Olint Discussions with Hermes, Jason, NoCotec et al

This is facilitate an interesting discussion between Hermes, Jason, NoCotec, Jay and others.

The F1 Investments addresses May Daisy Issue has still available at F1 Investments addresses May Daisy issue.

Related 

Advertisements

188 Responses

  1. Keep the news flowing “investforlife”.

    The site has been flowing with quite of bit of breaking news within the last week and once again highlights the need for openess.

    The fact is, that this site thanks to his investigative skills (Now I am not saying he is a journalist) has been able to provide both investors and non investors quite a bit of information that would otherwise not been brought into the public domain.

    This has forced so called “diehard” investors to seriously question their investment houses on what is really going on with regards to their investments.

    Its rather sad, that one has to visit a blog to get information on one’s multimillion (J$) investment due to the fact that the investment houses.

    It continue to amaze me how one could turn over thousands of US$ to a company without any access to pertinent information on the company, its principals and how the money is invested.
    No regulatory oversight and zero financial records, I just dont get it.

    As I have said before when 10% flys in, common sense flys out !

  2. I must concur. Having to scronge aroung the net for information with the owner/managers of the AIS’s clearly having no shame and showing no respect is horrid.

    F1 is doing the right thing…..only 6 th months late.

    However we wish them all the best and may the full wieght of the law fall swiftly upon the charlatans and their associates.

  3. Let’s take the “high” living to the “high” court

  4. Jay, there are two kinds of people that invested with David.

    1. unsophisticated folk – those uneducated in general or about finance in general, and those naive or inexperienced with investing,
    2. sophisticated folk – including those with PhDs, MBAs, MA’s and those including bankers, government ministers, lawyers etc

    Your argument for why people invested in OLINT may to some extent be applied to the unsophisticated. But your argument is overly simplistic and naive in that it assumes that people who are more educated than you and smarter than you did not invest with OLINT.

    Jay, here are some of the rationale for why sophisticated people invested with David as follows:

    1. David’s trading skill and background was verified with Julian Muir and Keith Duncan at JMMB (senior investment manager and owner, respectively). This also was reported several times and confirmed in both the Gleaner and the Observer.
    2. David survived a raid by the FSC on his office in 2006 and the FSC returned his property without any evidence of fraud or wrongdoing on his part. The only thing left in question was the technical legal definition of whether currency trading constituted trading securities. The US does not define cash-spot currency trading as a security. So sophisticated investors understood that from an international perspective, the FSC did not have a substantive charge based on international standards. To the extent that the JA courts found that OLINT was trading securities, this was tied to the members contract given to club members (which they said constituted a security) and not to the underlying instrument of currency trading. This is legal sleight of hand to get a certain legal result (the JA local courts can do as it wishes but it is out of sync with the most advanced nations in terms of their definitions, but that is another point for another time). So on the merits, many sophisticated investors felt that David was able to survive a certain amount of scrutiny after the raids and court case. Now of course, the lack of disclosure of the financial records still was a concern but many decided to take a calculated risk allocating a portion of the aggressive part of their portfolio to OLINT. Sophisticated investors have the bulk of their money in a balanced portfolio but can afford to look for aggressive growth vehicles with higher returns. As such this why they will invest in a Microsoft in the early days, when no one knew if the company would be successful. This why they invest in venture capital, and hedge funds etc, the riskiest investment vehicles on the planet. This does not mean that they are careless. In fact US securities laws assume that a sophisticated investor has the means and the wherewithal to get necessary advice in order to know exactly what they are getting into. Even so, sometimes they make a bet that fails them. It happens everyday in the sophisticated Investing world. So to assume that only naive people invest with high risk entities, is evidence of a naive reductionism.
    Furthermore, hedge funds by definition are secretive in general because they do not want to disclose their trading strategy. If someone sees your trading strategy, then they can duplicate it and then you have no advantage in the market. Thats why many legitimate hedge funds incoporate offshore in order to get around public disclosure. Because sophisticated investors understand this, they dont necessarily run the other way when disclosure is not public or transparent. In many cases, however, they will meet with the hedge fund managers and ask to see certain things but whatever they see is not public or evaluated by regulatory bodies. So even-though in general, disclosure is best, and especially for the unsophisticated, it is pure ignorance to think that this is deal-breaker for many sophisticated investors.
    Think about it this way. Would the Issa family, the Wildish Family, the Matalons, (some of the wealthiest people in JA) invest (as has been alluded to and in some caases confirmed) and for example would Mr. Errol Ennis former junior Minister of finance, defend (& invest) with OLINT if there was not some merit to their operation?

    http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/magazines/business/html/20070123T220000-0500_118270_OBS_ENNIS_SAYS_OLINT_RAID_WAS_VULGAR_ABUSE_OF_STATE_POWER.asp

    3. Many of the sophisticated investors had an inside contact with David. I know several of these investors that met with David before investing, some have been to Turks & Caicos, others know Julian Muir and Keith & Donna Duncan, who all testify to Davids ability and track record at JMMB.

    4. Some investors have known David personally since high school at Wolmers Boys High, went to parties with him as a teenager and later went to church with him when he became a Christian, got married and settled down. Many knew his father, who was the former principal of Wolmers Boys for decades. David did not just drop out of the sky with no context. This sense of knowing David from a youngster till now, gave many investors, a sense of comfort in that they knew that David was not the type of dishonest person that would run off with the money. Now this is not to say, that David cannot ever do wring. it is quite possible that he got careless and proud, or that he made some mistakes and is trying to cover his ass. We don’t know either way right now though the facts, I admit, are building against him. But We will soon find out. But I cannot stand by and let you use reductionistic fallacies to question the intelligence of every single OLINT investor

    5. Other investors had a clear risk management strategy that seemed rationale to them, namely, invest a certain amount of discretionary capital for 7 months, then withdraw the principal and leave the doubled interest to now start again. This way they had no real skin in the game. If it worked then it worked if not, then they would not have lost heir original principal. Now some got greedy and did not stick to this plan but tit still does not mean that someone could have begun with a clear reasonable, intelligent plan to invest in a situation with risk under uncertainty. It is done very day with capital budgeting projects. If you understand finance, you will understand what I mean by capital budgeting scenarios with risk under uncertainty

    6. For those with a finance education who were considering investing with OLINT, the critical theoretical question was the sustainability of the returns. According to traditional finance theory, excess returns significantly above & beyond market returns are unsustainable. Arbitrage theory, CAPM, Efficient Frontier, Markowitz portfolio theory, etc all come into play to cast doubt upon, not the achievability of 10% per month, but the sustainability of 10% per month. So educated finance people, looked at George Soros and his Quantum Fund, the infamous currency speculator and saw that he was able to consistently outperform market returns of every asset class using currency speculation. For those who dont know, Soros broke the bank of England in 1998, making billions overnight by taking the right currency positions. Then there is a lot of Scholarly research coming out over recent years showing how currency speculation is generating true “alpha” far in excess of traditional asset classes. See recent research coming out of NYU Stern school of business for example:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS181201+26-Feb-2008+BW20080226

    http://w4.stern.nyu.edu/finance/docs/WP/2007/pdf/wpa07023.pdf

    7) Furthermore, within the highest levels of the most complex theories of the markets, namely derivatives, option pricing and financial engineering, the current state of finance research states that the mathematics cannot account for a small portion of the trading population who have superior timing abilities. Academics can’t account (except to say that it is superior instincts in trading & timing) for these few people who rise to the top of their trading field and consistently outperform the statistical black box trading created by the most brilliant Math, Finance, Physics PHDs.
    Because educated finance people understand that there are these few % of top traders that exist, the question was…is David one of these few % of top traders in the world. With David background, experience and trading abilities verified by JMMB officials, and with 4 years of superior returns given to OLINT members and with the FSC & the JA govt unable to point factually to any ponzi or fraud situation after their raids, it became a more reasonable proposition to take the risk with David.

    So, please stop denigrating the intelligence of every single OLINT investor. Some invested for foolish reasons. Others had a clear intellectual rationale for taking the risk. Either way, I think that OLINT has to now prove itself and I agree with a lot of the criticisms of OLINT such as the mismanagement, the need for audited records, the need for better communication, etc etc etc. but you can point these things out without attacking the motives and smarts of others.

  5. Ok..i have been reading this site for the past few days and the comments on here for the most part are completely ridiculous…
    Yes, it may be hard for people to understand how Olint can give returns typically in excess of 5% on a consistent basis, especially since CD rates around 3.0% APY right now but David Smith and his group of traders are not your average money managers. They are some of the best at what they do. Yes, things might sound fishy and might not make sense as to why David does not release certain information but how many of you have a business with 2billion in assets. I’m guessing none. And how many of you are experienced in regulatory oversight in FX trading. I’m guessing none. Yes its great to say “i told you so” to all the olint investors but that is premature at best and idiotic at best. Also, many people who have left comments say how olint has not paid anyone in 6 months. That is absolutely false. I have received 4 encashments for the year and know multiple who have as well with no trouble.
    Some call David a conman, some call him a blessing. I am inclined to call him a blessing. For years David has helped many Jamaicans build houses, send their kids to college and raise enough money to start businesses. How many of you have done this?
    My point is this. Before you take pleasure in seeing David Smith be under immense stress and presure for trying to help people, take a look at yourselves and ask what have you done to help your fellow countrymen.
    We dont like to see our people get anywhere in life in Jamaica and i dont know why. If you want everyone to never get anywhere, hop in a boat, head to Cuba and you can all chop cane together and never get anywhere.

  6. ^^^^comment was supposed to say premature at best and idiotic at worst.****

  7. At first blush the author (Hermes) appears to be making good points. However on deeper examination his arguments are supported by fallacies. As a matter of background one of the most brilliant scientific minds of all time, Sir Isaac Newton was swindled in the South Sea Bubble in 18th century Britain.

    This leads to Fallacy number 1: People who may even be brilliant in their own specific endeavors can and often do make major blunders and mistakes when they venture outside their specific field of expertise. This occurs frequently when the external endeavor is underpinned by greed as in the case of Olint investors, greed for phenomenal short term returns. This particularly fallacy is based on saying that since people who have great credentials and seem otherwise very intelligent in their own right invested in Olint then it cannot be only naïve or incompetent people who are its investors. False. As Sir Isaac Newton proved, greed can cause even one of history’s most brilliant men to make stupid decisions in the face of obvious information to the contrary. Again venturing outside the field of expertise does not guarantee that the decisions will not be naïve or downright stupid.

    Fallacy Number 2. David Smith has had past success as an FX trader and there are those that may be able to verify same. The fact that someone may or may not have had some success in the past as a trading desk employee of a financial firm cannot be extrapolated to mean that he will be a successful business owner. Neither can it be extrapolated to mean he will continue to be a successful trader. There is frequent burn out at trading desks on Wall Street; they are constantly bringing in new traders to replace those that flamed out. Running a successful investment company is quite different from being a trader.

    Fallacy Number 3: Providing audited financial statements to prove that returns are obtained from actual trading activity will somehow reveal proprietary trading secrets. This is the biggest lie of all. This is totally false. The financial statement will not reveal actual trading activity. It will mainly say the equivalent of: The Certified Public Accounting firm of Keep You From Lying About Returns and Company has examined the books of Olint and certifies that the returns reported by Olint were generated from trading activity.

    When someone runs every time a demand is made for audited statements or accounting records, this is a huge flag. Olint/DS left Jamaica rather than produce such records and become regulated and then chose to withdraw from I-Trade rather than produce banking records.

    Fallacy Number 4. Placing money with Olint and the other Unregulated Financial Organizations is part of some calculated investment methodology. Placing money with an organization and or individuals that refuse to produce audited statements to regulators, current investors or future investors is not investing. It is gambling. Gambling is routinely engaged in by otherwise intelligent people. Many describe it as just having fun among other things but never as investing. People go to casinos all the time and some even spend and lose what they cannot afford. This is not investing, even though small minorities do win and beat the casino. Investing cannot be defined as placing money with organizations none of which has ever produced an audited statement to regulators and or investors. This is gambling since there is absolutely no basis on which to base an expectation of positive future returns. As we have seen in the case of Cash Plus, Higgins Warner and others, the fact that returns have been given in the past does not mean a UFO is not a ponzi scheme. In other words the fact that people have won in a casino is not sufficient to consider money spent at the casino as investments with a calculated risk.

  8. First, of all, I did dedicated an entire section to those who are experts within the field of finance. What I did was start with the broad point that educated, intelligent people invested with David. Then I drilled down further to show that savvy investors with experience and sophistication investing did invest with David. The thirdly, I drilled down even further to show that people with finance expertise and education also invested with David. You have totally missed my point if you think that what I was trying to do is show that intelligent educated people in general never make investing mistakes. Furthermore, you again ignore the fact that what I was doing what referencing the sophisticated investor according to US law. My point is that sophisticated investors do invest in risky entities but only with money they can afford to lose. Did you not read this? So essentially my question to you is how do you define a sophisticated investor?
    Furthermore, you are using flawed reasoning when you insinuate that people without financial backgrounds whether by education and/or by profession, cannot be sophisticated. The key component defining “sophisticated” has to do with the income level and net worth, with the assumption that they have access to pay for appropriate financial advice. my point is that many such people did invest with OLINT. that is a fact. What I attempted to do to acquaint you with the rationale for a sophisticated investor could and would still invest in OLINT. Its not airtight completely but there is enough foundation there for some to take the risk. Let me ask you this. Do you know any sophisticated or accredited investors? if you do, ask them about what I am saying?

    Moreover, the issue with regulation is that they require information about your trading accounts. There is a difference between getting a CPA to audit your records on a private basis (privately-held companies do this all the time) and between complying with regulatory government rules of disclosure. My point is that many hedge funds avoid government regulation by relying the accredited investor clause of relevant legal code and incorporate in offshore bank secrecy havens in order ratify that avoidance. Do you do you agree that many legitimate hedge funds avoid public disclosure regulation? If yes, then what is the reason? Dont tell me because they are laundering money.

    Was investing with Bill Gates in 1982 when he did not even yet form Microsoft or even yet have a working software program, was that gambling? My point is not that disclosure is not the best thing. I have already said that it is. What I am saying is that there is an area within the investing world that allows for limited disclosure and privacy and that many sophisticated and accredited investors play in that world. And many of the super-rich in JA did play in the OLINT world.

  9. Fallacy #1

    You will get your money back—-FALSE

    Fallacy#2

    DS an Co will not get away with it—–False

    Fallacy#3

    People are going to be poor, bankcrupt and indebted for the rest of their lives—–TRUE

    Fallacy #4

    Olint has our interest at heart and shows us the respect that members deserve and it is o.k the way we are treated.

    Are you Kidding!!!

    Answer (e) All of the above plus more….you get #$%%!!!!!!

  10. Ohh Hermes

    One of the biggest offshore hedge fund location with the most prestige is the Cayman Islands. It is a requirement under the mutual fund (hedge Fund) law that a registered hedge fund NEEDS to be audited once a year.
    As Notec said investing in a fund without getting a proper accounting of your funds is gambling.
    My question is how can any real investor invest in a fund and they simply get a silly PDF statement, with a wink and a smile.
    Super Dave constantly running away from disclosure sends up numerous red flags in my mind.

  11. THINK

    Who is more important? The members? Or some Case?

    I’m counting ……1,2,3,4,5,6,…hmmmm you got it yet?

    you get %^%&$&&^*(&!!!!!!!!!!!!!##$$#!!!!!!h

  12. ohh and by the way the audit does not reveal trade secrets. It is simply a verification process to see if profits are being generated by trading.
    This is a simple point to get. Investors should demand EVIDENCE that money is being made by the activity the company states. Plain and Simple

  13. Hermes a few points:
    Investing expertise is not related to the type of education or background. People with little or no prior financial training can train themselves to become astute investors.

    Yes, I do know someone with the resources and or income to be considered an accredited investor. I have been at the investing game long enough for this.

    The issue of hedge funds moving offshore in the case of Olint. Astute investors will not invest without the company making audited returns available. Again anyone doing so is involved in gambling versus investing. Olint and all the other UFO’s have steadfastly refused to make this very basic information available. Its supporters have continued to post the false information that for them to do so would be to reveal proprietary secrets. This is obviously false and meant to mislead.

    Further Olint is not just involved in taking funds from accredited investors. It has funds from many small investors and so the argument about hedge funds is moot. It has chosen to take funds from anyone willing to send money and as such in virtually any jurisdiction is required to subject itself to regulation.

    The Bill Gates example is also a fallacy and inappropriate. Angel investors or funds and or venture capitalists will invest with companies (or individuals) that have not yet produced a profitable product. You bet your life they will do major due diligence on the company and require such things as audited statements, detailed experience/resume of the principals, feasibility studies etc. These investors are making investment decisions, not gambling.

    I am puzzled why any sophisticated person would argue that the failure of the UFO’s in JA to produce audited statements and in the case of some to run every time one is demanded… is in of itself enough evidence to indicate what they are doing. This is how sophisticated investors analyze information. In investing you cannot predict the future with certainty… what you can and should is analyze available information and or its lack thereof to make intelligent projections as to what the future holds.

    For example all the UFOs have all evolved along a similar path leading to substantial delays in most redemption requests. In the world of the investor this is sufficient. This is why financial stocks will all decline when the credit crisis hits. Those that produce evidence that shows that their financial health is not the same as the group will instill confidence and their stock will begin to ascend again. Olint keeps running and now we hear from DS officially that prayer is needed. In gambling prayer is required to produce good returns; in investing good management and skill is for same. Prayer is personal, not something to request from clients. This should not be a cult. Public prayer requests in investing is a huge red flag.

  14. TCI FX is audited for a fact.

  15. Tito,

    What have been the trading results for TCI FX since the start of the year. (Monthly)

    I await your response.

  16. Guys

    The more you respond to Hermes, is the better he gets at presenting what I consider sounder arguments. So please continue to debate with him.

    The points in your (anti_Olinters) arguments that you consider to be “strong” points, relates to those questions that none of us here in these blogs can answer because we don’t have the basis, facts, or evidence to answer those questions. I think that if you left your arguments right there at the unanswered questions, you would score numerous points easily.

    However, you destroy the “strength” of your arguments and start to lose points by answering (ignorantly of course) the very same questions you pose. Furthermore, how under God’s name you all reach your negative conclusion that David must be involve in money laundering, he is a conman, he is a liar, beats me. I believe it was Jason who once remarked, “it it looks like a duck, walks and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck”, implying that Olint is a Ponzi (tut tut tut). And I thought that robots are now made that mimic ducks (smile).

    So calm down and come better prepared next time when you go up in an argument with Hermes. Please note how he presents the facts and then skillfully argues them. He then closes by posing questions that cannot be easily answered without access to facts or evidence, thereby urging us to have an open mind, because we cannot at this stage “reach conclusions that are beyond a reasonable doubt.”

    Full points for Hermes.
    Better luck next time Olint-haters.

    Olint-for-life

  17. DS’d meeting on Thursday at Braemar will surely set the record strait. but we need some confirmation.

  18. Nocotec,

    You are not listening to me.

    Ok so you are saying that you agree that sophisticated investors have put money with David. You just want to call that gambling! Ok then, if you want to split hairs according to that definition thats up to you. My point is that rich people, sophisticated investors, intelligent people, educated people, lawyers, government junior ministers of finance, bankers, insurance professionals, finance Phd’s, MBAs, MAs, ….all sorts of people have invested with David. If you read my original post, the context was to put an end to people questioning the intelligence of every single OLINT investor.

    Your post does not address my original post in its context. You simply want to split hairs and call it gambling.

    Furthermore, LET ME SAY THIS AGAIN. I AGREE THAT DISCLOSURE IS BEST. I DID STATE THAT MANY OF THE ACCREDITED INVESTORS THAT I KNOW DID MEET WITH DAVID DUE TO AN INSIDE CONTACT, SOME FLEW TO TURKS & CAICOS TO MEET WITH DAVID TO DO SOME DUE DILIGENCE. DID YOU HEAR ME SAY THAT? SO ACCORDING TO YOUR POST, THAT ALLOWS THEM TO BE CALLED INVESTORS NOT GAMBLERS.

    SECONDLY, MY POINT ABOUT REGULATION IS FOCUSED ON GOVERNMENT REGULATION. NOT SIMPLY PROVIDING AUDITED RETURNS. GOVERNMENT REGULATION COMPLIANCE IS MUCH MORE THAN PROVIDED AUDITED STATEMENTS. HEDGE FUNDS AVOID GOVERNMENT REGULATION, NOT NECESSARILY AUDITED STATEMENTS. MY POINT IS THAT OLINT HAS THIS IN COMMON WITH MANY LEGITIMATE HEDGE FUNDS. IF YOU CANT SEE THIS POINT AND STILL WANT TO REVERT TO ONLY TO A QUESTION OF PROVIDING AUDITED STATEMENTS, THEN THATS UP TO YOU.

    Furthermore, the issue of OLINT accepting money from NOT ONLY accredited investors is an issue under US Law. if David operated on US soil, then it would come under that legal requirement that he could not take money from non-accredited investors. But since he is not, then he does not have to comply with that. My point in raising the issue of accredited investors is to demonstrate the definition of one as it overlaps with and coincides with the definition of a sophisticated investor, AND to point that sophisticated investors sometimes play in a world that involves a lot of risk, a world that sometimes thrives of connections & contacts, and a world where public disclosure and government regulation is not forthcoming. Do I need to educate on you on the history and the purpose of government regulation of the investment world? check the history…it had primarily to do with the inability of the regular investing public to get inside information, the inside information that the rich, and the connected, and the sophisticated investor could get access to. That is why US law does not seek to provide regulation where only accredited investors are involved.

    Your retort about Bill gates shows your ignorance. Bill gates did not have a product fully developed, and no sales in the beginning. Furthermore, angel investors typically invest where only projections are available because the company is in seed stage. So your whole point about “angel investors require audited statement” is an oxymoron. Angel investors and early stage VC’s have to make determinations based primarily on the credibility of the management. Yes, a business plan is reviewed, again with future possible projections, but any VC will tell you, that is their assessment of the CEO and his team, that is decisive in go/no go decision.

    I can see that you are aware of how the regular investment world, for non-accredited investor work. What you seem to be ignorant of…is how the world of the accredited investor works. your admission that you someone is evidence. if you only know one accredited investor, then that proves my point. So please step back, do some research on the sophisticated investor and the accredited investor before you talk to quick and show ignorance.

    In addition, much of what you call investing is still gambling.
    The futures market is the closet thing to gambling there is.
    So unless you use portfolio theory to just simply invest in a market index, or you understand how to eliminate risk via use of options, much of the regular investor is gambling. Unless you understand macroeconomics, microeconomics, behavorial finance and psychology, financial accounting, derivatives, DCF analysis & valuation etc etc…in short if you dont have the right education or knowledge at that level, most of the investing public is really gambling anyway because they have to rely on someone to interpret the information for them that is being disclosed (brokers, advisors, planners etc).

    At any point in time, you dont know which way the market will turn. In fact, many of you dont know how to spot attempts to hide the true financial position of a company. Audited statements can be manipulated if not under government regulation. Any accountant, any CPA can provide auditing of records on a private basis (who can be bought off). When you say audited, you should probably be more specific and insist on auditing from a big six accounting firm or at least internationally reputable accounting firm.

    Lastly, I agree with you that David should not have invoked prayer on the interview. It does seem to weaken the situation by making it sound so desperate.

