC/NFA.

In my opinions if one is not a CTA/CPO and publically directly/indirectly claims he/she is a CTA/CPO is considered fraud and he/she have committed a crime and should be prosecuted.

Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) Commodity Pool Operator (CPO) 是 聯邦監管指定稱號 issued by CFTC/NFA.

我的看法是如果一個人不是CTA/CPO, 但公開地,直接/間接地聲稱他/她是一個CTA/CPO 應被認為 是犯罪 是詐騙 應該受到起訴.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



- 簡化版本 現在時間: 10-22-2019 05:26