I do hope the defendants try to get into a trading strategy debate with me, because when that happens, I am going to carefully deconstruct every last strategy they taught, in specific detail, with graphic examples. In fact, whether or not they raise this issue, I will.
They taught scalping multiple trades for peanuts because it generated huge commissions. But they knew very well that this strategy was completely unsuitable for anyone, full-time trader or otherwise.
You all still are not paying any attention. If you pay someone for advice then you're going to follow it. That's logical, isn't it? Or do you think it makes sense to argue that all of these thousands simply paid into the investment advisory coffers out of charitable instinct? They paid for a commercial service, advice, and if the defendants sold fraudulent advice then they have a problem. You need to review the California Code. Argue all you like, but these practices are illegal, and trying to say it's all the clients' fault that they were defrauded, in the end, will backfire badly on the defendants.
Let's see here: you defraud thousands of people, they're then wiped out because of what you did, and then to top all you actually argue they did it to themselves. I hope they do make this argument. When I demonstrate exactly how traders had no chance in this environment, then they're going to have huge problems, because a judgment may come down punishing them for daring to blame their victims for what happened. |