  19. It could be lawyers, doctors, PHD whatever. It is foolish to invest in an investment outfit and not get actual evidence that the firm is doing what they say they are doing.
    Flying to Turks and meeting David, what in the world does that accomplish? Did David give them an accounting of there trades?
    If “investors” make a habit of investing in this manner they may win on the odd occasion but in the end will turn out losers.
    Wealth can be had by investing but it is only the elite investor who are willing not to follow the crowd, to do the thing that is unpopular, to not fall for scamsters like David Smith, to demand EVIDENCE, that there money is being put to whatever cause it should be going to, that make it in the game.
    There are alot of lawyers caught up in this Olint nonsense and people like Hermes seem to have there mentality of endless arguments why it could not be a con.
    For me it is simple, he is blatantly avoiding transperacy, he does not want to show EVIDENCE that he is making money , and his claims of gains are astronomical so i don’t trust him.
    Financial Fools come in many forms whether they are Doctors, lawyers. mathematicians or whatever. All a conman like David has to do is appeal to there greed and it will be easy to separate them from their cash

  20. furthermore, i have invested in hedge funds before and any manager that does not want to show me his audited results from a reputable accounting firm i would NEVER put money with him. There are too many thieves running around.
    This ponzi business is much more sophisticated in the states as sometimes the ponzi;s even start there own accounting firms to cook the books for them.

  21. Guys

    Debate aside, the week will soon come to a close.

    There are happenings occuring as we speak that will either:

    1-Cause the anti-Olint bloggers here and elsewhere to be very embarrassed. I hope they will still continue to post nevertheless.

    2-Cause some of us pro-Olint bloggers to continue to be seriously concerned/worried, but not me though. I hope we too will still continue to post, because I will certainly be doing so.

    Just be patient and stay tuned.

    As you were.

    Olint-for-life

  22. Jason, why dont you answer my questions about your background since you are not a financial fool. You look ridiculous when you continue to post without answering my questions. To use your own language, you continue avoid answering questions about where you worked, you level of education etc, and this shows you have something to hide. I dont trust any thing you day because you are not being transparent. you introduced your credentials as a basis to claim superior finance knowledge and when asked what constitutes this credential you dodge, you spin, you run. you run like how you say David is running. I will not let you off the hook here, until you answer my questions. If you continue to dodge and come up with excuses, after a while people on this blog will not trust anything you say and words will sound hollow.

    As to your points. let me see if I get this correct….lawyers, government ministers, sophisticated investors are all financial fools….so according to you the ONLY THING THAT MAKES ONE NOT A FINANCIAL FOOL IS IF THEY DID NOT INVEST WITH OLINT. I see….throw out all the education, experience, knowledge and everything else that comes to define each person, and judge everyones intelligence by one act…the act of investing or investing with David. I can see that the world is pretty simple for you.

    The investors I am talking flew to turks to see him log on to his platforms, to see his trading accounts, to verify how much money he has under mgmt, and most importantly to make determination of the individual himself. Thats what they flew there for. They did get evidence that he was doing what he said he was doing. Does that answer your question?

    So you dont agree with Julian Muir, Keith & Donna duncan, that David was a top performer trader at JMMB? So you are the one that deny facts when they face you in the eye. You argue typical of a wild-eye fanatic. You ask for evidence, then when the evidence is given, you deny the evidence exists or that the evidence is relevant.

    Let me see…you claim you are an expert in the financial field but denigrate the role that Math PHDs have played in developing the very principles that you at your level claim are good investing principles.

    You are clearly not a sophisticated or accredited investor, You show no understanding of the nuance and subtle distinction that occur at that level. I can only assume that you, if you have any financial experience at all, was a grunt at the lowest levels based on the blunt instrument that you appear to be. I have met many know-it alls like you before, and what is amazing is that they dont know what they dont know. Were you a salesperson?

    Let me ask you this….do you know any accredited investors? have you dealt with any before? this goes to the heart of my point. How can cast aspersions upon an area that you have no experience with? does this not violate the very principle that you advocate where people dont deal in facts?

    Now again, at this point, I agree that he needs to become more transparent. But what you fail to register in your brain is that my argument for the rationale for why sophisticated investors went with David, was much earlier after the FSC raids. Read my original post again, and follow the arguments carefully. I am not saying that David can never become a fraud. I am at the time that many people got involved, there was enough rationale to justify taking the risk.

    this leads to another point. In investing, different people have different risk tolerances and appetite for risk. If you were in the securities industry, you will understand what I am saying. The CAPM model in finance basically states that if you are going to take risks above the market risk, then you should compensated for taking that risk in the form of higher returns. It is up to each person, based on their risk tolerance, their goals, and stage in life, whether they will get involved with higher risk investments. So you cannot cast judgment on someone who has the appetite and the wherewithal to take certain risks. It different than your situation will allow but it not necessarily inferior. If an investor decided that they wanted to take the risk, and it was a risk, to invest in OLINT in order to get excess returns, thats up to them. Without knowing more about the individual situation of each investor, you cannot reasonably or logically white-wash everybody with the same brush saying they are all fools. Thats the heights of arrogance.

  23. Hermes

    All those people you mentioned at JMMB have something in common. They have no degree in finance. Later they would toy with CFA. Which is a cop out as far as trained financial people are concerned.

    The 3 ministers of finance do not have degrees in finance either for that matter.

    And DS does not have one.
    And TS does not have one
    And WS does not have one
    And the Martinez’s are 0 for 3

    The maritime lawyer is also in this group.

    Are they fools: Noone is saying that.

    Are they failures in the Olint debacle? Well the answer to that has been parked in front of your face for about 2.6 years!

  24. High Finance?

    Getting money that is yours out of a bank, brokerage or financial institution does not take so long. Unless you have been neglectful and partying and taking thins simple.

  25. Jason

    I beg you, when you formulate your answers for Hermes, please take great care in how you respond. Because your rantings and lack of depth does not put you in a good light right now. So please, step up to the plate, because it is your turn to bat.

    While I have never met the man, and I too has not disclose my qualifications, I can easily relate to his vast theoretical background and his practical knowlege in the financial world, leading me to draw the conclusion that Hermes is a well educated, and a well learned individual in the financial field. What strikes me more than anything else, is the balance he demonstrates in his arguments.

    Hermes
    I don’t know if Jason will respond to you, but I am glad that your postings can and should serve to educate those of us reading/participating in these blogs. You have taken the time to teach and share your knowledge without boasting, and I think that is very kind and noble of you. I never came here to do that so you must be commended.

    Guys, we can really learn from each other if there is true dialogue, and we are willing to “listen” to each other.

    Jason, please, it is your time to respond.

    Olint-for-life

  26. Sirach

    Can you please get up and sit with Jason.
    Jason, kindly shift down and allow Sirach to sit with you.

    Olint-for-life

  27. Hermes.

    I am just about to release to you where I work and my credentials, but the documents are undergoing a Due diligence exercise and will be released on Friday. I am crossing my fingers and praying that they will be released

    As for a sophisticated investor, I am sophisticated enough to recognize a scam when I see one.
    Now in terms of risk you have a point.

    I know people who basically believed that Olint was a scam from day one and still invested, they knew they were taking a gamble. Now most of these people were the first ones to run at the sign of trouble and there moneis are in there bank account now.
    (Now I really dont approve of this, but they see it as simply a game and taking money from the ignorant. I have a friend who did this and who reads these blogs. He laughs at me everyday saying why I bother typing here as he says alot of the people here on these blogs who are die heart believers are just downright silly and he is glad to take there money from them) Again I dont approve of that attitude.
    Now there is a second group of clueless folks that believe in DS tooth and nail without seeing an independent audit. Flying to Turks and looking on platforms does not mean anything. David can show any body anything he wants (Real or Fake). Now for you or others simply flying there and listening to him, viewing platforms may be reason enough to invest, but I JASON would not due that.
    I have seen too many con artist in this game to fall for that

  28. Dear fellow bloggers

    I have been following closely, the intellectual exchange between Hermes and Jason.

    Just for a short time, I ask that you please cast aside your pro- or anti-Olint sentiments and make a honest evaluation of either of them.

    To simplify this task, I have found the following Arabian Proverb on the net and ask you to decide in which of the 4 categories of personality, do you honestly think either Hermes or Jason should be placed.
    http://www.happyotter.com/hopoem/p_a.html

    ARABIAN PROVERB
    1
    He who knows not and knows he knows not, He is simple – teach him;
    2
    He who knows and knows not he knows, He is asleep – wake him;
    3
    He who knows and knows he knows, He is wise; follow him.
    4
    He who knows not and knows not that he knows not, He is a fool – shun him

    Author – Anonymous

    You decide

    Olint-for-life

  29. Hermes

    Another blogger elsewhere had this to say about you:

    http://invest4life.wordpress.com/invest-clubs-archive-2/#comment-8935

    “# 913 – Floridian Says:
    July 8, 2008 at 7:24 pm
    Mi have joke fi give unnu again…

    Mi go pon di next bus likkle while and start read some post… Them have a bredda over there that name Hermes… Well… Hermes a MURDER dem wid argument…

    As dem chat some piece of nonsense, Hermes lick dem fi six… As dem rally back wid more garbage… Boop… Hermes lick dem fi four.

    Then Mr. Olint for Life him… Him a play referee.

    If I laugh I dead… But mi nah tell nuh lie… The Hermes bredda… Him know him stuff and you can tell that them not comfortable trying to argue with him cause is pair shot to di boundary Hermes a gi dem.”

    Olint-for-life

  30. “All those people you mentioned at JMMB have something in common. They have no degree in finance. Later they would toy with CFA. Which is a cop out as far as trained financial people are concerned.”

    Anyone who says the CFA is a copout for trained financial people has no idea what they’re talking about:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_Financial_Analyst

    That “copout” is hard as heck to get. BTW, a poster from itrade on another site had mentioned at one point that he/she was either getting or had received his cfa designation. clearly they have some people there who know things. Unless you think its just a “copout” {rolls eyes}

  31. Sinta— hard is relative. Some doctors in Jamaica find it hard to speak english properly.

    Hard is relative—for some a degree in finance is hard to get

    I think we can agree THAT IT IS HARD TO GET MO NEY FROM OLINT FOR 8 months now. Will you agree that this is hard?

    Olint-for-life

    Can you go sit beside DS and tell him to pay what is ours and not his? DS can you move over a little? Olint for life is going to sit beside you. Oh sorry….excuse me Jared…excuse me Issac….bwoy this place is crowded.

  32. Oh by the way Sinta….I you don’t think I know what I’m talking about then your in for a sad surprise.

  33. Sirach

    I like how you turn that back on me (smile). There is hope for you yet man.

    Anyway, I will follow your advice to the letter and go sit beside DS so that you can get your money quickly.

    Olint-for-life

  34. Olint for life

    Don’t forget your money too! Remeber i hire and fire CFA’s every day…fret for me but not too much.

  35. Hermes you are obviously educated but for me your posts are hilarious. You are trying to use a trick I am very familiar with and have taught others. It is a very cute political trick. I could enter into a debate with you point by point and we would end up with a bunch of long posts in which we are now doing the political trick of debating the other dudes talking points. Nice try buddy. Your points are not the issue. The issue is Olint and its performance or lack thereof, whether it is scam and the reasons why.

    To answer one of your points… I was not indicating to you that I know only one accredited investor but indicating that I do not need to look beyond myself to find one.

    You ask for qualifications, why? Let me say this… if what you are interested in is trying to prove your balls are bigger than others… I will stand with you anytime… if in your post undergraduate studies your professors used your homework and exams as the solution sheets and readily admitted this to the classes… and if when the prestigious professor with many published papers and head of the department was away he asked you to take his classes for him and if he readily told others that you were the brightest student he ever saw come to the department… and if you have a very successful track record in businesses starting and or owning multiple businesses… and a long very successful investing history… then you do have bigger balls than mine… ok.

    Now back to Olint and the UFO’s. This is not about answering your questions in point counter point in a series of long posts… The points you are trying to make can easily have been applied to Cash Plus and Higgins Warner etc. Pick your failed UFO.

    This is about why Olint is following the path of the UFOs that have already failed. Why is it that DS continues to run and hide form every demand for records that could prove he is running a legitimate organization. When it became widely known as Tito stated that TCI Fx was audited… and its prospectus along with that of Wilshaw was discovered on the web… and they stated that TCI FX would place funds with Olint TCI to trade FX for it… and we know from Olint/DS that Olint JA is just a customer service organization… and TCI Fx returns were revealed… Why did DS and Lewfam again run and take dow n the TCI Fx web site and its prospectus… Could it be because it was revealing that Olint TCI was the supposed trading arm and that it was incurring monthly trading losses per TCI Fx returns and that is returns were dramatically different from that of Olint? Why does DS run, hide and evade every time?

    Where is the proof after these many months that Olint actually is generating its returns from trading? Where is the proof that it has the money to cover its obligations, gains and principal of investors? Where is the proof that the reason for the delay in paying investors for over 6 months is due to funds being frozen by 3rd parties? Where is the proof that the reason for payment schedules (which has not been honored) is not due to a severe shortage of funds to meet redemption requests? Where is the proof that Olint has funds that match what is owed to investors? Why if there is a limit monthly of 25 % of the total funds yet in the payment schedule there is also a need to delay large requests for 105 days or more? Shall we go on? These are the important questions that demand answers.

    However it seems what you are interested in asking about qualifications and trying to prove who has the bigger balls/d*ck? And may I suggest that if what you are interested in is to trying to prove some theoretical background you may possess that you request my email address. This way you may write an academic paper and submit it to me, I will critique, grade it and return same to you. In the mean time forget the political talking points trick and focus on the real issues regarding these UFO’s.

  36. Nocotec,
    I accept your refusal to engage the points as a concession.
    It is interesting to me that you found it ok to post your opinions about the topic of my original post in order to try to debunk some of it but now all of a sudden you want to say that the topic is not relevant to discuss i.e. that we need only discuss the lack of payout over the last 6 months by OLINT. That my friend is the political trick known as “changing the subject or non-sequitir reasoning”. But its ok, I feel your pain. You can not hang in the debate on the merits, so now you accuse me of political trickery. Of all the facts, law, finance, theory, practice, experience that I referred to as a basis for my points, …where did I use political trickery? This is desperation. Do me a favor, if you respond again, please list for one thing that I stated that is not factual or based on a factual premise. If you cant provide this basic list, then I suggest you refrain from calling my points “political trickery”. Either you put up or shut up, as the saying goes

    BTW, the reason I raised the issue of qualifications is only because Jason made it an issue in denigrating other bloggers. I never raised that issue first. So may I suggest
    that you take time to review the history of the recent blogs where I started to get involved on this blog.

    Also can you please not try to dictate what topic is off limits. If some people want to discuss the rationale for originally investing in OLINT then that is up to the bloggers not you. Last time I checked, we are not in cuba or north korea. If you dont want to discuss that topic, then you have freewill not engage that topic.

    The points I made are not easily applied to Cashplus because there was no theoretical framework to support CP business model. The theoretical framework supporting currency trading is well-established. Furthermore Carlos Hill had no track record at an investment bank like JMMB where the principals vouched for his trading skill. I could go on and on, about the differences between OLINT and CP but I will stop there.

    Lastly, again, I dont think some of you guys appreciate the balance that I am bringing to the discussion. I AM CALLING FOR TRANSPARENCY LIKE MANY OF YOU. I AM CALLING FOR DAVID TO PERFORM HIS PROMISES. Its like you cant hear that when I say that. Reread my posts and see if I do not allude to this. But you assume that if someone can see the argument for at least suspending judgment, you automatically think that they must either be a fool, unsophisticated, unintelligent, political trickster, and whatever else name-calling comes to you mind.

  37. Hermes
    Trust me I am not conceding anything. I can stand toe to toe with you in any discussion. I chose to respond to your original points in order to debunk them as fallacies. However your subsequent posts revealed that you were consciously or sub-consciously involved in what is a common tactic in political trickery… Switching the discussion to peripheral and non-relevant topics.

    See how you immediately did it again. You are good but I know the tricks. 🙂 My first sentence said, “Hermes you are obviously educated…”

    But look at your slick process, You say, “But you assume that if someone can see the argument for at least suspending judgment, you automatically think that they must either be a fool, unsophisticated, unintelligent,…” How does my statement reconcile with your comment.

    Next I never said your statements in of themselves were nonsense… I used the term fallacy… I recognize that many are in of themselves true… However they are merely part of the political type trick… Present factual but non-relevant statements so that the discussion switches off topic to those issues. For example Olint is not a Hedge Fund. It claims to be a club. You may present factual information about Hedge Funds and how they operate but it is of no relevance to a discussion about Olint… In fact Olint/DS says Olint JA is not even a financial company but simply a customer service company.

    If we are discussing these UFO’s you can either stick with relevant facts or present information which may be factual and applicable to other entities or situations but irrelevant to Olint and the other UFO’s.

    The reason I made that backdoor comment about you writing an academic paper and sending it to me is that I am acknowledging that you do have significant knowledge on financial and more specifically investing topics. However you have chosen to cite some factual but irrelevant facts which is merely meant to side tract from the real issues.

    Further I never said that you cannot discuss theses issues. I am very grateful to JD for starting this blog. Unlike the 4 blog (Patricia/Kevin’s blog) JD did not ban you. Consider that in all of the many many dozens of bloggers on these JA HYIP blogs there have only been about 6 that have chosen to point out the ponzi scheme nature of these UFO’s. Jason, John Doe, NoCotec, DaveSin, Robin Irie and Jay. On the 4 blog Patricia banned all 6. That blog is little more than a collection of like minded guys in an entity like JUTC where they kill anyone trying to fix the mess. Patricia will remember that I referred to her blog as a collection of people who think they are sitting around drinking tea while having intelligent discourse but they are just sitting on the Titanic shuffling deck chairs while the Titanic sinks. Read the blog once in a while as I do and you will see my comments made a few months back is an accurate description.

    JD asked my opinion as to whether he should allow factually inaccurate information (these most frequently support these UFO’s) and my response was YES. And that logic overcomes nonsense every time. Now it does not always appear to win in the short term but it always rises to the top eventually.

    But notice how your response chooses to again go back to your academic paper… and you keep trying to get us to debate these irrelevant facts while the Titanic is sinking. You choose to ignore the relevant questions I posed regarding Olint and the UFO’s. To respond to your questions is to shift the focus… why don’t we also present other facts such as the mating habits of the Mongolian butterfly and then we can also respond to those point by point. The relevant issues are the ones I posed (and similar) regarding Olint.

    As I said I can go toe to toe with you on the discussion you seem bent on having… but is it relevant to why Cash Plus, Higgins Warner, Money Express, Elite Prudential went belly up… How is it relevant to why Olint, May Daisy, F1, LewFam etc are not paying their investors, in many cases for more than 6 months…

    If you want an irrelevant academic discussion on thos topics submit a paper and I will critique and grade it… it will not be relevant to why Olint has not been able to pay most investors for 6 months plus.

  38. Sorry for the duplication, copy and paste went haywire. JD can you erase the duplicate part above the 2nd Hermes.

  39. nocotec

    I wish DS copy and paste the wire. And that JD could then duplicate it to all the members.

    Yes it is Superdave in the skies over Ja and …he’s Dropping something down…..yes….yes….oh uh it’s….it’s…it’s a load of sh……………….t!!!!

  40. Superdave, Issac and Jared were on a plane with one parachutte…..The Pilot Carlos Hill came out and said to them, ”

    You know what Sirach not even going to go there yet. hahahahaaaaaaaa…….hahahahaaaaaaa

  41. nocotec,

    Let me ask you a question. What topic are discussing? I think you have gotten confused. Note that this topic started when Jay stated that “he does not get how people could invest in OLINT and that common sense fly out when 10% per month brings in greed”… to paraphrase him. I then responded by laying out a rationale for why OLINT investors are not to be treated as monolithic and what the rationale was for many investors. I thought that was the topic under current discussion. Have you read the original posts at the beginning of this story? You are the one that seems to be trying to the change the topic from that… to “why Olint has not been able to pay most investors for 6 months plus.” What I found when reviewed this site is that there has been ample discussion about why OLINT has not been paying out. Much of this is pure speculation at this point because the facts are not decisive as yet. So I did not add to this discussion because it is a well-beaten horse. Now for people like Jason, Jay, You and others, I can understand why you all are skeptical. Trust me, I understand only to well. But your skepticism should also acknowledge a lack of knowledge of certain facts, which over the next week or two, will come out one way or the other. What I found lacking on this blog, is a careful delineation of the logical and intellectual underpinning that formed the basis for why some investors went with OLINT. This was a vacuum I sought to fill. My goal was to instill within you a sense of respect for those who still choose to give OLINT the benefit of the doubt, and for those who originally decided to invest with OLINT. I was not trying to convince you to invest with David. I was trying explain a fact….that many sophisticated investors and rich investors and educated/intelligent people did invest with David. Many of you seemed to be asking for an explanation of this. that was not based on mere hope or faith. So I jumped in.

    So let me ask you one question to focus this whole sub-debate and perhaps start to really come to a conclusion.

    AFTER READING ALL MY POSTS ON THIS SUB-TOPIC, CAN YOU NOW SEE ANY BASIS AT ALL HOW ANOTHER INVESTOR COULD REASONABLY MAKE THE DECISION TO INVEST WITH DAVID PARTICULARLY AFTER THE FSC RAIDS, EVENTHOUGH YOU YOURSELF PERHAPS WOULD NOT OR DID NOT, and therefore not describe every OLINT investor as a foolish person? If you can say yes to that, that’s alI I was attempting to achieve.

    On another point, the reference to hedge funds was an attempt to use analogical reasoning, finding similarities in showing how the avoidance of government regulation is an accepted practice and not automatically evidence of wrongdoing.
    Follow along:
    Major Premise: Many Hedge funds avoid government regulation but are still considered legitimate
    Minor Premise: Olint has avoided government regulation
    Conclusion: Olint is not necessarily illegitimate simply because it has avoided government regulation.

    How is this switching the subject? It illustrates the principle via parallel or analogical reasoning. I am sure you are acquainted with this. But let me ask, have you ever taken a course on logic and studied logical reasoning formally or informally (just checking because I dont want to assume anything about you)

    By the way, your point about political tricks is technically incorrect. You should refer to them as logical fallacies. But since you teach others on this, you should already know that.

    Ok, so why dont you stop complaining how I am not playing fair (using tricks) and defend your arguments.

    As to your point about grading academic papers, this is truly a red-herring. Instead of your cute comments about grading papers, why dont you defeat my points on the merits. If you dont have the skill to do so then admit that. And yes, please do counter my points, point by point showing how either I have drawn incorrect conclusions, used logical fallacies or used irrelevant facts. Please do it. I challenge you to do so.

    Now let me say. If we can tone down the conversation and have a quiet peaceful civilized dialogue then maybe we can see where each other is coming from. And just maybe, we can put our collective minds together to think through how to get through the next two weeks. But somehow I suspect that many of you are so committed in your minds one way or the other, that only civilized debate is the best we can hoped for.

    My motto is this “you may not agree with me but you better respect my arguments”. And my goal was for some of you to respect the fact that many other investors, though different than you, had a decent foundation or rationale for going with Davod, versus the other UFO’s.

  42. Look if you want to seriously know how to get to the bottom of this….then just ask me nicely?

    Serious….but when if I tell you then understand that it is the only way. And you have to live in Ja (at least be on the voter’s list)….the rest of you are not much use in the solution.

  43. Hermes

    I hear your argument but the FACT is DS and Olint do not have 2 weeks to answer the question. People are being charged for taking others money in their accounts (FACT)

    Loans are being called on people who took them and put the money in Olint (FACT)

    Once these types of cases (and there are others) which incedentally are not limited of Jamaica….then you will find out how fast things get frozen.

    In response to these pressures and concerns that are relayed to Olint their responses are crap like I cannot say this and that because of a pending FSC case?!!!!

    And also another famous response is that we are trying to save the club?

    Save it from who? And when does a money making club trump somebody’s freedom? or life?

    Can’t you all see that whether or not they have the money that they are missing many marbles????

    The money is going to be the least!

  44. nocotec

    Hermes do have much stronger points arising from his command and use of facts, ability to reason intellectually, and a willingness to debate the issues.

