Signals service stung with $727,000 compensation at court.
I have long been an opponent of signals services and many other services that claim to be providing educational content - I have to declare.
To avoid any issue that might breach the 'house rules', I have not named the company in question or any individuals. The Financial Conduct Authority is a legal regulatory entity (nothing to do with actual trading). The facts in this rare but important judgement are fully in the public domain. I ask the moderators to allow this post to remain so that traders can have discussions about it and exchange important information or experiences.
The judgement of the Court will serve as 'lessons' for new and some seasoned traders. Signals services will become more cautious in their disclaimers. However, the courts are likely to see through their words.
For one such (nameless) service not related to this post, I showed that an educator of traders would need to do no real trading at all. They would make more money from 'training' than trading. So lucrative is the business.
New traders especially need to be very cautious. My opinion - which is not advice - is that new traders should stay well clear of 'services'. Why? Because new traders are vulnerable and more easily exploited. I believe there is enough free and good educational content on Tradingview. All that provides enough knowledge to get going on Tradingview's paper trading account. But knowledge is not experience or skill.
Trading is not something you learn a formula about and go off to get rich. It is about discovering your true self and learning from experience.
I have steadfastly refused to join 'services' who have approached me from my personal messages on Tradingview. I never provide signals. What you see is what you get and it will always be free and without obligation.
To avoid any issue that might breach the 'house rules', I have not named the company in question or any individuals. The Financial Conduct Authority is a legal regulatory entity (nothing to do with actual trading). The facts in this rare but important judgement are fully in the public domain. I ask the moderators to allow this post to remain so that traders can have discussions about it and exchange important information or experiences.
The judgement of the Court will serve as 'lessons' for new and some seasoned traders. Signals services will become more cautious in their disclaimers. However, the courts are likely to see through their words.
For one such (nameless) service not related to this post, I showed that an educator of traders would need to do no real trading at all. They would make more money from 'training' than trading. So lucrative is the business.
New traders especially need to be very cautious. My opinion - which is not advice - is that new traders should stay well clear of 'services'. Why? Because new traders are vulnerable and more easily exploited. I believe there is enough free and good educational content on Tradingview. All that provides enough knowledge to get going on Tradingview's paper trading account. But knowledge is not experience or skill.
Trading is not something you learn a formula about and go off to get rich. It is about discovering your true self and learning from experience.
I have steadfastly refused to join 'services' who have approached me from my personal messages on Tradingview. I never provide signals. What you see is what you get and it will always be free and without obligation.
FED balance sheet 42% of GDP @ 2020-01-26. Does money have value anymore? [Different perspective on the virus youtu.be/NjTdvALChwk ]
Related publications
Disclaimer
The information and publications are not meant to be, and do not constitute, financial, investment, trading, or other types of advice or recommendations supplied or endorsed by TradingView. Read more in the Terms of Use.