    After reading through extensively, I cannot come to the conclusion that Hermes comes to this blog to defend David or Olint as I would have done, but only if I conclude that David is being unfairly criticized. His arguments are much more balance than yours, and also objectively presented, which in my mind makes him very credible/believable. Hermes has made some stinging criticisms of Olint, but explain them clearly for all to understand, that it is not too difficult to conclude that they are warranted, even if we pro_Olinters may not want to hear it. (such is life)

    We know that you and others honestly believe that Olint is just another Ponzi scheme. But that aside, you have not presented any convincing arguments that would make any unbias “bystander” quickly condemn Olint as such, and would choose to stay far.

    However, I like when you ask those questions that calls for answers to which us Olint supporters must consider. Nevertheless, I personally have difficulties in the extreme conclusion you reach that ultimately, Olint is a Ponzi scheme, inspite of those questions not being answered.

    However, a point to note:
    Others are also reading this blog and are quietly condemning your reasoning ability and would hope that you would quit and concede the debate to Hermes.

    Therefore, I believe that Hermes has comfortably won this round of debate also.

    Olint-for-life

  45. Hear me out people:

    The creditors, secondary investors and other nefarious characters involed were baddgering many FAITHFUL investors up to seven months ago. Got it?

    Now after sacrificing all aspects of thier regular lives to clm these people in the name of DS and Olint and the other cast of clowns. OLINT (yes) O L I N T came out with elaborate new encashment proceedures and a payment schedule…..with a tone of arrogance and authority…..YES ARROGANCE AND AUTHORITY ABOUT YOUR MONEY

    So then the people went out to their own personal antagonists and said, Olint says it’s going to be o.k. and the antagonists said all said I hope you don’t have to see us come back.

    Well then O L I N T sold us for rice and peas again. With the same ARROGANT we don’t need to be transparent to you guys BS!

    Who wired what where and when and who owns platform or not and who is in bed with Loiten, Harris and plane and car and bus and soon come????

    Now you are even told that you were warned that you could loose everything…..that is a LIE yes a LIE. Although it may have been possible you were TOLD that 80% of your $$$ was not at risk.

    Your other problems from the antagonists you are expected to deal with yourself. So in effect they have put you in charge. the only thing is that thoose of you who write don’t have some serios antagonists on your back yet.

    When they come including the A1 antagonist (Mr. Taxman) don’t come bawling to me. But I will give you this advice. Don’t feel Olint has your back. Because even if they were to feel that they did. The fact is they can’t do anything.

    Except one slim chance:

    PAY THE MONEY AT ONCE

    The antagonists not going to take some date in some distant future and heaqr you talking about some e-mail you’re supposed to be waiting on.

  46. Olint is not even providing you with any significant documentation to defend yourself!!! Not only are they recommending you head into the creek without a paddle but they are also saying look we are going to tie your hands behind your back before you go.

    STOP worrying about who is leading in argument and which blog kicked out who and financial rules and regulations and who is up on points and which freind soon join the debate.

    WAKE UP, DISEMBARK YOUR SPACECRAFT and GET TOGETHER ON A WORKABLE PLAN OF ACTION.

  47. Nocotec,

    Ok, in order to make it easy for you, let me lay out my rationale in “formal logic” form. In order to attack the conclusions, you have to attack the premises and the combination of premises. This has some elements of complex reasoning in it but it is still pretty straightforward enough.

    Premise 1: David was a trader at JMMB for several years
    Premise 2: Julian Muir, Keith & Donna Duncan (senior investment manager & owners respectively) have indicated that David was a top currency trader at JMMB, as confirmed by reports in the gleaner and observer.
    Conclusion 1: David has the experience and trading skill in the forex market to consistently outperform others.

    Premise 3: David office was raided by the FSC in 2006, where they confiscated his computers, and all available paperwork and records of his operations.
    Premise 4: The FSC returned his property without finding any evidence of fraud, ponzi scheme, or wrongdoing. The only issue was the adjudication of the technical definition of whether cash-spot currency trading constituted trading securities (which US law has a definition more in line with OLINT’s definition, in that it does not constitute trading securities)
    Premise 5: The matter was further litigated in Jamaican courts, where the FSC put on no evidence that OLINT was a ponzi, or a fraud. OLINT sued the FSC for damages for the raid.
    Conclusion 2: OLINT survived a very rigorous scrutiny of his operations by the Jamaican govt regulatory and by the Jamaican courts and this increased the liklihood that OLINT is not involved in wrong doing or fraud.

    Premise 6: No other UFO or AIS was raided and brought under this scrutiny by the FSC.
    Premise 7: No other UFO or AIS has its founder, a former trader whose expertise has been verified by officials at a local investment bank
    Premise 8: OLINT experienced a major run shortly after the FSC raids in 2006, and was able to pay back every investor who requested their funds back.
    Conclusion 4: OLINT must be treated differently from other UFO’s, such as CP who have not been tested, scrutinized and verified AND still survived as David/OLINT has

    Premise 9: Many Jamaicans personally know David from a youngster until today, including several trusted clergy & business leaders in Jamaica.
    Premise 10: Many Jamaicans know his family background and his father who was a strict disciplinarian and former principal at Wolmers Boys High for many years
    Premise 11: Many of the elite, super-rich Jamaicans, including the ISSA’s, the Wildish, The Matalons, have invested with David, allowing to reach almost US$1Billion under management
    Premise 12: There are former high-profile government leaders, such as Error Ennis, who invested, defended and vouched for David & OLINT
    Conclusion 5: David as an individual has been vouched for by credible people who have put their reputations by publicly defending David and their money on the line by investing with David.

    Premise 13: There are examples of currency traders who make abnormal returns from currency speculation such as George Soros, Jim rogers etc.
    Premise 14: Current finance research shows that there are some currency trading fund managers that generate excess returns above the market, and that in many cases, this is due to superior market timing abilities
    Premise 15: Finance theory allows for a few % of traders that will outperform all benchmarks consistently due to timing abilities that the Mathematics and the theory cannot account for
    Conclusion 6: Abnormal returns are consistently possible, with a few % of top traders in the market under current finance theory.

    Premise 16: David has provided consistent returns to club members for a few years now.
    Premise 17: David has paid out these returns over the years, either in lumpsums or on a monthly basis, allowing real people to create real wealth (up until January 2008)
    Conclusion 7: On the face of it, David appears to have been able to provide abnormal returns consistently over several years.

    Adding Conclusion 1 to Conclusion 6 and Conclusion 7, you get Conclusion 8: There is good reason to think that David is one of the few top traders in the world since JMMB verified his superior trading skill, since David appears to have been able to pay out abnormal returns consistently, and since finance theory allows for the existence of such top traders with superior market timing abilities.

    As such it is reasonable when you combine all conclusions 1 through 8, based on the factual premises 1 through 17, you get the basis for why it was justifiable for some to take the risk to invest with OLINT.

    Premise 18: OLINT incorporated offshore first in panama and then in Turks & Caicos.
    Premise 19. OLINT has sought to avoid government regulation by Jamaican govt.
    Premise 20: OLINT has applied for and received the appropriate licenses by the Turks & Caicos govt.
    Premise 21: Many well-known hedge funds incorporate offshore in order to avoid government regulation by the US govt.
    Conclusion 9: The fact that OLINT has incorporated offshore and avoided govt regulation by Jamaica, cannot be used decisively against OLINT to claim definitively that it is a fraud since many legitimate hedge funds exhibit similar practices.

    Premise 22: Some accredited investors were able to review David’s books and trading activity before they invested
    Premise 23: Many of these accredited investors still invested with David
    Premise 24: These investors include some of the wealthiest families in JA
    Conclusion 25: David’s trading activity and operations were verified by at least these accredited investors

    When added to together, all of these conclusions together form a stronger rope knot that increases the liklihood that David was not, at originally, operating a ponzi or a fraudulent scheme as such, the decision to invest could be based on a rational, logical basis for those investors that at least met the above criteria, and those who knew investors who met the above criteria.

    I could add some more conclusions to tighten it up even more, but I leave it at that for now (if you want to review the additional elements to my original argument please refer to post “Hermes, on July 8th, 2008 at 8:47 am Said:” at the top of this news topic.

    Otherwise, See if you can demonstrate that any premise is not factual, or that any conclusions is not warranted by the premises.

    I have kept it kinda tight so that we can deal with only relevant facts that either support or do not support each conclusion.

  48. Sirach (and others who may be interested)

    I honestly believe that you are hurting by the lack of funds coming to members like yourself. I have taken careful note of your postings when you say that members have seriously leveraged themselves, by borrowing money and invested those said funds with Olint in the expectation of higher returns. I no doubt feel that others have done that too, and the lack of funds from Olint has seriously derailed a number of persons’ plans to financial wealth.

    What I would like to discuss with you and others, though probably not at this time because everybody is on edge, is how best to position yourself (in the future) in such a situation to guard against any eventuality like what is now happening.

    I think my methodology is of such that you can make leverage work for you in the creation of wealth, and if it works for me, then it can work for others too.

    Scenario:
    If you use savings alone to “invest”, you minimize your risks, but stand to lose your principal if the investment goes bad. Nevertheless, you will never be able to command a larger principal to invest with.

    If you borrow however, you have a greater amount of capital to invest with, but you increase your risks. The risk is of such that if the investment goes bad, then you not only might lose your savings/own contribution, but also the money you borrow. That’s risky.

    I am staking a bet that O club members who are seriously hurting are those that borrowed “too much” and are seriously worried that they will lose their money and have the loan to repay, or lose their houses/cars or other assets that they used as collaterals for their loans.

    It is this scenario that I would like us to have a discussion about, if we could just calm down a bit and not be at each others throat.

    Will follow up in the morning if there is any interest.

    Olint-for-life

  49. Hermes

    One quick thini]g before I speak to Olint for life

    Trading at JMMB in “currency” is more a cambio type market. Not using leverage on the international market of hard curencies.

    Also ask the people who recommend DS then how many times they have lost money trading financial instruments (careful I know the answer already)

    Olint for life

    I’ll be much better off than most truth be told. I’ve already hurt. My time especially. Truth br told when most Jagans did not know anything but pit toilet my family was flushing for generations.

    With all due respect Olint for life I don’t think you may have the experience about the implications. Especially because you tend to talk about the $$$ which if you knew what was really going on is the least right now.

  50. hermes,
    I read your long posts and have to laugh now. They are comedic, trying to sound intelligent
    3 premises
    1. Are you sure most of your “premises” are correct(Especially check the first 10, lol the propoganda machine of DS is really strong)
    2. Doesn’t matter what Tom, Dick business men like Issa or fools like Ennis and Wignal does. I guess if they were marching off the cliff side you would follow
    3.You continually ignore the EVIDENCE of trading part. There was NONE

    Olint is just like every other Ponzi in Jamaica and investing in it thinking the returns were real was a foolish decision. The results of that decision will be revealed shortly

  51. Hermes

    Errol Ennis, robertson and vaz have shaky records..remember Ennis was relinquished his givt. position some time ago for $$$ problems.

  52. Anyway why are we blogging. Olint has said to several different sources that a wire ALREADY CAME IN ON MONDAY…it will be processed by THURSDAY and Payments will immediately begin.

    Done. Every body be happy now

    Hermes
    No disrespect but if you are a Jagan or want to be one you need to read and know a little bit more or Jason and dem goin have reason to laugh at you.

    Tip: most politicians are what we call hurry come up or “come see” they can at times have much money but in certain circles and places they can’t go. They are lawyers, doctors, merchant class, brownings, camel jock yardies (sandniggers) Indians, black white and Jewish. They are all considered uptown but are considered crass and full of folly. Most people bending over backwards to climb some ladder try do to so with them…these set are called activist. A little history here

  53. Can I ask that we use an Olint related thread for Olint arguments. This post is about FI investments and May Daisy. Thank you. Further posts not related to FI investments and May Daisy will be removed.

  54. Investforlife

    Please suggest where we can ALL go because I really want us ALL to go there TOGETHER.

    This particular thread is very interesting and I don’t want to miss any of the discussions

    I commend you for the excellent facilitation.

    Olint-for-life

  55. Hermes your premises, logic and conclusions is what I would refer to as an academic type presentation. I can choose to respond to them point by point but what purpose would it serve but titillate people like Olint-for-Life, Floridian etc about who is winning the academic argument… and you know each person’s bias has already determined a winner.

    I will respond to some in a general way but first… What I noticed after my first response to you is the use of a well known technique to steer the discussion away from issues that are currently pertinent to investors who I might add are interested in being paid and trying to ascertain why most have not been paid in over 6 months.

    Look at your first response after my debunking of some of your points… meant to force the other side into a never ending defense of minutia…

    1. I tried to indicate that I was accredited investor without addressing how many accredited investors I knew which was an irrelevant question. Your response then misinterprets my answer which then forces me to clarify my response.
    2. My response to the Microsoft/Bill Gates example you posed sends you off to call me ignorant and to again misinterpret my response. Further for various reasons I can recite to you off the top, the history and start of MS… Obviously when I said that venture capitalists and or angel investors require audited statements… if the company has not been in existence long enough to provide such then they cannot. Sometimes, in a small percentage of cases, angel investors/venture capitalists will fund a company based just on the history of the principal. Usually the principal will have had a history of starting and or running very profitable companies… they will fund a completely new venture based on this history. As I was saying, all of these investors will DEMAND future audited statements from the company.

    You attempt to say that accredited and or sophisticated investors met with DS and based on his history and what they saw chose to invest with him and Olint. You may call these people anything you wish but sophisticated investors they are absolutely not. To invest huge sums with Olint and not to demand that he produce regular and periodic audited financial statements is anything but smart or sophisticated… Unless of course these people knew or had reason to believe that they were investing with a ponzi scheme and had an explicit or implicit arrangement that they would be at the top of the ponzi.

    By the way, sidebar… Lest you believe I am ignorant about Bill Gates and Microsoft. Do you know why your hard drive which you use all the time is Drive C, while the floppy which you rarely use is Drive A? Answer: Because Bill Gates bought a stolen operating system he re-labeled as MS-DOS. That operating system had the hard drive as Drive A so he had to change something. He bought this copied operating system for $50,000 if my recollection is correct. The tale of of MS is not as you think.

    IBM, then king of the computer, did not believe in the new fledgling PC from Apple. They decided to develop one but appointed a small group in Boca Raton to develop it with a shoe string budget. This is why the PC had the open architecture because unlike the normal Apple like proprietary parts in IBM computers, they had to buy parts off the shelf because time to project completion and available money allocated were short. Similarly instead of developing an operating system they had to buy a pre-developed one. They heard about a guy in Seattle with one, not Bill Gates. They setup a meeting for the weekend and flew to Seattle. They met with the dude who owned the same operating system that Gates bought the pirated modified copy. Not unlike CH and DS he loved to deal with lawyers so in his living room he told the IBM guys they would have to talk it over with his lawyers on Monday and left to play golf leaving his wife to finish the meeting.

    The IBM folks left and on Sunday they made some calls and heard about Bill Gates. They called and asked him if he had an operating system to sell them. Bill Gates did not have any but BS them, telling them if they extended their stay until Monday he could sell them one. He knew about the guy with the pirated system. He left and bought the guys system for $50,000 not telling him about the pending deal. IBM met him on Monday and he sold them the system he labeled MS-DOS and they called PC-DOS. He gave them all rights for many years to the code and development of PC-DOS. The only rights he reserved were to sell MS DOS to any clone PCs that came to market. What the IBM guys did not know but Bill Gates knew because he moved in the hobby circles was that as soon as IBM released a PC there would be numerous clones… He knew he could sell MS DOS to these and make millions. He and Paul Allen used the term hanging on to the tail of the tiger (IBM) for the ride and trying not to get eaten. Of course very soon a few guys at Compaq released the first clone and the history was cast as to how Bill Gates became the world’s richest guy. So you see even your MS analogy is not accurate 🙂 I can bring recollections like this to the top in the blink of an eye on innumerable subjects. I often refer to myself as an information collector.

    3. You tried to clarify mine and others call for audited statements by saying it needs to be from a top 6 accounting firm. As I have said on other blogs, investment companies like Olint need to produce regular and periodic audited financial statements from reputable firms. This point needed no clarification. If DS goes to his corner shop CPA and he cooks the statement to produce some kind of statement… this is not an audited financial statements but merely a fraudulent document.

    See why I avoid your point to point discussion on issues that are mainly peripheral and not germane to investors concerns…. I have a long post with not much addressing those concerns, this is what you seek to do and derail discussions down this path.

    To conclude before my next post… Anyone that invests with a company and more particularly huge sums and does not demand future regular and periodic audited financial statements cannot be classified as a smart or sophisticated investor with regards to his investment with Olint or any other UFO.

  56. Question: Where is the proof that DS was a very successful trader with his previous employers? There is no proof but it has become urban legend. Will he authorize his previous employers to release his employment and trading history of success in a form such as… while DS was employed with us he was a very successful Fx trader to the point where he was considered one of the top 5 in the world…

    As a matter of background… I have transacted (and continue to transact) well over US $1 Billion with Wachovia Bank. This is the same bank DS alleged that between them and his brokers were holding up Olint’s money. I have direct access from my computer to their banking platform that allows me to wire money to virtually any bank account in the world. I am required to obtain and keep identifying records on clients to whom I wire money. I am also required to conduct Patriot act searches to determine if any individual or institution is a prohibited entity. The claim of due diligence as a reason why funds have been delayed for over 6 months is nonsense. This is not how the process works.

    Did anyone realize that the NFA complaint against I-Trade which cited Olint and DS proves that this excuse was bunk? Do you realize that the NFA’s complaint is that I-trade failed to report suspicious activity and not that they failed to freeze the clients’ funds? Brokers and financial institutions are required to file SARs (suspicious activity reports) not freeze clients funds for 6 months plus. If I delay payment of my clients’ funds by 3 days they are demanding interest and threatening to sue me. The way DS loves to sue and use lawyers to try and obfuscate, why has he not sued his brokers? Yeah right 🙂

    Due diligence and such does not work like Olint has tried to imply. What Financial institutions are required to do are file suspicious activity reports with FINCEN (Treasury) and or the IRS. Over the years I have received a few dozen subpoenas for records from the District Attorney, as recently as yesterday. On the front page of the cover letter it clearly and in bold states that: the records are required for a criminal investigation and that disclosure of this subpoena may interfere with the investigation. This is the official notice that should I inform the client of the existence of this subpoena or investigation that I will be guilty of Obstruction of Justice… and this carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in a Federal prison.

    The only way a broker would be holding Olint’s funds for six months for some kind of “due diligence” would be under instructions from legal authorities… and they would not be able to disclose the reason to DS.

    Question: Is there any proof that Olint survived a prior run while not accepting new funds? Among some this has became urban legend but we know that feeder clubs and piggy backers continued to feed funds to Olint. This is not proof that Olint is not a ponzi.

    Question: Did everyone realize that according to the NFA that DS and his wife had deposited US tens of millions of dollars with I-Trade… and that DS and Olint have said that this money was with I-Trade not for trading but to pay clients? Why was the money in DS and his wife’s name and not Olint? Do you realize that this is a criminal offence? What if DS died… how would clients get their money back, that money belongs to DS’s surviving heirs and not to Olint’s clients. Is this what he has done with clients’ money? Treating it as his personal funds… Does he routinely use it to buy personal jets etc instead of paying himself fees and keeping the money separated and not co-mingled? What are the fee structures? Did these so called sophisticated investors demand to know his fees and require him to disclose such information? How do these “sophisticated” investors know how much he is taking for his personal accounts and whether it is the appropriate amount? Or are these so called sophisticated investors only concerned about remaining at the top of the pyramid?

    The purpose of the FSC’s investigation of Olint was related to whether Olint was involved in the trading of securities. It was a limited investigation because it did not have access to audited statements and could not conclusively determine fraud or ponzi.

    Once Olint was raided they sued the FSC. This put the matter into the realm of the courts such that the FSC’s enforcement action would by necessity become limited until the courts made a final determination. This helps to explain why other UFO’s have not been raided.

    Where is the proof that Olint has been scrutinized and tested? How can there be any such rigorous test without the production of audited statements?

    Look at that lawyer dude that testified for the PNP in the dual citizenship matter as a so called expert… and who was writing in the papers supporting Cash Plus and the other UFOs… he lost, was it well over a US $ 1 million with Cash Plus… Just because some may hold some prestigious title or degree and defend these UFO’s does not make them any kind of sophisticated or smart investor.

    All the investors that made outsized returns with currency activity have this in common… they had no problems producing audited results to prove same… They know what every sophisticated investor knows… Audited proven results causes the trader/company to make oodles more money… he would have even folks like me considering whether such an investment is appropriate for my portfolio.

    Hermes did you notice that all your points/premises and conclusions are meant to elevate Olint’s standing by association and not by any actual proof? E.g., Hedge funds also seek to incorporate offshore so by association if Olint does this too, they are probably ok… Wealthy people, Gov Ministers etc invest with Olint so by association if they do it then Olint is probably ok…

    Accredited investors reviewed Olints books and still invested… by implication this makes Olint OK… Were these books audited statements and if they did not demand regular and periodic future such audited statements even if DS and Olint were OK at that instant in time how would they know starting the next day that he did not go bad. In my business I have 2 different entities that by law audit my books up to twice per year (separately)… Never been an issue for me… my passing them with flying colors just allows me to continue making even more money.

    Cash Plus and CH was able to provide abnormal returns for several months until he too ran into problems meeting client obligations… The fact that DS and Olint are able to do this proves nothing… like DS it has done with no proof of the legitimate generation of these returns…

    Hermes trying to make Olint look better by association does not work. Provide actual proof… The actual concrete information we have to date is this (among others);
    1. Like C+ and many others, Olint has had to delay or stop redemptions for an extended period.
    2. DS has admitted not providing personal bank statements when requested.
    3. DS has placed funds he describe as for client redemption requests with a broker in his and his wife’s name.
    4. When TCI Fx became widely known as a DS fund which was audited and it and Wilshaw’s prospectuses were discovered on the web… they were quickly taken down and removed from the web.
    5. These prospectuses describe Olint TCI as the trading arm of TCI Fx and Wilshaw. Olint JA is said by Olint to be just a customer service company. Olint and TCI Fx have reported dramatically different monthly returns. The audited one reports negative returns in some months, the un-audited one has always had phenomenal and as Hermes describes it… abnormal returns.
    6. Olint keeps running and ducking every request for independent and non proprietary information.
    7. Unlike other financial organizations Olint has never offered any independent proof that it has generated consistent outsized legitimate returns.
    8. Olint has never offered any independent proof that its brokers and or banks froze its funds for over 6 months…

    These are concrete proven things from Olint and DS about which we can draw appropriate conclusions. The fact that Johnny did something similar and hence it applies to me too never worked with my father either. Submit concrete proven things as to why Olint has not been paying all its redemption requests and not that someone else’s did some thing similar.

  57. Olint-for-life:

    Investforlife has already move all the non-F1/MD post to THIS thread, so you can continue to post as usual. Look at the heading of THIS thread and you will see that it has changed!

  58. nocotec

    I must commend you for your response. It was excellent at best, albeit with a little short coming which I will point out shortly.
    I must admit that I was riveted to each and every word you wrote. They tore at the very heart of the debate and demonstrated that now that you are willing to debate, you can effectively debate with Hermes. I must give you that.

    Two things however:
    It is not true that as a pro-Olinter that I am reading these arguments with a bias in favour of Hermes. It is because you simply had refused to debate the issues and gave the impression that you knew less that you say, as we have now form the impression of Jason.

    The other thing is that your arguments revolved around the matter of the NFA document and the lack of trades on the i-TradeFX platform. The problem with this is your failure to mention David’s defence that trades are conducted on the Oanda platform. It may very well be that you would argue differently if a number of information gaps were filled.

    Regardless, in my books you have redeemed yourself and have scored tremendous points, that you have drawn level with Hermes in this debate.

    Awaiting Hermes response to see which of you could possibly win the debate.

    And Jason, I think you should stay out of this intellectual debate. The standard of your answers are less than required at this time.

    Olint-for-life

  59. Thanks DaveSin and Investforlife

    Olint-for-life

  60. Nocotec,

    I am going to do something different here, and hopefully this will cause us to get somewhere. I am going to list my conclusions one by one, and ask you to stick to the premises or facts supporting that conclusion.

    Note: the way I have set up the argument, it is in the form as follows to make simpler to stick to the topic
    A +B +C +D = E, where A, B, C, D are premises and E is a conclusion for example. Note if you challenge a premise, say only D, that does not mean the argument falls apart, it just means that argument is slightly weakened. You have to challenge most if not all of the premises in order to decimate the conclusion.

    Furthermore, the final conclusion of my previous post is the form E +F+G+H = I, where E, F, G are sub-conclusions and I is the final conclusion……so that if you are going to challenge my final conclusion, you have to successfully challenge each of the sub-conclusions.

    I want to do it this way so that we can actually keep score, and keep each other intellectually honest. I could respond to all your points again but I think this will be most productive.

    Let us make a promise that we will put aside our preconceived notions, and like a scientist see if you can follow the facts to where they lead.

    Note: In order to stick to the topic (Was there any reasonable basis in the past prior to January 2008 for any investor to justify taking the risk of investing with David?), this specific discussion will only cover the period from the inception of OLINT up until January 2008 (after which OLINT had payment problems).

    So here goes, I am going tighten it up a bit so that we move carefully forward.
    ————————————————————————
    Premise 1: David was a licensed trader at JMMB for seven years prior to forming OLINT.

    Premise 2: Julian Mair & Keith Duncan (senior investment manager & owner respectively) have indicated that David was a specialist in currency trading in the international FX market at JMMB where he honed his expertise under the guidance of Julian Mair & Keith Duncan, as confirmed by reports in the observer.

    Conclusion 1: David has the experience and trading skill in the international forex market as a foundation to be able to become an expert in FX trading.

    —————————————————————————-
    Backup or proof for the premises:
    see: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/magazines/Business/html/20060316T220000-0500_100771_OBS_DAVID_SMITH_ON_THE_BUSINESS_OF_CURRENCIES_TRADING_.asp

    Can you tell me if you accept the premises based on this newspaper report? If not why not? If you accept the premises as fact, then do you agree that the conclusion is reasonably drawn from the premises? Yes or No?

    Lets debate this and this only this next round, so that we don’t muddy the process. if you can show why the facts as reported by the newspaper is false, then I promise I will listen but you must provide counter-facts in order to call into question the newspaper report.

  61. Nocotec,

    The combination of the recent interview I heard with Mr Smith, Lack of consistent payouts for the past 6 months (I say consistent because there have been payout, but just not regular), the lack of answers to all the questions you just presented, and the lack of verifiable proof that what Mr Smith is saying is true…. and by extension the expectation that people should just ‘take his word for it’ has basically convinced me to write the money off as a loss.

    For the life of me I cannot come up with ANY reason other than Olint must be a long running Ponzi. There is no other reason that i can think of (and one of the largest in history from the research i’ve done). Releasing verifiable records, statements, and proof of actual legitimate activity would do nothing but benefit Mr smith, Olint and club members. There would be no disadvantage to doing so. The excuse that ‘he doesnt want to release trade secrets’ is mediocre at best. There are many ways to release verifiable proof of actual legitimate business activity without releasing ‘trade secrets’, so this excuse is weak and unacceptable.

    The other ‘reason’ I’ve heard for Mr smith not releasing records is that ‘he’s just not liek that.. he doesn’t want to’. while this MAY have been acceptable when the club was only a handful, or maybe even a hundred members, the fact of the matter is that he is currently holding money for not only his members directly but also lewfam’s members, F1’s members, and many other ‘fund of fund’ members. So to say he just doesnt feel like it, at this point is unacceptable..and only goes further to prove that at present the business he is conducing is not legitimate.

    I am amazed at the blind faith hat people have put in this man. I heard recently that a meetnig was held with ‘prominent investors’ and they were shown his trading platform and its balances. THIS IS SIMPLY AMAZING TO ME.. I’m 100% sure that what these people saw was a screen shot, in which case simply send me you’re email address and I will show you a balance in MY trading account for $100,000,000.00USD! But let us give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they have seen his actual trading account, even in this instance, it is SIMPLE to fool somebody to believe that a demo account is my actual trading account with an actual balance of $1,000,000,000.00. SIMPLE trick. But this seems to have been enough to cool the concerns of the prominent investors. (I suppose we quite often see the things we WANT to see).

    Then we get to the ‘letter’ from Oanda stating that the ‘due diligence is completed and the amount of $250Mln will be wire transferred on July 2nd. There were no verifiable names on the email address to contact at oanda, it was not signed/stamped it is absolutely and completely verifiable, and I am POSITIVE that given ANY other situation would have been unacceptable as proof of ANYTHING, much less that a company is going to wire transfer quarter billion dollars. Again, I suppose we believe the things we Want to believe.

    I would like to believe that Mr Smith and team/family are now at a crossroads in their life. To me the options are simple. Come clean, if it is that he is running a legitimate business, do what needs to be done to prove it. At this point I think even just paying people will not be enough to fully convince people that the business is legitimate. We need verifiable proof, we need to ‘loose ends’ of the stories to be tied up. We need to end the grapevine communication and speculation. The story that a bank/platoform/agency/whoever has been doing due diligence for 6 months and has utterly disrupted your LEGITIMATE business operation. but yet you have not taken ANY legal action against them is ridiculous. I have heard from the ‘grapevine’ that Mr smith doesnt want to enter into legal battles with oanda because they offer exceptional trading advantages to him….. this is also ridiculous, and anybody that believes this has clearly drank too MUCH of the koolaid. If a company is basically holding hundreds of millions of your money at ransom, for NO apparent reason, or rather reasons unknown to you (as he said in his radio interview) then you take legal action, you sue the for the money, the interest, the goodwill you’ve lost with your clients, and whatever else your lawyers can draft up to hurl against them. Hence, this line that ‘due diligence’ is holding up the payment process CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be believed.

    This man supposedly has hundreds of millions if not 1+ billion under management. He is supposedly one of the greatest, if not THE greatest trader in the world (to be returning 5%+ per month consistently for 5+ years off spot trading). It should not be such a difficult task to get your ducks in a row and legitmize your busniess.

    If it is that he has been running a legitimate fund, but has racked up losses and has been trying to cover up those losses, come clean! show us the losses, show us the transactions, and then let us proceed from there. At the very least we as club members will know to proceed and STOP the CHARADE…

    the other option I see for Mr smith and team is again to come clean, and just say point blank he was running a ponzi. If I with my lack of a finance degree, no formal economics training, and basic knowledge of investing can tell that a ponzi CANNOT last forever and WILL fail eevntually, surely Mr smith can also tell. Maybe he is under the impression that he can somehow save what is apparently a dying club.

    In any case. I do hope that the ‘cheerleaders’ are right, and that Olint is legitimate, and that Oanda has been holding up the funds, and that there ARE malicious multi millionaires or even billionaires out there trying to take down Mr smith. I do hope that the 250mln has been wired (even though up to yesterday the office had no word that the money had been sent… but why in the world would THEY know, they only work there), and that people WILL start getting paid as of friday. I do hope that the 2nd wire transfer will also be sent before the 1st has been gobbled up by friends and family of Olnit and its staff, thus preventing people from being left out in the cold. I do hope that the due diligence that oanda/NFa/whoever has finally been completed and they’re not satisfied, I do hope that all the people who have invested their life savings and their futures with this man arent left with nothing but big numbers on a website and pdf docs stating how much money they have in an online account that they cant do anything with but stare at….

    That sure is a lot of hoping….

  62. Nocotec,

    NB: I have about 8 or 9 sub-conclusions that leads to my final conclusion (as shown in my previous post before the last one), so that if we debate them one by one, we can have much shorter debates with much shorter posts in between so that our progress can be seen clearer and we reach some where on each point, rather than the alternative of posting longer responses that take up the same length of time anyway with the possibility of getting distracted. Its about being mentally disciplined here.

    Also, because others on this blog have questioned the sense of all OLINT investors, I want to take that this makes it squarely an issue of logical reasoning. It is the facts and the interpretation of facts within the context of sound logic that must now be used to determine if it was reasonable for anyone to invest in OLINT. Hence the logic format of my points.

    Anyway, I wait to hear your response to my first conclusion 1.
    If you don’t disagree then we can quickly move on to conclusion 2, and so on. I trust you get my drift

  63. Guys

    If you saw the recent Men’s singles 2008 Wimbledon final between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, you may agree with sports analysts/experts that this may have been the best ever lawn tennis final ever played.

    This intellectual debate is shaping up to be just as exciting.

    Right now, you guys have caused me to postpone a number of my daily activities to the afternoon because I am just sitting here waiting to read your further posts.

    Investforlife, I believe that of all the blogs discussions so far, this one for me is the most captivating and intellectually stimulating of them all, having the highest anticipation of what is to come next.

    Hermes and Nocotec, thank you both so far for stepping up to the plate to debate the issues. I know that you are far from complete, but one of you will prevail in the end.

    TheCynic, I don’t know if you are now joining the debate, but all is welcome. I was looking for other posters like Jay and PIPSologist who seems to be in the know to participate here in an unbias fashion as is humanly possible (ie not taking sides for any of the alternative investment schemes).

    Gentlemen, as you were.

    Olint-for-life

  64. I am curious why DS hasn’t stated why the funds have been delayed. If they have been frozen then let the investors know. The freezing could be to do with I-trade activities, but the final and BIG question is: Where are the funds

  65. Listen, there is no doubt in my mind that DS will release some funds to its members in the very near future, given the fact that he was collecting from 1/08 to 6/08. Rest assured, without new inflow, the payout will be short lived and we will continue to see repeated delay in funding encashments!!!!

  66. Lets put one fallacy to rest, there is the reference to a ‘super trader’ honing his skills at a financial institution, first of all he traded currency locally between brokers not on a overseas platform, he was a mediocre trader who on average broke even, certainly not a superstar.

    Second of all he was asked to resign after he sold cheap BOJ money (at market rate during a BOJ OMO)to a brethen for a kick back, this amounted to fraud and could have cost said institution their cambio licence…. time for a reality check (the only check we getting back) people…. if there was money it would have been paid already…… WAKE UP!!

  67. Light the fusion…Hmmm. all these “debaters” like Hermes and Olint 4 life are a set of clowns. They don’t realise most of what has been circulating about David Smith is a lie, an urban legend circulated by the conman and his friends
    Olint 4 life it is not my job to sit here and educate you or enter silly debates why Olint is a ponzi. That is like me entering a debate with someone who is trying to argue the sun is not hot.
    The debate is simple. Investing with someone who claims to be doing so well and he cannot provide any evidence of such is plainly foolish.
    Many bloggers dont like me because I am a straight shooter, I call the shots as it is. Hopefully you supporters will sit back and reflect in a couple of months and learn that you shouldn’t invest based on rumours, urban legends and alleged performance.
    By the way there is no 250 mill U.S in jamaica from Olint u will be lucky if there is 250 mill Ja$

  68. Word is that funds are arriving soon if not here already in Ja.

    Now, now, now; calm down. Let’s not debate it.
    We still have some time before it can be verified.

    Olint-for-life

  69. LightTheFuseandRun
    You said “Second of all he was asked to resign after he sold cheap BOJ money (at market rate during a BOJ OMO)to a brethen for a kick back, this amounted to fraud and could have cost said institution their cambio licence”

    Please explain how this scenario works. I’m not familiar with OMO’s or BOJ

    Thanks

  70. Olint for life…LOL you just dont get it do you?

  71. Seems like I have missed a lot having been out for the greater portion of today, however a rather entertaining discussion.

    While I think its been good, the facts are:

    1. Olint has not paid most investor in 6 months.
    2. Olint continues to experience cashflow problems.
    3. Olint has accepted deposit continously for 6 months, without paying out much.
    4. TCIFX appears(based on what we have seen) to have experienced losses for most of this year.

    1. Olint has not paid most investor in 6 months.

    a) Why is this the case, is it due to DD by its brokers /banks on Olint.?
    b) If that is the case why would the funds be frozen?
    c) Did the US regulatory agency ask that Olint funds with its brokers/banks be frozen?
    d) If the funds were frozen for this long a period of time, how could Olint continue to trade and post its profit(Olinttci & Loss TCIFX). If your accounts are frozen would you have access to these funds?
    e) It has be reported that only 20% of the funds under management is every traded, so where is the 80% sitting. Is it in a brokerage account or is it a bank account.
    f)If the 80% is in a bank account (Wachovia), then was this account frozen.
    h) If the 80% was in a brokerage account, which brokage house was it and was this account also frozen.
    i) Due Deligence at Wachovia was said to be compleyed so why the funds not been released. Now listen this carefully. David said in the interview that the broker would not release his funds and he does not now why.

    Does this therefore mean that the funds which are were frozen in his brokerage account.
    Does this therefore then mean that Olint uses his brokerage account akin to a banking account.

    Why am I saying that:

    Well if 80% of the funds that are not being traded cannot be used to pay investors their outstanding amounts it therefore stands to reason that the 80% that is said to be held(safe) must be at the same location as the 20% that is being traded (from his trading account).

    Note: The above is only true if there is fact an 80% being held for “non trading purposes”.

    Point 2…. Next Post

  72. Jason.

    I’m am neither a cheerleader, nor a naysayer…. but let us just suppose, that Olint does pay the money owed to people as promised. Will you then beleive that despite the lack of transparency, proper disclosure and poor communication, that it is possible that Olint is running a legitmiate business?

    OR are you one who feels that even if they DO pay, that in no way proves that they are doing legit business?

  73. I am back from signing off. I do have other stuff to do. I see that some new characters have entered scene.

    So first, I see that nocotec has not answered my simple point based on the newspaper reporting. Ok, thats fine. I will continue to wait.

    Ok now to LightFusion, before I respond, may I ask you to give the source or backup for your assertions? As i mentioned to nocotec, I will listen to counter-facts that can be backed up.

    Second, the observer reported that he was involved in trading international fx. Did the investigative reporters at the observer get it wrong? I provided back up. Where is yours? I have another answer to this but I will hold on to that until I hear LightFusion response.

    Jason, you call me a clown, and you have not answered one of my questions as yet. You have dodged and ran and hidden. So to me until you defend your original claim to superior financial expertise, I will consider you a fraud. Are you trying to let time pass so that people will forget?

  74. While I wait on LightFuse And Run, and nocotec to respond,

    I want to address Jay. Your questions are pertinent questions.
    But they focus only on the last 6 months. You have to look at the whole picture. That is why I want to separate “Post January 2008 from Pre January 2008”. That is why the question of “what are the reasonable rationales for why investors went with David” is relevant to the discussion, as it gives a sense of the entire picture not just 6 months out of 48 months. The answers to the questions you asked are in the process of being unfolded, and we will find out one way or the other over the next two weeks. I have always said that.

    In fact refer to my post under “Martinez, NFA….etc”
    ____________________________________
    #
    Hermes, on July 7th, 2008 at 5:15 pm Said:

    At this point, I think there are only 4 options for David Smith.

    1) By next week start paying out money. If he is able to do this, he will barely avert disaster. [By disaster I mean, lawsuits, criminal/fraud complaints in Jamaica (arrestable here) and elsewhere, threats of all kind, untold financial misery for clubmembers, irreparable damage to the reputation of DS and Olint, a complete roasting in the local & intl press, and a puncturing of the many hopes and dreams and faith of the people including many churches]

    2) If there are still delays by next week, then he has to produce to the club members financial records to show the $750M plus in his accounts. [the same records he showed the big investors last week privately in JA]. This might hold off the disaster for a little more or little while longer. There is no more reason to not be forthcoming with these records. If he can show the big investors, then he can show the small club member. At this point, by next week, this whole approach has to come to an end…..that is this whole savvy offshore, I want to keep my privacy, I dont want to reveal my trading strategy, I dont want to pay taxes or I dont show that I am making 40% per month which will irritate members etc, attitiude now has to give way to “I dont want to go jail”, or I dont want to die because some angry clubmembers take things into their own hand, or I dont want my name irreprarably damaged etc etc

    3) If he doesnt do either of the above, the only possible scenario where he can come out of this somewhat vindicated but ironically so, is for David to announce that the Feds (Fincen, USDOJ, etc) have frozen the $750M plus dollars in his accounts (along with some documentation that proves it since few will take his word for it) and that he is facing charges of being an accessory to money laundering because he unknowingly accepted questionable money in the early part of OLINT’s history when administrative procedures were not streamlined

    4) Buy a one way ticket to somewhere hard to reach or track down like Brazil, and live in the amazon jungle with primitive tribes, or go to some place like Zimbabwe and seek a hiding place from badman Mugabe. this will be his only option if indeed he turns out to be lying, or a fraud, or lost the money or whatever.
    ________________________________________

    The difference between you and I, is that I am willing to let the facts come out rather than speculate about the answers to your questions. Again they are good questions…and I don’t want that to be lost.

    Moreover, if you are not careful, you could end up using the “argument from silence” fallacy to end up with a conclusion, when it should remain a question.

    Lastly, the problem with your questions is that though pertinent, you and others keep asking the same questions over and over and over, and nobody can answer one way or the other, until more facts come out and until another week or so passes by. It is like beaten horse beaten dead, and then when others say, the facts are forthcoming, you seem to jump on that to say, that the lack of full answers or facts is evidence that proves your conclusion. A good question is merely that..a good question. Dont treat it like it is proven fact.

    Selah

    Now back to waiting on LightFuseAndRun, and nocotec, to respond. I am waiting because I assume they have the intellectual honesty to man up in a debate. I am assuming the LightFuseAndRun has the back up to support his claims. I am assuming that nocotec is just busy right now and will respond at some point, especially since the evolution of the current debate was based on our interaction.

  75. The question I only ask is: Where’s the money?. Can anybody answer that question.

    Forget about being frozen or being scrutinized by the FEDS, just a simple question where’s the money.

    $US750 MIL no problem where’s the money? Pray for JA and the money doesn’t answer my question.

    Both Jay and Invest-for Life have their points but again, the old saying “it takes cash to care”.

  76. Cynic

    If DS pays out his total encashments it would be the greatest miracle on earth. That is like asking me if I see pigs flying tommorow what would I do. I have full confidence that he doesn’t have any 750 mill US

    Hermes

    Now I understand your type. I have told you that you will not receive any personal info on me and you still ask. I could see why you invest in Olint, in the face of overwhelming evidence you still pursue with your falacies.
    I am a private individual, whether I have 2 years, twenty years or 1000 years experience is irrelivant. The fact is your rationalle for investing in Olint was foolish.
    I am not saying you are a foolish person but your decision based on the facts put forward to justify an investment in Olint was an unwise one.
    Bases on your post it is like you want us to pat you on the back and say “yes I could see how one could invest in Olint”. The fact is I cannot, the flimsy reasons you gave, based on rumours, urban legends and half truths would not entice me to invest with David Smith.
    Maybe now it has sunk in your skull, and if persons continue there investing careers investing based on the flimsy reasons you put forth they will fail and will find them selves in the position they are in now. Waiting in vain for money.

  77. Now I know you will come back and say I brought up my experience, the fact is I did.
    Am I at liberty to back it up? No
    Do I care if you believe me or not? No
    Do I have any money for you why I should prove my credentials? No
    Does David Smith have money for thousands of Jamaicans? Yes

    So Hermes, what separates me from David Smith? Go figure.

    Class dismissed

  78. Jason, I dont expect you answer me. If you think that I was expecting you then you are really dumb. What I expect to do is to reveal you as the fraud that you are, thats why I continue to hold your feet to the fire. I want others when they see you come in after a long silence and try to start back with you belittling tone and air of superiority that they remember to put you in context because you have discredited yourself.

    You introduced your superior expertise to belittle others on this blog before I came here. I stood back and watch you belittle, mock, ridicule others with impunity. You invoked your financial expertise as a basis to try to crush others. You even claimed that you have more knowledge than 95% of the population and thats why others should listen to you and why others should follow what you say. You did that…. not me. You need to take responsibility for your behavior. If you do not want to disclose the nature of credentials and expertise, they you should have not CONTINUALLY USED IT AS A BASIS TO TRY TO CRUSH OTHERS.

    My questions are simple. They wont hurt you in anyway. Whats all this claim to privacy for. Nobody is going to sue.
    1) Whats your level of education (High school, AA, BA, MA, MBA, PHD etc)
    2) Do you have a CFA, CFP or other professional certification
    3) During your so-called 22 years of vast financial experience, which brokers, banks or financial institutions did you work for
    4) What level did you reach?
    5) How much money did you make on average each year?
    6) Since you trade for yourself, how much money do you make on average per year

    These are 6 simple questions. If you continue to dodge, which I know you will, it will be evident to all that you have something to hide….thats if they use your same reasoning to conclude that David is a conman. Since we dont like like conman on this blog, it is important to identify those among who are revealed themselves to be dishonest conmen. You are proving yourself to be such a one.

    I think I have done my job in putting you in your place and taking of the mask off of you.

  79. Hermes, you have done your job in showing that you are clueless, and cannot tell the difference between a private individual who owes the public nothing and a public figure who owes the nation millions of U.S dollars.

    You have also proven that you can’t tell the difference between an obvious ponzi scheme and a legitimate organization. Your rationalle for investing in Olint was downright foolish.

    What you should do is recognize the mistake, learn from it and not repeat it so that through the experience you become a better investor.

    You have proven that you can garner cheer leaders from the like minded cllueless penny section in Olint for life and whoever else.

    My status in life is my status, my financial knowledge and common sense reasoning spotted David Smith as a conman from a mile away

    So I guess you have certainly put me in my place.

  80. As a private individual you have made yourself to be an authority while blogging on this site. In every online community, there is a social contract between each and everyone of us that we dont knowingly lie or deceive others. in the context of this online community, you decided no longer to be a private individual minding his own business. You decided to set yourself up as an authority on a public matter. Because you have done this, you yourself relinquished any claims of privacy concerning your credentials because you yourself decided you go out on a limb and exalt yourself a financial guru know-it-all. It is is interesting no-one else has done that. Do you ever wonder why? Because everyone else has the sense to know that when go around touting your 95% superior financial knowledge, you leave yourself open to taken to task on the nature of your credentials. If you cant see that, then you have just answered my first question showing that you exhibit the reasoning abilities of someone has not finished high
    school.

    In essence, you refusal to answer these questions about self-announced expertise is a violation of the social contract among this community of bloggers.

    By the way, David Smith, technically is not public figure. He owns a private investment club, and to my knowledge has never solicited anyone to join his club. OLINT is not a public company, so technically he is still a private person with a private entity. I know he has millions for people, but they all signed up under the conditions of privacy and non-solicitation. Private companies, especially closely-held or family businesses, routinely do not publicly disclose their records, even when demanded, because they have no legally binding fiduciary responsibility to do so. So even though I generally agree that DAVID MUST NOW REVEAL HIS FINANCIAL RECORDS, the theoretical legal differences from you as a private individual are not drastic as you make them out to be.

    In fact, I see parallels. David facing damage to his reputation in the context of private online investment club, continue to not reveal his records to help himself when if he had nothing to hide would be simple matter to shut up the naysayers
    Jason, facing damage to his reputation and credibility and while being exposed as a charlatan in the context of this online investment blog, still refuses to disclose basic information that would help himself and shut me up, when it be simple to do so, if he had nothing to hide

  81. Jason

    Calm down, this is not a tracing match.
    I don’t think you have read what Hermes has said in this blog and aonther one that he has copied and reposted here.

    I have stayed to watch this debate unfold and by your behaviour, I think even if your friends tap you on the shoulder and ask you to respond to at least some of the questions asked, or even to debate the issues, I think you would nyam off dem head.

    Various person here are enjoying the intellectual debate, but your contribution is less than the standard that has been set. THE BAR HAS BEEN RAISED.

    You and others know where I stand on this Olint issue, in name and pronouncements, but I and others choose to set those things aside to debate with each other, how far we can go with the limited facts that has been presented, as well as current developments and where they may lead.

    So come on Jason, take a water break and let’s try again, one more time.

    No tracing. As gladiators in a ring, LET’S RUMBLE.

    Olint-for-life

  82. Let me share the following regarding the due diligence that we have been reading about, to give you an idea why the process is so long, tedious and drawn out, because some people find a way to frustrate people with it.

    The 2001 USA PATRIOT ACT is an acronym which stands for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001″. This is an act signed into law by US President Bush on October 26, 2001, following right after the infamous 9/11.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

    One of the main premise of this law is to empower the US authorities to stamp out terrorism, whether domestic or foreign. The US authorties’ primary concern is to ensure that terrorism is not fed by well needed money (money laundering), without which they will be innefective. So, in order to do this, arising from the PATRIOT ACT are the terminologies which are now known as Due Diligence, and Enhanced Due Diligence.
    Read here to see the extent of what is required.
    http://www2.gtlaw.com/pub/alerts/2006/0101.asp

    What this effectively does is to require of US financial institutions to carry out Due Diligence, and Enhanced Due Diligence, on all institutions, especially those that are non-US, primarily to prevent money laundering of illegal proceeds, such as from sale of drugs, arms, government corruption etc.

    Now I don’t have a problem with these requirements because we must keep the international financial system clean.
    What I have a problem is this:

    Those financial institutions carrying out the due diligence on the non-US institutions will come up with a list of, say 12 things, that their due diligence will cover, but only tell you about one of them. You spend a lot of time (sometimes weeks) and resources (money and staff) to deal with the one item, and when you are finished, you think it is over. Lo and behold, they now tell you about #2.

    They repeat this process over, and over, by next telling you about #3, then #4, then #5, etc. You must get my drift by now. After a certain point, if you are the person who is under the due diligence, you must start to say to yourself, WHAT NEXT? And also, can you just willy nilly divulge all that is happening to the members, when there are members who make it their duty to run to the media with every goddamn private matters of the club.

    All this time, the funds that you cannot get, are earning millions of dollars of interest daily for the banks, and not for your account. And we still expect David to trade and make money for us even though we cannot get it yet (smile).

    So when you hear David says “PRAY FOR HIM”, is not foolishness him talking bout.
    The man is realy stressed out and only his wife and family are there in the night to comfort him, and give him some relief from these daily stresses.

    I ask the question again, is there a sinister hand behind all of this, local or foreign?

    I leave you to ponder on these things.

    Olint-for-life

  83. Hermes, Said: …”My questions are simple. They won’t hurt you in anyway. What’s all this claim to privacy for. Nobody is going to sue
    1) What’s your level of education (High school, AA, BA, MA, MBA, PHD etc)”….

    Hermes you keep asking these irrelevant questions. Here goes, what is YOUR specific educational background. Please list the name of the schools, the degree granted and whether it’s was an on-campus program or online program (e-degree). Please list all your professional certifications (if any). Please be aware of the “Omer Thomas” syndrome. Over to you!

    Please do not disappoint us now.

  84. Hermes your posts are cracking me up. Ok you say I dont have a high school education, believe what you wish, whether it is my high school reasoning as you put it or my experience as i want to put it my conclusion was the same.

    Fact is I was still able to spot this scam organization from a mile away with my “high school education” While the “sophisticated” ones like yourself flew down to Turks, believed a bag of urban legend stories about the great trader David Smith. LOL

    David Smith technically may not be a public figure, but he has the public’s money. Sorry, correction he had the public’s money and now all he has is a big bag of lies that when he needs an excuse for not paying he dips in and pulls out some story to tell the ‘sophisticated’ clueless investors like Hermes who is calling for transparency not before the horse was in the barn but 3 years after the horse has escaped from the barn and is nowhere to be found.

  85. Ohh and Hermes I am still waiting for the documents to prove my credentials but you know how this ‘due diligence’ thing goes.

    It is holding up the information, getting the information to you was much easier before the patriot act came in, the same one that our friend Olint for life posted.

    I am still crossing my fingers and praying it will come thru by friday. I want you and Olint for life to pray for me also

  86. Jason

    If this blog had sound, you would hear a raucous laughter in the background. And its still going on.

    I don’t know about anyone else, but I am not going down whichever road you may be on, because its not leading to anywhere. As I am typing my response, I am being told to ignore you, but I seem to want to try with you still, to help you to lift your standard of debating.

    Remember, this discourse can in no way, change your anti-Olint position.

    So again, one more time.

    Olint-for-life

  87. Well, I am a dunce bat so I will stay out of ‘doctoral’ debates.

    What I know we can agree on as a fact is that most investors in OLINT have not been paid anything since January 2008.

    What we know is that there has been no independent verification of OLINT’s accounts and records, if any indeed exists. (World wise makes you wonder)

    Keep in mind also, and I repeat this, that we know that between January 2008 and June 2008, a period of 6 months, Olint and its affliates/feeder clubs continued to collect money, a sum no one knows or can verify. This very relevant and I will keep repeating it in the context of rumours that the money is here and payments will begin soon.

    Which money will be used to pay investors? Money from a little trading or ? Will it meet all obligations? What happens if it reaches that 25% of portfolio?

    I know that I was subjected to loads of peer pressure to invest in OLINT & other AISs. I refused because in my simple thinking 1) there was no transparency, 2) the returns were too good to be true and 3) no evidence except money in the pocket to back up how the money was being made.

    When the regulators stepped in that was it for me. Any scheme that is going to fight regulation that asks for disclosure and “fit and proper” checks( is that what the NFA was asking) I am not in that.

    If some persons had been have vigourous in there logical evaluation of OLINT and other AIS, I do not think they would be in the situation they are now.

    For those new to the blog, David Rowe is a example of why persons must be careful . You can read about him here
    https://investforlife.wordpress.com/2008/05/23/david-rowe-defended-cash-plus/

  88. Guys

    There has been one question about how come 20% of funds is used to trade, 80% of funds is protected, so why can’t we get our money from the 80% balance.

    Also, there is the other question of how is it that Olint continues to trade and they report that they cannot access funds for members.

    I will attempt to explain to you all how this works in one form, but DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT take this as the way in which David does things for the club; BECAUSE I DO NOT KNOW!!

    Assuming a trader has $1,000,000 of own funds and he is offered a leverage of 20 to 1 by his FX Broker to trade those funds, this means he is allowed to trade a maximum of $20,000,000 (20 x $1,000,000).
    Since he contributed only $1,000,000, then it means his broker can lend him up to $19,000,000 to make it up to the $20,000,000 maximum.

    If we wish to use the famous 10% return on your money, this means that he hopes to make $100,000 gain on his $1,000,000 principal.

    Now let’s say he can achieve this $100,000 with only 5 trades for the month; this means that he hopes to make $20,000 average gain from those 5 trades.

    The 20% of funds used to trade:
    If a trader uses only 20% of his principal to trade, he would only use $200,000 (20% x $1,000,000). This can be used in several combinations of smaller amounts to trade different currency pairs.

    However, with a 20-1 leverage, the $200,000 amount at his disposal becomes $4,000,000 (20x $200,000) available to him to trade. This also means that he would not be using 80% of his funds or $800,000 in the trade, but this amount might still be required to fund his trading account, because of how the trading platform might be design to allow you to trade.

    The GAIN:
    All the trader needs to do then is to make 5 successful trades using $200,000 of his funds, or $4,000,000 of tradable funds, at any one time to make $20,000 on average. This $20,000 represents a mere 0.5% of the $4,000,000 of leverage funds, which is easily attainable. The 5 times amount to $100,000, giving a return of the famous 10% on the $1,000,000 initial principal.

    The trader however, may have to fund his trading account at his broker with either the $1,000,000 or an amount near to it. That is how the 80% protected funds get tied up in the trading account, explaining why he can’t get it although it’s protected. And that is why trading can still take place even though funds have not yet been released when requested.

    While the above is an oversimplification of an actual trading strategy, for all persons on this blog who trade currencies, it should be easy for them to verify, or share a related strategy.

    I hope you could follow and understand, as we try and share info for the benefit of all.

    Olint-for-life

  89. Olint for life. wow impressive, in theory you are indeed correct in your analysis above.

  90. So, in discussion with my friends about the current situation. something came to me. What is the big difference between Carlos Hill and David smith. Why is it that even when C+ was crumbling, people were still faithfully following and saying that the man was honest, and he WANTED to give people their payments….

    Why is it that David seems to be coming under such fire, with support quickly diminishing??

    I’m sure there are lots of reasons, but one of the ones that stick out to me is the fact that Carlos had the benefit of being able to ‘blame the banks’. At the time the banks were making a concerted and obvious effort to squash C+, and Carlos was able to blame all the problems on the banks. Even now he has the benefit of being able to say, once he is clear of all charges he WILL repay the money…. and people still believe this. Cheque bounced? its the banks. Waiting 2 months on payments… the banks!

    With David now he doesnt seem to enjoy this luxury. while it is becoming clear to me now that he is attempting to spin the situation and place the blame on the broker and the due diligence, its not working. Very few people that i have spoken to seem to be buying the reason/excuse (depends on how you look at it) for no payments being due diligence.

    Do you guys agree or disagree??

  91. Davesin, why are you defending Jason. Do you know Jason? Can you verify anything about Jason? Why are you protecting him?
    let him answer. Why didn’t you ask Jason about his credentials when he went around disrespecting other bloggers? Bwoy….cronyism is a bitch!

    Human nature is all the same around….you will defend Jason to the death but mock those who defend David Smith. Bwoy …hypocrisy is a bitch.

    Jasin is big boy let him defend himself.

    By the way Dave sin, neva heard a peep from you when I was knee-deep in the intellectual arguments. All of a sudden, Jason in trouble draw out from under the covers.

    You guys are certainly a waste of time. You stay stuck in a group-think mentality and pat each other on the back for calling doom on OLINT. You are unable to listen to reason. Even when I try to deal with you like gentlemen, one of you always try to drag everything back into the gutter. I guess its your nature. No wonder pipsologist and others got fed up and stopped blogging.

    Whenever you guys want to have a proper discussion, let me know. You can start by taking on the challenge that nocotec dropped the ball.

    I CHALLENGE EVERYONE OF YOU TO DEMONSTRATE TO ME THAT MY 9 CONCLUSIONS IN MY EARLIER DEBATE POST ARE UNWARRANTED AND IF NONE OF YOU, I MEAN JAY, DAVESIN, JASON, AND WHOEVER ELSE., CANNOT STEP UP TO THE CHALLENGE, THEN YOU ALL ARE JUST A BUNCH OF “TALK AND NO ACTION”.

    If you guys can carefully refute my 9 conclusions I will be the first to concede that debate. But I suspect that noone of you will do it. At least it seems like InvestFor Life asked nocotec to come debate because none of you are up to the challenge…dat a badman talk fi uno

    Gauntlet lay down, now. Put up or shut up.

  92. InvestForLife,

    Did you collect information from LightFUSEANDRUN to confirm the charges he made earlier. I notice you posted a request for him to back up his charge before you allowed his pot on the blog. Am I correct?

    If LightFUSEANDRUN is going to “light a fuse and run” from being accountable in terms of answering the source and backup of his two points, then it should be pointed out that this is a baseless unsubstantiated charge against David. And such I will consider LightFuseAndRun to be discredited.

    I suspect that we will not hear from LIghtFuseAndRun ever again.

    This gutter politics and smear job at its worst, in my opinion

    If you however do have backup information, please share with us for both points he raised.

    Thanks,

  93. Hermes NoCotec Davesin Jason Sirach
    Unuch chat too raas much. Unu notice seh 5 out di top 10 richest peeple pn di erth ah drop out?

  94. To all Pro-Olint bloggers

    I have money at NCB (much aligned by the Pro-OLINT crowd).

    I can go to the branch and get it all TOMORROW.

    I am pooled with some people in an OLINT account.

    Simple question – When can we get some of it if we apply tomorrow ?

  95. Marcus

    If you request now, the earliest will be sometime next month during the last 2 weeks.

    But if funds are delayed, then your request will be delayed even further.

    Just remember, Olint is not an NCB, which is why NCB pays you little or nothing on your money.

    Olint-for-life

  96. O-F-L

    Well crafted reply. You sure you don’t work for DS ? 🙂

    We already have a payment pending from January so forgive me for being somewhat skepical !

  97. Jah billy

    If i toched a nerve I’m sorry. Jah know

    Interesting point you made. I’ll add that 9 of the top ten poorest people droped out a few seconds ago.

  98. Hermes
    I have been patiently waiting to see which blogger is courageous enough to come here and debate with you, going toe to toe without getting into any gutter level discussions. The significant thing about this debate is that it leaves far more questions unanswered. Which is why I have been saying all along, bias aside, let’s debate the issues with an open mind so we can all help each other to understand what could be really happening.

    Since some of the recent developments are leading people to think that the end result could be that Olint is just another Ponzi scheme on the one hand, the many information gaps and unanswered questions could very well hold answers that could suggest that it is not. Yet the jury is out, that “beyond a shadow of a doubt”, Olint is but another Ponzi scheme and David is a conman.

    Anyway, I still believe that a brave soul will step forward, and so I will wait.

    Olint-for-life

  99. Debate aside, you guys know that as a pro-Olinter, I strongly believe that there are individuals here in Jamaica and also abroad, are hell bent on destroying Olint and by extension, David and his credibility. The reason as I was informed is that he is a threat to their social order and their profits from “certain businesses”.

    This due diligence that is taking place, though necessary, is not by accident but by design. It was designed and structured so that Olint would be starved of funds and cause its members to turn on it, demanding their monies, which will certainly lead to another run on it. However, while more recent members are truly hurting because of this lack of funds, the older members remember only too well what has happened in the past and have decided that they are not gonna be fooled again into pulling their money out of Olint. “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”.

    When you consider two media houses, CVM and the Observer, who in recent times, thrives on broadcasting negative news about Olint, but never follow up their story with an update that would put Olint in a good light, you have to wonder what is their motive. You have to count on the Gleaner, RJR, and Nation Wide News to bring balance to the negative news about Olint. Do you not wonder why?

    There are readers in these blogs that come here to get information for one reason or another, whose motives are best known by them. There are participants in these blog discussions that are plenty with their “informed info” about Olint, that they can confidently sing Olint’s doom and gloom. In what way will they benefit if Olint fails when they say that they have no funds in Olint? Or do they have plenty to lose if Olint succeeds? What are their motives?

    All objective readers of this blog will decide what they want to believe by the weight of the arguments presented, or the gutter level discussions that a number of bloggers continue to want to have.

    This is my bias position as a pro-Olinter since you guys do not want to objectively debate the issues.

    What say you?

    Olint-for-life

  100. What a pathetic site, people who have nothing to lose , but the most vigilant in their degrading of DS . If DS fails, he will be held accountable for his acts .

    Not u bitter people, it amazes me that the people who will lose their money, are the ones desparate for the truth of the situation, while the bitter bystanders seem to be more interested in it Olint crashing.

    BADMIND IS VERY ACTIVE IN THIS PLACE

  101. Jahbilly:

    Between this and the other blogs, that would put you in a position of the pot calling the kettle black? Come with something better…I guess Cash Plus drop out, May Daisy drop out, WW drop out, HW drop out, HW drop out, F1 drop out, RA drop out…..Olint about to drop out. Bwoy Jahbilly, you do have a string of investment attempt drop out pon yu! Yu salt.

  102. Olintforlife, Oneil all

    Sirach sets the record strait.

    I do not think DS is a conman. I also do not think Olint is a Ponzi. But I also do know the obvious that a manager he is not.

    Yes I want my money. But in asking for it don’t assume I don’t support DS. I told cash plus I supported them the same instant they gave me money. I told them that when they put capable management in place that could manage any attacks in a proactive and efficient manner that I would support them with my $$$$ again. The offer is still open to cash plus and I am calm because I have my money.

    Now I put the same issue to Olint and DS.

    Whagt the #%#% is wrong with that?

  103. Olintforlife

    We don’t want no debate. What scares me is that such a dedicated DS/OLINT supporter has been left out by them with no paddle and your hands tied.

    O.K. to Olint iim a naysayer/sob. Reasonable cause you’ve seen my posts. So Olint gives me nothing but lies and false contradictory info at best.

    BUT THEY DO IT TO YOOOUUUU. Their # 1 cheerleader and also to Hermes they give no facts and/or proofs.

    You see in history when people publicly dis their best supporters it means trouble. Research Adolf Hitler and a German called “Rome” who literally put AH into power…yeah man read about what Rome got on the night of the long knives.

    Jahbilly can give you a similar history about Marcus Garvey

  104. Rome got 9 highpwered rifle shot inna im backside!

  105. Hermes

    I told you already about EE. Because some people in Ja get to high corporate and govt office is not an endorsement that is recoqnised in the World.

    Many of these people can’t get domestic/ancilliary work outside Ja. I’m serious here now.

    Many people with personal stories like DD and even DS are not allowed to touch petty cash in some institutions.

    Merit has never been how one moves up the ladder in Jamaica. Do you doubt me on that Hermes? in FACT if you demonstrate a high level of integrity that is “unworkable” to the powers that be you get what quack-quack get.

    Don’t you see in Ja that politician want appointment and their private jobs sametime? Don’t you see that when they “change” a loving bird board that there really is no-change?

    YOU THINK THAT $%^ &* IS TOLERATED SO BLATANT IN 1st WORLD?

    Yet you lean on these types of persons in your argument about endorsment of DS. They can’t endorse a damn piece of driftwood to real sensible people.

    Debate that….I want u to respond to that. EE, DD, who else you said JM? You must be kidding? Do you know these people?

  106. TO BE HONEST

    I have been wondering how many of you REALLY know Ja. and I mean in context of the history from slavery through independence to the present etc.

    A BACCRA a control from as early as the turn of the 19th century. A pure BACCRA runnings behind every aspect of why you don’t have no money from the AIS’s.

    A BACCRA runnings why some get paid and some get what quack-quack get.

    A BACCRA why govt. nah seh nutting….and why govt seh “there will never be a bailout” while at the same time some people getting paid.

    You think BACCRA ever say sorry yet? You think BACCRA ever tec responsibility yet? Is always smaddy else’s fault. “They should have known better” BACCRA done a get dem money.

    BACCRA hate when you get empowerment and don’t have to pay BACCRA homage. THAT IS THE WO RST THING FOR BACCRA TO STOMACH. That is why “there must be a stop to this.” “People are leaving our organisations due to these AIS’s, can you believe it.” “No no this has to be stopped.” “They must always think that to aspire to be us while always actually remaining below is the best thing..”

  107. BACCRA 101

    Go to the Gleaner and read, “Hottest topics on the BACCRA circuit”

    Then : Ask yourselve how at this crucial time the same paper not giving you any news about the AIS’s

  108. Want to know the real reason why many gave their $$$ to DS?

    Because they thought their money in DS could help them escape decades of BACCRA dominance (I challenge anyone to tell me is lie dis).

    However- DS let the people down. Not as trader but BACCRA husked him out. He ALLOWED BACCRA to husk us out and allowed BACCRA to sweat us out. He allowed BACCRA to win. YES. The great competitor got beaten by who? None other than BACCRA. He (DS), in his exhuberance underestimated BACCRA. When warned by some of the best anti-BACCRA revolutionaries DS said NO. DS then was seen publicly skinning teeth with a multitude of the most well known, most loyal groundforces in BACCRAS mighty aresenal.

    DS was then warned again by emissaries of the anti-BACCRA movevement. Again he said NO.

    DS was then seen participating in all of BACCRAs great pastimes. A regular plane ticket became a thing of the past and long gun and bodyguard abounded. WIC was in. Diamonds were forever and lifestyles changed. BACCRA had played the game to perfection. BACCRA infiltrated into DS’s family.

    DS was being screwed while at the same time feeling that he was a winner. This is the specialty methodology of BACCRA. No one can do it better than them. Not even DC and Halliburton (that crew young to these runnings)

    At last a TOP GENERAL of the anti-BACCRA revolutionary front lines was dispathched to DS. DS again said NO. Even as DS himself had dispatched some of BACCRAS operatives who had now been in his close quarters some time and fallen out of favour.

    The TOP GENERAL tried his best. The top general reminded DS of when the top general had recruited DS many, many moons ago….so long most Olint investors wern’t born then.

    DS was moved but not sufficiently to act.

    The top general handled DS firmly but held back from directly accusing DS of being a full fledged BACCRA. Top general could not do that because of the love that top general has had for DS long before DS even learned the metric system much less trade.

    TG also made some moves at the request of DS and in the presence of DS that PROVED BACCRA’s malice towards DS. TG thought by then DS would be ready. DS knows that BACCRA never ever wanted to embrace him into the fold..but only use him. Why did DS not return to the fold of TG? Mabe DS felt shame…who knows.

    Top General then had to flash because even unknown to DS BACCRA always watching top general and waiting patiently to give him what quack-quack get. {Top general has confronted many ranking BACCRA in his time (even with meagre resources at his disposal)}

    At one point DS lamented to TG that he had gone up against BACCRA and had lost the battle. Now BACCRAS were not in short supply at that time and as TG looked up he saw that eyes were closing in…it was as if TG was getting to DS! TG new at that point it was time to leave.

    TG was definately sad because TG knew in his heart he could save DS but he could not tell him really how in detail because by that time TG did not know if he could trust DS. TG would find the answer to this later.

    So Top General made an exit. But listen now.

    When Top General went to the land where his bacative is STINKINGLY SICK with his ducklings. BACCRA was already waiting there to throw antics at Top General. So top general hollered back to DS et al. Top General was told from back home that he should bend over and prepare to recieve the same fate as quack-quack.

    But top general will never bow to BACCRA and DS knows this. And there will never be no quack-quack fate for TG. So DS send some flimsy message to top general through third party. Why, top general will never know.

    So DS should to give back the $$$ so that people can be free to choose never to bow to BACCRA system and just be who they want to be.

  109. @Hermes, re the ‘super trader’ comment, your concerns are noted.

    As NoCotec pointed out we adopted a policy of non-censorship. Let people post freely. We opted to leave the comment while continuing to subscribe to our no censorship stand.

    We are open to a review our position on that post and if upon review we feel differently we will remove it.

  110. Sirach:

    Your last post was at 3:40 am. Do you sleep?

  111. LOL. Hermes is back again with her premises, which some are half truths, trying to justify the decision of putting money with Olint.
    You want a debate, the fact is this is an objective test and your reasoning and others who reasoned like you, based on your conclusions, lead you to put money with a ConMan FULLSTOP (As super dave would say)
    Fact is when investing with a hedge fund if you are not getting periodic independent statements that are audited by a reputable firm stay away.

  112. The signs that David Smith was a fraud were all around. All you had to do was look. But the 10% clouded people’s judgement.
    Then came the constant dodging the issue of transparacy, but people did not see it as him dodging, but the “elite” and the “banks” fighting him down. LOL what a load of crap. But you were warned before this thing fell apart who listned there money is safe who didnt will continue crossing fingers,continue wanting to debate, giving silly reasons for there actions.
    Mr Wynter gave you ample notice over a year and a half ago

    http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/magazines/business/html/20070104T200000-0500_117455_OBS_OLINT_WILL_FAIL_IF_IT_REMAINS_UNLICENSED___WYNTER.asp

  113. Jason,

    Thanks for that link your just provided, I totally forgot that Brain had made that pronouncement way back then.

  114. Davesin

    Perhaps I don’t live in your timezone? No that would just be too simple to figure out.

  115. OK, nocotec, it has been a full 24hrs and you have responded to my simple point for conclusion 1 as indicated much earlier.

    It seems you might want to rely on your last long post to rest your case on. So since that appears to be case, let me go ahead and “rip your post to shreds” and demolish your arguments, just to show you that the reason I did not address it directly last time is because I wanted to enact an approach where the truly better argument based on solid facts and solid reasoning would prevail. Thats why I suggested the “9 separate mini-debate format”, rather than the “one or two long post debate format. “. That debate is still waiting on you because somehow I suspect that you are the only one on this blog that can even begin to approach the task. So I hold out a glimmer of hope that you have NOT ran away from the real fight, when it is just about to begin.

    Otherwise, below you will find that I have copied your last post, and responded point by point in whats called an exegetical or exposition style response. Your original post is in regular font, my responses are in ALL CAPS.
    _____________________________________________

    Hermes your premises, logic and conclusions is what I would refer to as an academic type presentation.

    ACADEMIC TYPE PRESENTATION? NOCOTEC, I PRESENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS WITH SOUND REASONING & LOGIC. DON’T CONFUSE ACADEMIC WITH HIGH-LEVEL. BUT EVEN SO, WHO CARES WHETHER IT SOUNDS “ACADEMIC” TO YOU. SINCE WE ARE DISCUSSING FRAMEWORKS AND RATIONALES, I SUPPOSE NEITHER YOU NOR I CAN AVOID SOUNDING A BIT ACADEMIC. WHO CARES ABUT STYLE. WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THAT YOU AND I BACK UP OUR POINTS. SO LET ME SEE, FIRST YOU WANT TELL ME THAT THE TOPIC IS NOT REVELANT. THEN YOU WANT TELL MEWHAT STYLE I SHOULD USE. YOU ARE WAY TO “CASTRO” FOR YOUR OWN GOOD, MY BOY!
    ———-

    I can choose to respond to them point by point but what purpose would it serve but titillate people like Olint-for-Life, Floridian etc about who is winning the academic argument… and you know each person’s bias has already determined a winner. I will respond to some in a general way but first…

    OK, LET ME GET THIS. ONLY RESPONDING IN A GENERAL WAY AND NOT POINT BY POINT AVOIDS THE TITILLATION YOU DENIGRATE. SO YOU RATHER RESPOND IN A GENERAL WAY, WHICH WILL NOT CAUSE OTHERS TO STILL BE MADE UP MIND, BUT IF YOU TOOK THE TIME RESPOND POINT BY POINT, IT WILL PRODUCE THE UNDESIRABLE RESULT. THIS IS PURE RAMBLING ON YOUR PART. YOU ARE NOT MAKING ANY SENSE HERE

    —————
    What I noticed after my first response to you is the use of a well known technique to steer the discussion away from issues that are currently pertinent to investors who I might add are interested in being paid and trying to ascertain why most have not been paid in over 6 months.

    WHAT IS THE WELL KNOW TECHNIQUE CALLED? AND HERE YOU GO AGAIN GETTING CONFUSED OVER WHAT THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD IS. THE TOPIC AS INTRODUCED BY MY RESPONSE TO JAY AT THE TOP OF THIS NEWS ALERT IS THE TOPIC OF “WHAT IS THE RATIONALE FOR WHY IT MADE SENSE FOR ANY INVESTOR TO TAKE THE RISK WITH DAVID SMITH”. THAT IS THE TOPIC YOU RESPONDED TO. THERE ARE OTHER NEWS ALERTS WHERE NUMEROUS OTHER TOPICS ARE DISCUSSED. THIS WAS WHAT WE HERE WAS DISCUSSING. YOU JUMPED INTO A DISCUSSION AND DID NOT SEEM TO KNOW WHAT THE TOPIC WAS. HOW ASTUTE OF YOU? NO WONDER WHY YOU GOT CONFUSED. NEXT TIME PAY ATTENTION BEFORE YOU ERRONEOUSLY CLAIM THAT I WAS “STEERING THE DISCUSSION AWAY FROM PERTINENT ISSUES”. THIS IS PURE FALSE ALLEGATION. IF YOU WANTED TO ADDRESS THOSE ONLY CONCERNED ABOUT “BEING PAID AND TRYING TO ASCERTAIN WHY MOST HAVE NOT BEEN PAID IN OVER 6 MONTHS”, THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE NOT JUMPED INTO THIS DISCUSSION. I HOPE THIS FINALLY SINKS IN AND THAT YOU STOP USING THIS FALSE ALLEGATION TO GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT I WAS TRICKILY TRYING TO GO OFF TOPIC.

    ———————————
    Look at your first response after my debunking of some of your points… meant to force the other side into a never ending defense of minutia…

    YOU DID NOT DEBUNK ANY OF MY POINT. THIS IS ALL A DREAM IN YOUR HEAD. WHAT POINTS DID YOU DEBUNK IN MY ORIGINAL POST?

    —————————–
    1. I tried to indicate that I was accredited investor without addressing how many accredited investors I knew which was an irrelevant question. Your response then misinterprets my answer which then forces me to clarify my response.

    NO, NO. DON’T TRY A BAIT AND SWITCH. THIS WAS YOUR EXACT RESPONSE, AND I QUOTE …“YES, I DO KNOW SOMEONE WITH THE RESOURCES AND OR INCOME TO BE CONSIDERED AN ACCREDITED INVESTOR. I HAVE BEEN AT THE INVESTING GAME LONG ENOUGH FOR THIS.” WHY WOULD YOU REFER TO YOURSELF AS THIS SOMEONE?

    YOUR EXPLANATION HERE IS JUST PLAIN SILLY. YOU WANT TO REFER TO YOURSELF IN THE THIRD PERSON IN A CRYPTIC WAY, THEN WHEN I POINT OUT THAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO ONE PERSON AS AN ACCREDITED INVESTOR, YOU NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN CAPRICIOUSLY CLAIM THAT I MISINTERPRETED YOU AND FORCED YOU TO CLARIFY. WELL, IF YOU HAD BEEN STRAIGHTFORWARD AND SAID “I AM AN ACCREDITED INVESTOR”, PLAIN AND SIMPLE, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO MISUNDERSTANDING.

    NOCOTEC, YOU TRULY ARE THE BEST. YOU MIGHT HAVE SOME KNOWLEDGE OF BANKING AND FINANCE BUT YOU HAVE VERY POOR COMMUNICATION AND REASONING SKILLS. THEY ARE NOT THE AS BAD AS JASON…..I GIVE YOU THAT, BUT YOU CAN DO MUCH BETTER THAN THIS.

    MOREOVER, IF THE ONLY ACCREDITED INVESTOR YOU KNOW IS YOURSELF, THEN THAT PROVES MY POINT. IF YOU CANNOT REFER TO THE PRACTICES OR MENTALITY OF MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF ACCREDITED INVESTORS, AND YOU ONLY HAVE YOURSELF, THEN YOU MISSED MY ORIGINAL POINT. THIS SEEMS TO BE A BAD HABIT OF YOURS, THAT IS MISSING THE POINT.

    ALSO, WHEN YOU SAY THAT YOU ARE AN ACCREDITED INVESTOR, DO YOU MEAN YOU QUALIFY AS SUCH BASED ON YOU NET WORTH AND/OR INCOME? THE NUMBER OF OTHER ACCREDITED INVESTORS YOU KNOW IS RELEVANT BECAUSE MY POINT WAS THAT ACCREDITED INVESTORS (ESPECIALLY THE SUPER-WEALTHY) OVERALL AS A GROUP OF PEOPLE WILL TEND TO ALLOCATE A PORTION OF THEIR PORTFOLIO (THAT THEY AT LEAST CAN AFFORD TO LOSE) TO AGGRESSIVE HIGH RISK VEHICLES.

    ——————————————-

    2. My response to the Microsoft/Bill Gates example you posed sends you off to call me ignorant and to again misinterpret my response. Further for various reasons I can recite to you off the top, the history and start of MS…

    THIS ONLY PROVES YOU KNOW HOW TO GOOGLE.
    ———————————

    Obviously when I said that venture capitalists and or angel investors require audited statements… if the company has not been in existence long enough to provide such then they cannot.

    THAT WAS MY POINT. INVESTORS INVESTED WITH BILL GATES WHEN THE COMPANY WAS IN SEED STAGE. AS SUCH, SEED STAGE VENTURE CAPITAL IS VERY HIGH RISK. THEY HAD NO AUDITED STATEMENTS TO RELY ON BEFORE THEY INVEST. THEY USED OTHER CRITERIA TO MAKE THAT JUDGMENT CALL.

    ——————————–
    Sometimes, in a small percentage of cases, angel investors/venture capitalists will fund a company based just on the history of the principal. Usually the principal will have had a history of starting and or running very profitable companies… they will fund a completely new venture based on this history. As I was saying, all of these investors will DEMAND future audited statements from the company.

    THIS IS WHERE YOU CONCEDE THE POINT WITHOUT REALIZING IT. HERE YOU SAY THAT INVESTORS WILL INVEST IN A COMPLETELY NEW VENTURE WITHOUT HAVING AUDITED STATEMENTS AS A BASIS TO MAKE THE DECISION TO INVEST. BUT YOU THEN ADD THE CAVEAT THAT THEY WILL REQUIRE THAT FUTURE AUDITED STATEMENTS BE GIVEN LATER. WELL, ITS TOO LATE ISNT IT? WHAT IF THE COMPANY GOES BELLY UP BEFORE FUTURE AUDITED STATEMENTS ARE AVAILABLE. WHAT IF THE CEO IS A CONMAN AND RUN OFF WITH THE MONEY TO BRAZIL AFTER 1 MONTH? HOW IS THE PRESENT DEMAND FOR FUTURE AUDITED STATEMENTS (OR THE FUTURE DEMAND OF FUTURE AUDITED STATEMENTS) GOING TO HELP YOU THERE SO AND AVOID LOSING MONEY?

    AFTER BOTH THE SEED STAGE AND STARTUP PHASE IS COMPLETED. THAT’S USUALLY AFTER ONE TO THREE YEARS, DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF BUSINESS.
    THIS SHOWS THE FALLACY OF YOUR ARGUMENT. YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. YOU CANNOT SAY THAT AUDITED STATEMENTS ARE A NECESSARY COMPONENT OF AN INVESTMENT DECISION THEN SAY IN THE SAME BREATH THAT, ” WELL, YOU DON’T HAVE TO HAVE AUDITED STATEMENTS”, YOU JUST HAVE TO DEMAND FUTURE ONES”. SO THE QUESTION BECOMES, IF AN ANGEL INVESTOR CAN LEGITIMATELY MAKE AN INVESTMENT DECISION WITHOUT AN AUDITED STATEMENT, THEN HOW CAN HE TELL IF HE IS JUST MERELY GAMBLING AWAY HIS AWAY (AS YOU LIKE TO PUT IT) OR BEING CONNED (AS JASON LIKE TO PUT).
    [THIS ONE IS A THORNY ONE FOR UNO, BWOY!]

    THERE MUST EXIST OTHER CRITERIA WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF HIGH RISK-HIGH RETURN VENTURE CAPITAL SEED STAGE INVESTING THAT ALLOWS AN INVESTOR TO MAKE THE DECISION AND TAKE THE RISK. THIS IS THE SUBTLE POINT THAT I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET THROUGH YOUR HEAD. YOU GUYS ARE STUCK AT A CERTAIN LEVEL OF THE INVESTING WORLD. ITS LIKE WHEN YOU ARE IN HIGH SCHOOL, THEY TEACH YOU ABOUT NEWTON’S LAWS OF PHYSICS, THEN WHEN YOU GET TO COLLEGE THEY SAY, PUT ASIDE EVERYTHING YOU LEARNED IN HIGH SCHOOL, WELCOME TO THE EINSTEINS LAWS OF RELATIVITY WHICH KINDA RUNS COUNTER TO SOME OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NEWTON LAWS. THE THING IS EINSTEIN LAWS ONLY APPLY UNDER CERTAIN EXTREME CONDITIONS. NEWTONS LAWS GOVERN MOST OF WHAT WE WILL ENCOUNTER EVERYDAY. SO, IF YOU CAN APPRECIATE THE ANALOGY (AND ANALOGICAL OR PARALLEL REASONING), MY POINT HERE IS THAT THE PRINCIPLES YOU ARE ALLUDING TO APPLY TO EVERYDAY RUN OF THE MILL REGULAR INVESTING. BUT WHEN YOU GET TO CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES (I.E. LIKE THE WORLD OF THE SUPER-WEALTHY OR THE ACCREDITED INVESTOR), SOME DIFFERENT PRINCIPLES MAY APPLY.

    LET THIS BE A LESSON TO JASON, JAY, AND OTHERS…..ACCORDING TO THEIR CRITERIA, NOBODY SHOULD EVER INVEST IN A SEED STAGE VENTURE CAPITAL INVESTMENT WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF AUDITED STATEMENTS. I WANT TO SEE HOW YOU GUYS GET OUT OF THIS ONE. CHECKMATE!

    LET ME GIVE YOU A CLUE WHAT SOME OF THOSE OTHER CRITERIA ARE:
    1) MEETING WITH AND CLOSELY ASSESSING THE CEO & HIS TEAM IN ORDER TO DETERMINE IF THEY HAVE WHAT IT TAKES TO PULL IT OFF AND MOST IMPORTANTLY TO DETERMINE IF THEY ARE TRUSTWORTHY. THIS IS WHAT THEY DON’T TEACH YOU OR CANT TEACH YOU IN BUSINESS SCHOOL,..THAT IS TO SAY… THE SKILL OF BEING ABLE TO “READ PEOPLE”. IN MANY CASES, THIS COMES FROM BEING SEASONED OR EX
    2) A REVIEW OF THE BUSINESS PLAN
    3) A REVIEW OF THE PROTOTYPE OR DEMO, IF IT INVOLVES A TECHNOLOGICAL OR MECHANICAL PROJECT
    4) CAREFULLY DRAWN UP DOCUMENTS & AGREEMENTS
    5) A SEAT ON THE BOARD

    I COULD GO ON AND ON WITH THIS POINT, BUT MY BASIC POINT IS THAT THERE EXIST WAYS THAT ALLOW AN INVESTOR TO INVEST WITHOUT AUDITED STATEMENTS.

    ——————————
    You attempt to say that accredited and or sophisticated investors met with DS and based on his history and what they saw chose to invest with him and Olint. You may call these people anything you wish but sophisticated investors they are absolutely not. To invest huge sums with Olint and not to demand that he produce regular and periodic audited financial statements is anything but smart or sophisticated…

    THIS STATEMENT OF YOURS SHOWS THAT YOU HAVE LITTLE EXPERIENCE WITH DEALING WITH THE SUPER-WEALTHY. THE SUPER-WEALTHY HAVE DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS INCLUDING TAX AVOIDANCE, LITIGATION-PROOFING AND PRIVACY THAT ALLOWS THEM TO NOT DEMAND PUBLICLY AUDITING IN EVERY CASE. SOME OF THESE PEOPLE WANT TO REMAIN VERY DISCREET IN THEIR AFFAIRS IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.
    BUT WHAT YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND IS THE PURPOSE OF AUDITING & REGULATION. YOU UNDERSTAND THE USEFULNESS OF IT BUT NOT THE ORIGINAL REASONS FOR IT OR THE SPIRIT BEHIND IT. IT, MY FRIEND, IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION THAT YOU OTHERWISE DON’T HAVE THE SKILLS TO ASSESS OR THE TIME OR PROXIMITY TO CHECK FOR YOURSELF OR THE INSIDE CONNECTIONS/INFORMATION TO RELY ON. IF YOU HAVE AN INSIDE DOOR TO MEET ANY TIME YOU WANT AND REVIEW THE OPERATIONS OF A COMPANY, THE NEED FOR AUDITING BECOMES LESS IMPORTANT FROM AN INVESTOR STANDPOINT. THINK OF IT THIS WAY….SUPPOSE YOU STARTED A FAMILY BUSINESS WITH ALL OF YOUR CLOSE FAMILY MEMBERS, WOULD ALL OF THEM REQUIRE PUBLICLY AUDITED STATEMENTS FROM EACH OTHER? YOU SEE THIS IS YOUR PROBLEM. YOU ARE FORCING A PRISM OF PUBLIC CORPORATION ACCOUNTABILITY RULES ONTO EVERY CONCEIVABLE INVESTMENT SITUATION, INCLUDING PRIVATE FIRMS, FAMILY-RUN FIRMS, SEED STAGE VENTURES ETC. YOU SHOW NO NUANCE IN UNDERSTANDING THE DISTINCTIONS. THIS IS WHERE YOU ERR AS ALREADY DEMONSTRATED WITH THE SEED STAGE VENTURE EXAMPLE.

    ———————————–
    Unless of course these people knew or had reason to believe that they were investing with a ponzi scheme and had an explicit or implicit arrangement that they would be at the top of the ponzi.

    I WONT EVEN DIGNIFY THIS WITH A RESPONSE

    ———————————————
    By the way, sidebar… Lest you believe I am ignorant about Bill Gates and Microsoft. Do you know why your hard drive which you use all the time is Drive C, while the floppy which you rarely use is Drive A? Answer: Because Bill Gates bought a stolen operating system he re-labeled as MS-DOS. That operating system had the hard drive as Drive A so he had to change something. He bought this copied operating system for $50,000 if my recollection is correct. The tale of of MS is not as you think.
    IBM, then king of the computer, did not believe in the new fledgling PC from Apple. They decided to develop one but appointed a small group in Boca Raton to develop it with a shoe string budget. This is why the PC had the open architecture because unlike the normal Apple like proprietary parts in IBM computers, they had to buy parts off the shelf because time to project completion and available money allocated were short. Similarly instead of developing an operating system they had to buy a pre-developed one. They heard about a guy in Seattle with one, not Bill Gates. They setup a meeting for the weekend and flew to Seattle. They met with the dude who owned the same operating system that Gates bought the pirated modified copy. Not unlike CH and DS he loved to deal with lawyers so in his living room he told the IBM guys they would have to talk it over with his lawyers on Monday and left to play golf leaving his wife to finish the meeting.
    The IBM folks left and on Sunday they made some calls and heard about Bill Gates. They called and asked him if he had an operating system to sell them. Bill Gates did not have any but BS them, telling them if they extended their stay until Monday he could sell them one. He knew about the guy with the pirated system. He left and bought the guys system for $50,000 not telling him about the pending deal. IBM met him on Monday and he sold them the system he labeled MS-DOS and they called PC-DOS. He gave them all rights for many years to the code and development of PC-DOS. The only rights he reserved were to sell MS DOS to any clone PCs that came to market. What the IBM guys did not know but Bill Gates knew because he moved in the hobby circles was that as soon as IBM released a PC there would be numerous clones… He knew he could sell MS DOS to these and make millions. He and Paul Allen used the term hanging on to the tail of the tiger (IBM) for the ride and trying not to get eaten. Of course very soon a few guys at Compaq released the first clone and the history was cast as to how Bill Gates became the world’s richest guy. So you see even your MS analogy is not accurate I can bring recollections like this to the top in the blink of an eye on innumerable subjects. I often refer to myself as an information collector.

    AND I REFER TO YOU AS AN ACCOMPLISHED “CUT & PASTE” GOOGLER.

    ——————————————
    3. You tried to clarify mine and others call for audited statements by saying it needs to be from a top 6 accounting firm. As I have said on other blogs, investment companies like Olint need to produce regular and periodic audited financial statements from reputable firms.

    WELL, I HAVE NOT SEEN YOUR OTHER BLOGS.

    ——————————–
    This point needed no clarification. If DS goes to his corner shop CPA and he cooks the statement to produce some kind of statement… this is not an audited financial statements but merely a fraudulent document.
    ARE YOU SERIOUS? SO WHEN ARTHUR ANDERSON PROVIDED COOKED BOOKS FOR ENRON, IT WAS NOT AN AUDITED STATEMENT? THIS IS CIRCULAR REASONING AT ITS BEST. YOU WONT KNOW THAT ITS FRAUDULENT BECAUSE A CPA CERTIFIED, AND CPA WONT CERTIFY IT UNLESS IT IS NOT FRAUDULENT. SO HOW ON GOD’S GREEN EARTH ARE YOU GOING TO BE ABLE TO TELL DIFFERENCE? YOUR REASONING IS FULL OF FLAWED REASONING IT READS LIKE A GEORGE BUSH SPEECH

    ————————
    See why I avoid your point to point discussion on issues that are mainly peripheral and not germane to investors concerns….

    NO. THESE ISSUES ARE NOT PERIPHERAL TO THE TOPIC UNDER DISCUSSION “THE RATIONALE FOR INVESTMENT IN OLINT”. IT MAY BE PERIPHERAL TO WHAT YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT BUT NOT TO WHAT MY ORIGINAL POST WAS ADDRESSING AND THAT YOU DECIDED TO RESPOND TO.

    ———————————-

    I have a long post with not much addressing those concerns, this is what you seek to do and derail discussions down this path.
    NO. I SEEK TO DERAIL YOUR FLAWED RESPONSES AND REVEAL THAT YOUR CRITICISMS ARE UNWARRANTED.

    ———————————–
    To conclude before my next post… Anyone that invests with a company and more particularly huge sums and does not demand future regular and periodic audited financial statements cannot be classified as a smart or sophisticated investor with regards to his investment with Olint or any other UFO.

    OK THIS IS THE HEART OF THE POINT. WHOSE DEFINITION OF A SOPHISTICATED/ACCREDITED INVESTOR ARE WE USING? YOUR DEFINITION SEEMS TO BE AN INVESTOR THAT DEMAND FUTURE REGULAR AND PERIODIC AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
    BUT ACCORDING TO US LAW, “ACCREDITED INVESTOR IS A TERM USED BY THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (SEC) UNDER REGULATION D TO REFER TO INVESTORS WHO ARE FINANCIALLY SOPHISTICATED AND HAVE A REDUCED NEED FOR THE PROTECTION PROVIDED BY CERTAIN GOVERNMENT FILINGS. IT IS DEFINED BY VARIOUS SECURITIES LAWS THAT DELINEATES INVESTORS PERMITTED TO INVEST IN CERTAIN TYPES OF HIGHER RISK INVESTMENTS, LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS, HEDGE FUNDS AND ANGEL INVESTOR NETWORKS. THE TERM GENERALLY INCLUDES WEALTHY INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS A CORPORATION, ENDOWMENT OR RETIREMENT PLANS. IN THE UNITED STATES, FOR AN INDIVIDUAL TO BE CONSIDERED AN ACCREDITED INVESTOR, THEY MUST HAVE A NET WORTH OF AT LEAST ONE MILLION US DOLLARS OR HAVE MADE AT LEAST $200,000 EACH YEAR FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS ($300,000 WITH HIS OR HER SPOUSE IF MARRIED) AND HAVE THE EXPECTATION TO MAKE THE SAME AMOUNT THIS YEAR. THIS RULE CAME INTO EFFECT IN 1933 BY WAY OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933. UNDER SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION REGULATION D, RULE 501, IT REFERS TO AN INVESTOR WEALTHY ENOUGH TO BE EXEMPT FROM REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS.

    SO LET ME ASK YOU AGAIN, ARE YOU AN ACCREDITED INVESTOR UNDER US LAW DEFINITIONS?
    ALSO, THE US LAW DOES NOT USE THE INVESTING “TRACK RECORD” OF A PERSON OR THEIR PARTICULAR INVESTMENT PRACTICE AS A CRITERIA. IT INSTEAD FOCUSES ON THE WEALTH STATUS OF THE INVESTOR NOT THEIR INVESTMENT ACTIONS. SO YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS. YOU SCRUTINIZE THE ACTIONS OF AN INVESTOR AND USE THAT TO CLASSIFY THEM I.E. WHETHER THEY DEMAND AUDITING. CONVERSELY, “US LAW” SCRUTINIZE AN INVESTORS NET WORTH AND USE THAT TO DEFINE THEM. I WILL GO WITH THE US LEGAL DEFINITION ANYTIME RATHER THAN YOU OWN PRIVATE CONCOCTION.

    SO, MY POINT TO YOU IN MY ORIGINAL POSTS, WAS THAT MANY PEOPLE WHO QUALIFIED AS ACCREDITED INVESTORS, DID INVEST IN OLINT. YOU WANT TO TWIST THINGS AROUND AND SAY THAT THEY CANT BE ACCREDITED IF THEY INVESTED WITH OLINT. I TRUST YOU SEE THE FOLLY IN THIS TYPE OF REASONING WHERE YOU RUN CONTRADICTORY TO DEFINITIONS SPELLED OUT BY THE SEC.

    SO IF PEOPLE WHO WERE ACCREDITED INVESTORS INVESTED WITH DAVID, THEN THERE MUST BE A REASON. US LAW ASSUMES THAT THEY KNOW HOW TO EVALUATE HIGH RISK INVESTMENTS, EVEN THOSE WITHOUT AUDITED STATEMENTS. YOU, ON THE OTHER HAND, DO NOT AFFORD ACCREDITED INVESTORS ANY SUCH LUXURY.

    SO MY ENTIRE POST WAS TO DEMONSTRATE THE RATIONALE FOR WHY THIS HAD ALREADY HAPPENED. YOU CANT CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF AN ACCREDITED INVESTOR. YOU CANT CHANGE THE FACT THAT MANY OF THEM INVESTED WITH DAVID. WHAT YOU CAN DO IS LISTEN TO THEIR RATIONALE. YOU MIGHT NOT AGREE OR MIGHT NOT BE CONVINCED ENOUGH UNLESS YOU WERE IN THEIR SPECIFIC SHOES BUT YOU CANT SAY THEY ARE NOT ACCREDITED INVESTORS.

    BUT LET ME ASK YOU THIS, NOCOTEC, AND THIS IS A DIRECT QUESTION:
    IF YOU HAD DISCRETIONARY CAPITAL OF SAY $100,000 THAT YOU COULD AFFORD TO LOSE BASED ON YOUR TOTAL NET WORTH. THEN LETS SAY, YOU MET WITH DAVID, AND HE SHOWED YOU HIS BANK RECORDS, HIS TRADING RECORDS. HE SHOWED YOU LIVE DEMONSTRATIONS OF HIM TRADING AND MAKING MONEY WHILE LOGGED ONTO HIS PLATFORM. YOU SAW FOR YOURSELF THAT HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING. YOU SPENT A WEEK WITH HIM, EVALUATING HIM, LISTENING TO HIM, AND DISCUSSING TRADING. HE SHOWS YOU HIS INCORPORATION DOCUMENTS, WHO THE PRINCIPALS ARE. HE SHOWS YOU HIS LICENSE TO OPERATE BY THE TURKS & CAICOS GOVT AND YOU ACTUALLY MEET THE PREMIER AND HE CONFIRMS THAT DAVID IS A LEGITIMATE FIRM UNDER TURKS & CAICLOS LAW. YOU HAVE YOUR LAWYERS REVIEW THE AGREEMENTS AND FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT IT IS IN GOOD ORDER. WOULD YOU INVEST YOUR DISCRETIONARY FUNDS WITH DAVID UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS? YES OR NO. OR WOULD YOU SING YOUR JOHNNY ONE NOTE THAT HE HAS TO GIVE YOU A PUBLICLY AUDITED STATEMENT FIRST, DESPITE ALL THE INSIDE INFORMATION AND DUE DILIGENCE YOU WERE PRIVY TO? IF YOUR ANSWER IS NO, THEN YOU ARE JUST WAY TOO CONSERVATIVE AND THAT’S OK. BUT IF YOU STILL CANT SEE WHY SOME ACCREDITED INVESTORS MIGHT DECIDE TO TAKE THE RISK, AFTER MEETING WITH DAVID UNDER THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, THEN YOU ARE A FOOL. I CANT HELP YOU.
    MY QUESTION TO YOU THEN IS THIS…HAVE YOU OR WOULD YOU EVER INVEST IN A COMPLETELY NEW SEED STAGE VENTURE, WITH NO AUDITED STATEMENTS? I CAN TAKE A GUESS WHAT THE ANSWER IS. BUT IF I FOLLOWED YOUR LOGIC TO THE END, I WOULD END UP THINKING THAT ANY NEW VENTURE INVESTMENT IS JUST WAY TOO RISKY FOR YOU BUT THAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER ANYONE WHO DOES SO TO BE IN ERROR.

    I WILL RESPOND EVEN MORE LATER, BUT THIS SHOULD DO IT FOR NOW

  116. OK, nocotec, it has been a full 24hrs and you have responded to my simple point for conclusion 1 as indicated much earlier. It seems you want to rely on your last long post to rest your case on. So since that appears to be case, let me go ahead and “rip your post to shreds” and demolish your arguments, just to show you that the reason I did not address it directly last time is because I wanted to enact an approach where the truly better argument based on solid facts and solid reasoning would prevail. Thats why I suggested the “9 separate mini-debate format”, rather than the “one or two long post debate format. “. That debate is still waiting on you because somehow I suspect that you are the only one on this blog that can even begin to approach the task. So I hold out a glimmer of hope that you have NOT ran away from the real fight, when it is just about to begin.

    Otherwise, below you will find that I have copied your last post, and responded point by point in whats called an exegetical or exposition style response. Your original post is in regular font, my responses are in ALL CAPS.
    _____________________________________________

    Hermes your premises, logic and conclusions is what I would refer to as an academic type presentation.

    ACADEMIC TYPE PRESENTATION? NOCOTEC, I PRESENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS WITH SOUND REASONING & LOGIC. DON’T CONFUSE ACADEMIC WITH HIGH-LEVEL. BUT EVEN SO, WHO CARES WHETHER IT SOUNDS “ACADEMIC” TO YOU. SINCE WE ARE DISCUSSING FRAMEWORKS AND RATIONALES, I SUPPOSE NEITHER YOU NOR I CAN AVOID SOUNDING A BIT ACADEMIC. WHO CARES ABUT STYLE. WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THAT YOU AND I BACK UP OUR POINTS. SO LET ME SEE, FIRST YOU WANT TELL ME THAT THE TOPIC IS NOT REVELANT. THEN YOU WANT TELL MEWHAT STYLE I SHOULD USE. YOU ARE WAY TO “CASTRO” FOR YOUR OWN GOOD, MY BOY!
    ———-

    I can choose to respond to them point by point but what purpose would it serve but titillate people like Olint-for-Life, Floridian etc about who is winning the academic argument… and you know each person’s bias has already determined a winner. I will respond to some in a general way but first…

    OK, LET ME GET THIS. ONLY RESPONDING IN A GENERAL WAY AND NOT POINT BY POINT AVOIDS THE TITILLATION YOU DENIGRATE. SO YOU RATHER RESPOND IN A GENERAL WAY, WHICH WILL NOT CAUSE OTHERS TO STILL BE MADE UP MIND, BUT IF YOU TOOK THE TIME RESPOND POINT BY POINT, IT WILL PRODUCE THE UNDESIRABLE RESULT. THIS IS PURE RAMBLING ON YOUR PART. YOU ARE NOT MAKING ANY SENSE HERE

    —————
    What I noticed after my first response to you is the use of a well known technique to steer the discussion away from issues that are currently pertinent to investors who I might add are interested in being paid and trying to ascertain why most have not been paid in over 6 months.

    WHAT IS THE WELL KNOW TECHNIQUE CALLED? AND HERE YOU GO AGAIN GETTING CONFUSED OVER WHAT THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD IS. THE TOPIC AS INTRODUCED BY MY RESPONSE TO JAY AT THE TOP OF THIS NEWS ALERT IS THE TOPIC OF “WHAT IS THE RATIONALE FOR WHY IT MADE SENSE FOR ANY INVESTOR TO TAKE THE RISK WITH DAVID SMITH”. THAT IS THE TOPIC YOU RESPONDED TO. THERE ARE OTHER NEWS ALERTS WHERE NUMEROUS OTHER TOPICS ARE DISCUSSED. THIS WAS WHAT WE HERE WAS DISCUSSING. YOU JUMPED INTO A DISCUSSION AND DID NOT SEEM TO KNOW WHAT THE TOPIC WAS. HOW ASTUTE OF YOU? NO WONDER WHY YOU GOT CONFUSED. NEXT TIME PAY ATTENTION BEFORE YOU ERRONEOUSLY CLAIM THAT I WAS “STEERING THE DISCUSSION AWAY FROM PERTINENT ISSUES”. THIS IS PURE FALSE ALLEGATION. IF YOU WANTED TO ADDRESS THOSE ONLY CONCERNED ABOUT “BEING PAID AND TRYING TO ASCERTAIN WHY MOST HAVE NOT BEEN PAID IN OVER 6 MONTHS”, THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE NOT JUMPED INTO THIS DISCUSSION. I HOPE THIS FINALLY SINKS IN AND THAT YOU STOP USING THIS FALSE ALLEGATION TO GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT I WAS TRICKILY TRYING TO GO OFF TOPIC.

    ———
    Look at your first response after my debunking of some of your points… meant to force the other side into a never ending defense of minutia…

    YOU DID NOT DEBUNK ANY OF MY POINT. THIS IS ALL A DREAM IN YOUR HEAD. WHAT POINTS DID YOU DEBUNK IN MY ORIGINAL POST?

    ——–
    1. I tried to indicate that I was accredited investor without addressing how many accredited investors I knew which was an irrelevant question. Your response then misinterprets my answer which then forces me to clarify my response.

    NO, NO. DON’T TRY A BAIT AND SWITCH. THIS WAS YOUR EXACT RESPONSE, AND I QUOTE …“YES, I DO KNOW SOMEONE WITH THE RESOURCES AND OR INCOME TO BE CONSIDERED AN ACCREDITED INVESTOR. I HAVE BEEN AT THE INVESTING GAME LONG ENOUGH FOR THIS.” WHY WOULD YOU REFER TO YOURSELF AS THIS SOMEONE?

    YOUR EXPLANATION HERE IS JUST PLAIN SILLY. YOU WANT TO REFER TO YOURSELF IN THE THIRD PERSON IN A CRYPTIC WAY, THEN WHEN I POINT OUT THAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO ONE PERSON AS AN ACCREDITED INVESTOR, YOU NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN CAPRICIOUSLY CLAIM THAT I MISINTERPRETED YOU AND FORCED YOU TO CLARIFY. WELL, IF YOU HAD BEEN STRAIGHTFORWARD AND SAID “I AM AN ACCREDITED INVESTOR”, PLAIN AND SIMPLE, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO MISUNDERSTANDING.

    NOCOTEC, YOU TRULY ARE THE BEST. YOU MIGHT HAVE SOME KNOWLEDGE OF BANKING AND FINANCE BUT YOU HAVE VERY POOR COMMUNICATION AND REASONING SKILLS. THEY ARE NOT THE AS BAD AS JASON…..I GIVE YOU THAT, BUT YOU CAN DO MUCH BETTER THAN THIS.

    MOREOVER, IF THE ONLY ACCREDITED INVESTOR YOU KNOW IS YOURSELF, THEN THAT PROVES MY POINT. IF YOU CANNOT REFER TO THE PRACTICES OR MENTALITY OF MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF ACCREDITED INVESTORS, AND YOU ONLY HAVE YOURSELF, THEN YOU MISSED MY ORIGINAL POINT. THIS SEEMS TO BE A BAD HABIT OF YOURS, THAT IS MISSING THE POINT.

    ALSO, WHEN YOU SAY THAT YOU ARE AN ACCREDITED INVESTOR, DO YOU MEAN YOU QUALIFY AS SUCH BASED ON YOU NET WORTH AND/OR INCOME? THE NUMBER OF OTHER ACCREDITED INVESTORS YOU KNOW IS RELEVANT BECAUSE MY POINT WAS THAT ACCREDITED INVESTORS (ESPECIALLY THE SUPER-WEALTHY) OVERALL AS A GROUP OF PEOPLE WILL TEND TO ALLOCATE A PORTION OF THEIR PORTFOLIO (THAT THEY AT LEAST CAN AFFORD TO LOSE) TO AGGRESSIVE HIGH RISK VEHICLES.

    —————————

    2. My response to the Microsoft/Bill Gates example you posed sends you off to call me ignorant and to again misinterpret my response. Further for various reasons I can recite to you off the top, the history and start of MS…

    THIS ONLY PROVES YOU KNOW HOW TO GOOGLE.
    —————

    Obviously when I said that venture capitalists and or angel investors require audited statements… if the company has not been in existence long enough to provide such then they cannot.

    THAT WAS MY POINT. INVESTORS INVESTED WITH BILL GATES WHEN THE COMPANY WAS IN SEED STAGE. AS SUCH, SEED STAGE VENTURE CAPITAL IS VERY HIGH RISK. THEY HAD NO AUDITED STATEMENTS TO RELY ON BEFORE THEY INVEST. THEY USED OTHER CRITERIA TO MAKE THAT JUDGMENT CALL.

    —————-
    Sometimes, in a small percentage of cases, angel investors/venture capitalists will fund a company based just on the history of the principal. Usually the principal will have had a history of starting and or running very profitable companies… they will fund a completely new venture based on this history. As I was saying, all of these investors will DEMAND future audited statements from the company.

    THIS IS WHERE YOU CONCEDE THE POINT WITHOUT REALIZING IT. HERE YOU SAY THAT INVESTORS WILL INVEST IN A COMPLETELY NEW VENTURE WITHOUT HAVING AUDITED STATEMENTS AS A BASIS TO MAKE THE DECISION TO INVEST. BUT YOU THEN ADD THE CAVEAT THAT THEY WILL REQUIRE THAT FUTURE AUDITED STATEMENTS BE GIVEN LATER. WELL, ITS TOO LATE ISNT IT? WHAT IF THE COMPANY GOES BELLY UP BEFORE FUTURE AUDITED STATEMENTS ARE AVAILABLE. WHAT IF THE CEO IS A CONMAN AND RUN OFF WITH THE MONEY TO BRAZIL AFTER 1 MONTH? HOW IS THE PRESENT DEMAND FOR FUTURE AUDITED STATEMENTS (OR THE FUTURE DEMAND OF FUTURE AUDTIED STATEMENTS) GOING TO HELP YOU THERE SO AND AVOID LOSING MONEY?

    AFTER BOTH THE SEED STAGE AND STARTUP PHASE IS COMPLETED. THAT’S USUALLY AFTER ONE TO THREE YEARS, DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF BUSINESS.
    THIS SHOWS THE FALLACY OF YOUR ARGUMENT. YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. YOU CANNOT SAY THAT AUDITED STATEMENTS ARE A NECESSARY COMPONENT OF AN INVESTMENT DECISION THEN SAY IN THE SAME BREATH THAT, ” WELL, YOU DON’T HAVE TO HAVE AUDITED STATEMENTS”, YOU JUST HAVE TO DEMAND FUTURE ONES”. SO THE QUESTION BECOMES, IF AN ANGEL INVESTOR CAN LEGITIMATELY MAKE AN INVESTMENT DECISION WITHOUT AN AUDITED STATEMENT, THEN HOW CAN HE TELL IF HE IS JUST MERELY GAMBLING AWAY HIS AWAY (AS YOU LIKE TO PUT IT) OR BEING CONNED (AS JASON LIKE TO PUT).
    [THIS ONE IS A THORNY ONE FOR UNO, BWOY!]

    THERE MUST EXIST OTHER CRITERIA WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF HIGH RISK-HIGH RETURN VENTURE CAPITAL SEED STAGE INVESTING THAT ALLOWS AN INVESTOR TO MAKE THE DECISION AND TAKE THE RISK. THIS IS THE SUBTLE POINT THAT I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET THROUGH YOUR HEAD. YOU GUYS ARE STUCK AT A CERTAIN LEVEL OF THE INVESTING WORLD. ITS LIKE WHEN YOU ARE IN HIGH SCHOOL, THEY TEACH YOU ABOUT NEWTON’S LAWS OF PHYSICS, THEN WHEN YOU GET TO COLLEGE THEY SAY, PUT ASIDE EVERYTHING YOU LEARNED IN HIGH SCHOOL, WELCOME TO THE EINSTEINS LAWS OF RELATIVITY WHICH KINDA RUNS COUNTER TO SOME OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NEWTON LAWS. THE THING IS EINSTEIN LAWS ONLY APPLY UNDER CERTAIN EXTREME CONDITIONS. NEWTONS LAWS GOVERN MOST OF WHAT WE WILL ENCOUNTER EVERYDAY. SO, IF YOU CAN APPRECIATE THE ANALOGY (AND ANALOGICAL OR PARALLEL REASONING), MY POINT HERE IS THAT THE PRINCIPLES YOU ARE ALLUDING TO APPLY TO EVERYDAY RUN OF THE MILL REGULAR INVESTING. BUT WHEN YOU GET TO CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES (I.E. LIKE THE WORLD OF THE SUPER-WEALTHY OR THE ACCREDITED INVESTOR), SOME DIFFERENT PRINCIPLES MAY APPLY.

    LET THIS BE A LESSON TO JASON, JAY, AND OTHERS…..ACCORDING TO THEIR CRITERIA, NOBODY SHOULD EVER INVEST IN A SEED STAGE VENTURE CAPITAL INVESTMENT WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF AUDITED STATEMENTS. I WANT TO SEE HOW YOU GUYS GET OUT OF THIS ONE. CHECKMATE!

    LET ME GIVE YOU A CLUE WHAT SOME OF THOSE OTHER CRITERIA ARE:
    1) MEETING WITH AND CLOSELY ASSESSING THE CEO & HIS TEAM IN ORDER TO DETERMINE IF THEY HAVE WHAT IT TAKES TO PULL IT OFF AND MOST IMPORTANTLY TO DETERMINE IF THEY ARE TRUSTWORTHY. THIS IS WHAT THEY DON’T TEACH YOU OR CANT TEACH YOU IN BUSINESS SCHOOL,..THAT IS TO SAY… THE SKILL OF BEING ABLE TO “READ PEOPLE”.
    2) A REVIEW OF THE BUSINESS PLAN
    3) A REVIEW OF THE PROTOTYPE OR DEMO, IF IT INVOLVES A TECHNOLOGICAL OR MECHANICAL PROJECT
    4) USE OF CAREFULLY DRAWN UP DOCUMENTS & AGREEMENTS
    5) A SEAT ON THE BOARD

    I COULD GO ON AND ON WITH THIS POINT, BUT MY BASIC POINT IS THAT THERE EXIST WAYS THAT ALLOW AN INVESTOR TO MAKE THE INITIAL INVESTMENT WITHOUT AUDITED STATEMENTS.

    ————————–
    You attempt to say that accredited and or sophisticated investors met with DS and based on his history and what they saw chose to invest with him and Olint. You may call these people anything you wish but sophisticated investors they are absolutely not. To invest huge sums with Olint and not to demand that he produce regular and periodic audited financial statements is anything but smart or sophisticated…

    THIS STATEMENT OF YOURS SHOWS THAT YOU HAVE LITTLE EXPERIENCE WITH DEALING WITH THE SUPER-WEALTHY. THE SUPER-WEALTHY HAVE DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS INCLUDING TAX AVOIDANCE, LITIGATION-PROOFING AND PRIVACY THAT ALLOWS THEM TO NOT DEMAND PUBLICLY AUDITING IN EVERY CASE. SOME OF THESE PEOPLE WANT TO REMAIN VERY DISCREET IN THEIR AFFAIRS IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.
    BUT WHAT YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND IS THE PURPOSE OF AUDITING & REGULATION. YOU UNDERSTAND THE USEFULNESS OF IT BUT NOT THE ORIGINAL REASONS FOR IT OR THE SPIRIT BEHIND IT. IT, MY FRIEND, IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION THAT YOU OTHERWISE DON’T HAVE THE SKILS TO ASSESS OR THE TIME OR PROXITIMITY TO CHECK FOR YOURSELF OR THE INSIDE CONECTIONS/INFORMATION TO RELY ON. IF YOU HAVE AN INSIDE DOOR TO MEET ANY TIME YOU WANT AND REVIEW THE OPERATIONS OF A COMPANY, THE NEED FOR AUDITING BECOMES LESS IMPORTANT FROM AN INVESTOR STANDPOINT. THINK OF IT THIS WAY….SUPPOSE YOU STARTED A FAMILY BUSINESS WITH ALL OF YOUR CLOSE FAMILY MEMBERS, WOULD ALL OF THEM REQUIRE PUBLICLY AUDITED STATEMENTS FROM EACH OTHER? YOU SEE THIS IS YOUR PROBLEM. YOU ARE FORCING A PRISM OF PUBLIC CORPORATION ACCOUNTABILITY RULES ONTO EVERY CONCEIVABLE INVESTMENT SITUATION, INCLUDING PRIVATE FIRMS, FAMILY-RUN FIRMS, SEED STAGE VENTURES ETC. YOU SHOW NO NUANCE IN UNDERSTANDING THE DISTINCTIONS. THIS IS WHERE YOU ERR AS ALREADY DEMONSTRATED WITH THE SEED STAGE VENTURE EXAMPLE.

    ————————
    Unless of course these people knew or had reason to believe that they were investing with a ponzi scheme and had an explicit or implicit arrangement that they would be at the top of the ponzi.
    I WONT EVEN DIGNIFY THIS WITH A RESPONSE

    ———————————-
    By the way, sidebar… Lest you believe I am ignorant about Bill Gates and Microsoft. Do you know why your hard drive which you use all the time is Drive C, while the floppy which you rarely use is Drive A? Answer: Because Bill Gates bought a stolen operating system he re-labeled as MS-DOS. That operating system had the hard drive as Drive A so he had to change something……INSERT CUT………………….. like this to the top in the blink of an eye on innumerable subjects. I often refer to myself as an information collector.
    AND I REFER TO YOU AS AN ACCOMPLISHED “CUT & PASTE” GOOGLER.

    ———————————
    3. You tried to clarify mine and others call for audited statements by saying it needs to be from a top 6 accounting firm. As I have said on other blogs, investment companies like Olint need to produce regular and periodic audited financial statements from reputable firms.
    WELL, I HAVE NOT SEEN YOUR OTHER BLOGS.

    ————————————
    This point needed no clarification. If DS goes to his corner shop CPA and he cooks the statement to produce some kind of statement… this is not an audited financial statements but merely a fraudulent document.
    ARE YOU SERIOUS? SO WHEN ARTHUR ANDERSON PROVIDED COOKED BOOKS FOR ENRON, IT WAS NOT AN AUDITED STATEMENT? THIS IS CIRCULAR REASONING AT ITS BEST. YOU WONT KNOW THAT ITS FRAUDULENT BECAUSE A CPA CERTIFIED, AND A CPA WONT CERTIFY IT UNLESS IT IS NOT FRAUDULENT. SO HOW ON GOD’S GREEN EARTH ARE YOU GOING TO BE ABLE TO TELL DIFFERENCE? YOUR REASONING IS SO FULL OF FLAWED REASONING IT READS LIKE A GEORGE BUSH SPEECH

    ——————————
    See why I avoid your point to point discussion on issues that are mainly peripheral and not germane to investors concerns….
    NO. THESE ISSUES ARE NOT PERIPHERAL TO THE TOPIC UNDER DISCUSSION “THE RATIONALE FOR INVESTMENT IN OLINT”. IT MAY BE PERIPHERAL TO WHAT YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT BUT NOT TO WHAT MY ORIGINAL POST WAS ADDRESSING AND THAT YOU DECIDED TO RESPOND TO.

    ————————————
    I have a long post with not much addressing those concerns, this is what you seek to do and derail discussions down this path.
    NO. I SEEK TO DERAIL YOUR FLAWED RESPONSES AND REVEAL THAT YOUR CRITICISMS ARE UNWARRANTED. BUT TWE AGREE ON THIS…YOUR POST WAS LONG AND DID NOT ADDRESS MOST OF MY ARGUMENTS IN MY ORIGINAL POST

    —————————————–
    To conclude before my next post… Anyone that invests with a company and more particularly huge sums and does not demand future regular and periodic audited financial statements cannot be classified as a smart or sophisticated investor with regards to his investment with Olint or any other UFO.
    OK THIS IS THE HEART OF THE POINT. WHOSE DEFINITION OF A SOPHISTICATED/ACCREDITED INVESTOR ARE WE USING? YOUR DEFINITION SEEMS TO BE AN INVESTOR THAT DEMAND FUTURE REGULAR AND PERIODIC AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
    BUT ACCORDING TO US LAW,

    [“ACCREDITED INVESTOR IS A TERM USED BY THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (SEC) UNDER REGULATION D TO REFER TO INVESTORS WHO ARE FINANCIALLY SOPHISTICATED AND HAVE A REDUCED NEED FOR THE PROTECTION PROVIDED BY CERTAIN GOVERNMENT FILINGS. IT IS DEFINED BY VARIOUS SECURITIES LAWS THAT DELINEATES INVESTORS PERMITTED TO INVEST IN CERTAIN TYPES OF HIGHER RISK INVESTMENTS, LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS, HEDGE FUNDS AND ANGEL INVESTOR NETWORKS. THE TERM GENERALLY INCLUDES WEALTHY INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS A CORPORATION, ENDOWMENT OR RETIREMENT PLANS. IN THE UNITED STATES, FOR AN INDIVIDUAL TO BE CONSIDERED AN ACCREDITED INVESTOR, THEY MUST HAVE A NET WORTH OF AT LEAST ONE MILLION US DOLLARS OR HAVE MADE AT LEAST $200,000 EACH YEAR FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS ($300,000 WITH HIS OR HER SPOUSE IF MARRIED) AND HAVE THE EXPECTATION TO MAKE THE SAME AMOUNT THIS YEAR. THIS RULE CAME INTO EFFECT IN 1933 BY WAY OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933. UNDER SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION REGULATION D, RULE 501, IT REFERS TO AN INVESTOR WEALTHY ENOUGH TO BE EXEMPT FROM REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS. “ ]

    SO LET ME ASK YOU AGAIN, ARE YOU AN ACCREDITED INVESTOR UNDER US LAW DEFINITIONS?
    ALSO, THE US LAW DOES NOT USE THE INVESTING “TRACK RECORD” OF A PERSON OR THEIR PARTICULAR INVESTMENT PRACTICE AS A CRITERIA. IT INSTEAD FOCUSES ON THE WEALTH STATUS OF THE INVESTOR NOT THEIR INVESTMENT ACTIONS. SO YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS. YOU SCRUTINIZE THE ACTIONS OF AN INVESTOR AND USE THAT TO CLASSIFY THEM I.E. WHETHER THEY DEMAND AUDITING. CONVERSELY, “US LAW” SCRUTINIZE AN INVESTORS NET WORTH AND USE THAT TO DEFINE THEM. I WILL GO WITH THE US LEGAL DEFINITION ANYTIME RATHER THAN YOU OWN PRIVATE CONCOCTION.

    SO, MY POINT TO YOU IN MY ORIGINAL POSTS, WAS THAT MANY PEOPLE WHO QUALIFIED AS ACCREDITED INVESTORS, DID INVEST IN OLINT. YOU WANT TO TWIST THINGS AROUND AND SAY THAT THEY CANT BE ACCREDITED IF THEY INVESTED WITH OLINT. I TRUST YOU SEE THE FOLLY IN THIS TYPE OF REASONING WHERE YOU RUN CONTRADICTORY TO DEFINITIONS SPELLED OUT BY THE SEC.

    SO IF PEOPLE WHO WERE ACCREDITED INVESTORS INVESTED WITH DAVID, THEN THERE MUST BE A REASON. US LAW ASSUMES THAT THEY KNOW HOW TO EVALUATE HIGH RISK INVESTMENTS, EVEN THOSE WITHOUT AUDITED STATEMENTS. YOU, ON THE OTHER HAND, DO NOT AFFORD ACCREDITED INVESTORS ANY SUCH LUXURY.

    SO MY ENTIRE POST WAS TO DEMONSTRATE THE RATIONALE FOR WHY THIS HAD ALREADY HAPPENED. YOU CANT CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF AN ACCREDITED INVESTOR. YOU CANT CHANGE THE FACT THAT MANY OF THEM INVESTED WITH DAVID. WHAT YOU CAN DO IS LISTEN TO THEIR RATIONALE. YOU MIGHT NOT AGREE OR MIGHT NOT BE CONVINCED ENOUGH UNLESS YOU WERE IN THEIR SPECIFIC SHOES BUT YOU CANT SAY THEY ARE NOT ACCREDITED INVESTORS.

    BUT LET ME ASK YOU THIS, NOCOTEC, AND THIS IS A DIRECT QUESTION:
    IF YOU HAD DISCRETIONARY CAPITAL OF SAY $100,000 THAT YOU COULD AFFORD TO LOSE BASED ON YOUR TOTAL NET WORTH. THEN LETS SAY, YOU MET WITH DAVID, AND HE SHOWED YOU HIS BANK RECORDS, HIS TRADING RECORDS. HE SHOWED YOU LIVE DEMONSTRATIONS OF HIM TRADING AND MAKING MONEY WHILE LOGGED ONTO HIS PLATFORM. YOU SAW FOR YOURSELF THAT HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING. YOU SPENT A WEEK WITH HIM, EVALUATING HIM, LISTENING TO HIM, AND DISCUSSING TRADING. HE SHOWS YOU HIS INCORPORATION DOCUMENTS, WHO THE PRINCIPALS ARE. HE SHOWS YOU HIS LICENSE TO OPERATE BY THE TURKS & CAICOS GOVT AND YOU ACTUALLY MEET THE PREMIER AND HE CONFIRMS THAT DAVID IS A LEGITIMATE FIRM UNDER TURKS & CAICOS LAW. YOU HAVE YOUR LAWYERS REVIEW THE AGREEMENTS AND FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT IT IS IN GOOD ORDER. WOULD YOU INVEST YOUR DISCRETIONARY FUNDS WITH DAVID UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS? YES OR NO. OR WOULD YOU SING YOUR JOHNNY ONE NOTE THAT HE HAS TO GIVE YOU A PUBLICLY AUDITED STATEMENT FIRST, DESPITE ALL THE INSIDE INFORMATION AND DUE DILIGENCE YOU WERE PRIVY TO? IF YOUR ANSWER IS NO, THEN YOU ARE JUST WAY TOO CONSERVATIVE AND THAT’S OK. REMEMBER MY POINT ABOUT DIFFERENT PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT RISK TOLERANCES. BUT IF YOU STILL CANT SEE WHY SOME ACCREDITED INVESTORS MIGHT DECIDE TO TAKE THE RISK, AFTER MEETING WITH DAVID UNDER THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, THEN YOU ARE A FOOL. I CANT HELP YOU.
    MY QUESTION TO YOU THEN IS THIS…HAVE YOU OR WOULD YOU EVER INVEST IN A COMPLETELY NEW SEED STAGE VENTURE, WITH NO AUDITED STATEMENTS? I CAN TAKE A GUESS WHAT THE ANSWER IS. BUT IF I FOLLOWED YOUR LOGIC TO THE END, I WOULD END UP THINKING THAT ANY NEW VENTURE INVESTMENT IS JUST WAY TOO RISKY FOR YOU BUT THAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER ANYONE WHO DOES SO TO BE IN ERROR.

    THATS IT FOR NOW, I WILL RESPOND MORE LATER. BUT WHAT WOULD REALLY LIKE TO DO IS GET BACK TO THE “9 POINT MINI-DEBATE CHALLENGE”, IF YOU ARE UP TO THE TASK.

  117. Jay,

    The FSC basically went out of there way to tell people that the thing would crash soon. I remember attending one of those think and check meetings and Mr Wynter gave so many hints what was going to happen.
    But the meetings were full of “sophisticated investors” under the “law” as Hermes put it in the piece above.
    Thats the problem people want to enter endless debates when the facts are clearly infront of them. The hostility of the crowd towards the regulators was astonishing.
    To define accredited investors or sophisticated investor they quote a law. lol are they serious.
    Transparency is what matters no matter what a law states. David Smith exhibited the behaviour of someone with something to hide plain and simple.

  118. I just saw Jason’s last post. Let me say quickly, that Hermes is a male name, you idiot. It’s etymology is greek and comes from the greek god, Hermes, who was the chief interpreter or messenger of all the pantheon of gods. If studied philosophy any at all, you might have known this. But I guess I sympathize. There is just no way to expect this basic level of education from you.

    I never said I myself invested with David. I never disclosed that. What I said was that I know many people including many accredited/sophisticated investors who invested with David.

    Jason, have you ever invested with an offshore hedge fund? if so, name for me the company. Do you know any hedge
    fund CEOs or managers? If no, then you better keep quiet.

    Furthermore, have you ever dealt with super-wealthy investors as clients? do you know any?

    Lastly, if you really want to debate, and name-call in the gutter, I ask you to start by responding to the mini-challenge that I laid down for nocotec, that is, conclusion 1 of my 9 point mini debate as explained earlier. i.e. can you refute the newspaper reports about Davids background and experience at JMMB.

    Now please be disciplined here. dont go off on your johnny one note. Answer the question posed in the challenge, if you dare:

    I have reposted the challenger, number 1, below. to make it easy for you:

    #
    Hermes, on July 9th, 2008 at 10:16 am Said:

    Nocotec,

    I am going to do something different here, and hopefully this will cause us to get somewhere. I am going to list my conclusions one by one, and ask you to stick to the premises or facts supporting that conclusion.

    Note: the way I have set up the argument, it is in the form as follows to make simpler to stick to the topic
    A +B +C +D = E, where A, B, C, D are premises and E is a conclusion for example. Note if you challenge a premise, say only D, that does not mean the argument falls apart, it just means that argument is slightly weakened. You have to challenge most if not all of the premises in order to decimate the conclusion.

    Furthermore, the final conclusion of my previous post is the form E +F+G+H = I, where E, F, G are sub-conclusions and I is the final conclusion……so that if you are going to challenge my final conclusion, you have to successfully challenge each of the sub-conclusions.

    I want to do it this way so that we can actually keep score, and keep each other intellectually honest. I could respond to all your points again but I think this will be most productive.

    Let us make a promise that we will put aside our preconceived notions, and like a scientist see if you can follow the facts to where they lead.

    Note: In order to stick to the topic (Was there any reasonable basis in the past prior to January 2008 for any investor to justify taking the risk of investing with David?), this specific discussion will only cover the period from the inception of OLINT up until January 2008 (after which OLINT had payment problems).

    So here goes, I am going tighten it up a bit so that we move carefully forward.
    ————————————————————————
    Premise 1: David was a licensed trader at JMMB for seven years prior to forming OLINT.

    Premise 2: Julian Mair & Keith Duncan (senior investment manager & owner respectively) have indicated that David was a specialist in currency trading in the international FX market at JMMB where he honed his expertise under the guidance of Julian Mair & Keith Duncan, as confirmed by reports in the observer.

    Conclusion 1: David has the experience and trading skill in the international forex market as a foundation to be able to become an expert in FX trading.

    —————————————————————————-
    Backup or proof for the premises:
    see: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/magazines/Business/html/20060316T220000-0500_100771_OBS_DAVID_SMITH_ON_THE_BUSINESS_OF_CURRENCIES_TRADING_.asp

    Can you tell me if you accept the premises based on this newspaper report? If not why not? If you accept the premises as fact, then do you agree that the conclusion is reasonably drawn from the premises? Yes or No?

    Lets debate this and this only this next round, so that we don’t muddy the process. if you can show why the facts as reported by the newspaper is false, then I promise I will listen but you must provide counter-facts in order to call into question the newspaper report.

  119. Jason, are you serious. So now, not only do you know more
    than 95% of the population as you put it but now you know more than the SEC. So let me see, you have 22 years of experience in the securities industry (as you put it) but have no appreciation for securities law. You must be joking. Did you ever take the series 7 exam? Do you even have a license?

    No true financial expert would ever denigrate the role that securities law plays in how we understand the rules of the market and investing. Keep talking. The more you talk is the more you show yourself to just be a player-hater, but know little about the securities world.

  120. hermes come on now. Reading stuff in full caps is very difficult. Please re-post in lower case… I gave up reading…

    The fact remains OLINT has not paid since January 2008. What is the reason?

    So while you can argue that people where in reason to invest in Olint it is becoming abundantly clear that is was a wrong decision. You appear to be a bright person but even the bright persons make foolish decisions.

    A few years ago, the brilliant minds of the NWA decided to drop a bridge across the Yallahs fording. The Rasta-man who lived in the area and had watched the construction was not impressed. On the day of the opening, PJ Patterson walking on his way to the bridge was met by the Rastaman. The interaction was captured by CVM TV.

    The Rasta-man lamented and expressed his contrary view and told the Prime Minister that in his opinion that with the first serious shower of rain and the raging waters of Yallahs River, the bridge would be gone. The Prime Minster anger was aroused and rebuked the Rasta-man telling him that he did not know what he was talking about and that he was most ungrateful and nothing was wrong with the bridge. Dismissing the Rasta-man he walked along with his entourage.

    A few months later, the heavy rains came and the bridge was destroyed. The rastaman was spot on 100% correct, so much so that CVM had to draw for the tape and show it again.

    Like the unsophisticated and unaccredited rasta-man, we the were clear in our minds and in our believe of the Benjamin Graham principles when it comes to investments.

    1. Don’t lose money, and
    2. Don’t forget the first rule.

    So even if I had could be classed as an accredited investor or not, there would be absolutely no way based on the information available to me now, pre-2008, pre-2007 and pre-2006 I would have invested in OLINT, Cash PLUS, MAY DAISY, HIGGINS WARNER among others..

    That was my dunce bat view and stick by it.

    BTW hermes the newspapers told us that Carlos Hill owned a lot of things . When the receiver step in, it was revealed that was not so.

  121. Jason and Jay

    Both of you have let me down, as participants in these debates. You stay in your cozy corners and make snide remarks about David and Olint. You both have a one track mind, your comments muddy the water, and so we understand the purpose of your postings.

    Your reference to the Observer article, yes the Observer once again, about the head of the FSC predicting doom and gloom about Olint and Cash plus is self serving at best. Listen man, if I, being a staunch pro-Olinter, and I am sure any other persons for that matter, was the head of the FSC, we would make the same pronouncement like Brian Wynter. Why? Because its a job. We had better do it and do it so convincingly that if anybody hear us speak, they would and could never believe that we have money in any of them. I have been there and did the same damn things. But guess what, they pay such little salary for that FSC job that it makes you wonder if people they regulate in the private companies are laughing at them. They don’t even understand that they are being used by the BACRA people that you read above in Sirach posts, to keep down, keep out people like David who rises from humble begininngs and is threating to remove them from their pedestal.

    Bloggers here and elsewhere have said repeatedly, Olint is not Cash Plus. Cash Plus was giving 10% return on people’s money and yet to this day, no reasonable/rational persons, including myself, yes, myself, understand how they could be giving those returns when they were not into curency trading which could give that return, and consistently too. David on the other hand has said repeately that there is no guarantee given for the returns on club members money. He never said 5%, not 10%, not 15%, not 20%. So it became a ritual every month for each of us to find out what returns were made for the previous month. Can you both get that into your heads?

    Readers, you need to find out if you don’t know already, who owns the Observer and CVM, and as a consequence, what motives do they have for reporting only negative news about Olint. Have you heard about the ongoing and recent discussions on the “Page 2 of the Observer?” Yes, the discussion is about how that page is reserve for the social elites in this society. When next you read, pay attention to that page carefully, and see if anyone fom humble beginnings is featured there. Interestingly enough, it was a white visitor to this island who first notice it and broght it to the attention of his wife, and then some close friends, and then the news start to spread like wild fire. He said if we didn’t realise that that is wrong, and suggest that the pager is subtly promoting the elitist among us. In fact, there was a letter written in the Observer recently about this. Jason and Jay, are you among the elitists of this society? Can you not understand who among us may be threated by David?

    So, as bloggers like Jason and Jay come here with their well scripted agenda to maligned David and Olint without any evidence, bloggers like me will continue to hound them. And Jason and Jay, remember this, there is no need here for name calling and gutter level discussions, because it is not going to affect me one bit. It is not determining how much money is in my pocket. It is not determing my future and my elevation. David has given me that opportunity and I intend to make the most of it. I have since moved into their “price restricted” neighborhood, and intend to make the most of it.

    By the way Jason, you in particular, I can only speak for friends of mine who read this blog, but do not post. You were beaten so badly by Hermes in the debate that they wonder why you are still posting those shallow, gutter type responses that they say you have no shame. So because you and all other bloggers are welcome to post, Desiderata’s poem certainly applies here:

    Extract:
    “Speak your truth quietly and clearly;
    and listen to others,
    even to the dull and the ignorant;
    they too have their story.”

    Olint-for-life

  122. Hermes the philosopher the interpreter of the gods. Tell me great interpreter what did the gods say about the prophet David’s call to pray for him. Are the prayers about to be answered and the money will flow tommorow?
    Now great interpreter Hermes you gave a definition under law of an accredited/ sophisticated investor, now I see clearly where you and I differ. Just because a person is an “accredited” investor under the law does not mean they know a thing about investing and making money from the markets.
    Just because someone has passed his series 7 exam doesn’t mean they know anything about making money in the markets
    Just because you have a CTA certification does not mean you know how to make a dime out of the commodities markets
    Most of those clowns you see on CNBC have certifications coming through there nose and was recommending to people to buy the Dow at 14000. Because stocks were headed way higher. lol
    Ohhh great interpreter many of these ‘sophisticated’ ‘accredited’ investors handed over millions of dollars to con men like David Smith and Carlos Hill without demanding independent verification that they were actually making money. Ohh how sophisticated of them
    Investing has more to do with basic common sense than what some law states as a sophisticated investor.
    So while you and your ‘sophisticated’ friends who flew down to meet with Super Con Man Dave to do your ‘sophisticated’ checks wait for your money maybe you can ponder on the error of your ways

  123. I have a reply to Olint-for-life and I would have to agree with him about the articles in the Observer and also the slant of those articles. Interestingly also the owner of the newspaper and the MD could be of the so called BACRA mentality.

    I must say though that I believe Sirach should rise above the issue of BACRA as the reference means they also are still experiencing mental slavery. I would advise them to rise up and as Beenie would say “stop live ina de pass and stop remember when man a ride hass (horse).

    The real issue that Jay and the fellow cohorts are expressing is that they believe DS is unreliable to say the least. The real proof in the pudding will be if and when the funds do arrive for for the citizens of the rock. I believe for the mental relief of all involved that the funds will appear but when is the issue.

    No funds at all to the citizens, from a personal view of DS would be disastrous as I believe it would develop into a normal jamaican situation. “Im get what im deserve an all should a !!!!!, fire bun”.

    I hope for his sake that is not the situation. Slandering each other on this comments page doesn’t do anything to better the situation for those waiting for funds. So jay and his fellow cohorts adding fuel to the fire doesn’t help anybody. My advice is to get the facts on: Where is the money?, and IF and WHEN will it be paid. Keep the fire burning.

  124. Jason, Jay, Olintforlife, Hermes

    Can we just get united? or are you all going to just blog me down for suggesting we all work in each others interests?

    Let us try to pool our talents in a constructive way.

    What did you guys think about the BACCRA BLOGS

    And JOHN DOE—I just poking fun. I live in Dubi…no Shenghi….Kuali Lampir….Vanforcover….Brusseals…Hadalaid…Bambay….mungbye…..

    hahahahahaaaaaa…let us lighten up before the eve of the big time games.

  125. Olint for life

    You are back again. So let me get this straight. Because the rate that Super Dave paid out differed, that makes his scam more believable in your eyes than the Carlos Hill scam.
    So by your logic if I want to pull off a scam in the future I will not only vary the rate but I may throw in a loss now and then so the argument cant be made that I always make gains. LOL
    You and Hermes, the great interpreter of the gods, crack me up.

    By the way I also have friends who have read the so called ‘debates’ and are laughing there heads off at yourself and Hermes, the great interpreter of the gods’
    But in truth they were also laughing everytime Carlos Hill gave a speach on TV about the millions in the bank, they found the interview with Super Dave extremely hilarious about his brokers carrying out ‘due diligence’, they find it extremely hilarious that Super Dave claims to have 750 million in Oanda. Guess what Olint for life they even found your wager extremely hilarious.
    So let us agree on one thing, your friends have a different sense of humor than mine

  126. You know why I am awake at all hours? Cause I’m DS and I’m steali…..ooops I mean trading your funds at thoose times

    hahahahahahaaahahahaaaa….hahha

  127. Jason, first you mistake the screen-name Hermes for a female name, showing your ignorance. Why is that you are the only one who comments on that. then when I correct your ignorance, all of a sudden you learn a new word in philosophy. Dont you have any shame that you keep revealing yourself to be ignorant.

    I am not saying I am the interpreter of the gods, you idiot. I simply taught you about the etymology of the word, so that you dont make that mistake again continuing to make yourself look stupid. You seem to need to be educated all the time.

    Well, since I crack you up so much, why dont you or your friends have the balls to answer my 9-point mini-debate challenge. I dont think you will be cracking up then. What is hilarious is that you plainly avoid the numerous solid facts and points that I raise and come with your cheap shots and johnny one note like broken record about no payment for 6 months.

    What is also hilarious, is that i see you move from proclaiming that you are the financial guru know-it-all, but now after being beaten up so badly, most you timidly are willing to say about yourself is that “you have basic common sense”. What happened to the 95% superior knowledge you were claiming before. Dont feel comfortable with that self-appointed guru status anymore? Feeling a little small are we?

    So, now story come to bump. You have 22years so-called in the securities industry but dont have a license, never took a licensing exam, never worked for brokerage, or bank, dont have any formal education/degree in finance. You are now claiming your expert finance knowledge to be based on basic on investing common sense.

    You know what Jason. You win! Mr basic common sense investor.

    By the way, Einstein defined “common sense” as the sum total expression of your biases and prejudices laid down before age 18.

  128. Hermes, great interpreter of the Gods I must admit I did not know what the name meant, but I am happy you told me. Well I learnt something today.
    When it comes to philosophy and the interpretation of things Godly i will give you a shout.
    When it comes to identifying a ponzi scheme and where I should put my money I will trust my instincts and stay far away from your band of sophisticated investors

  129. touché hermes

  130. Hermes Jason NoCotec please explain how these things work and how they affect small time traders

    Are “Dark Pools” Destined to be the Capital Markets’ Next Black Hole?

    By Keith Fitz-Gerald
    Investment Director
    Money Morning/The Money Map Report

    We can almost hear that ominous “Jaws” theme music in the background and can see that huge dorsal fin as it slices threateningly through the water – knowing full well that the real terror is hidden beneath the water’s surface.

    But this time around, it’s not a “Great White” that’s sparking our fears; it’s a well-capitalized and broadly based series of secret stock exchanges known as “Dark Pools of Liquidity,” “Dark Liquidity,” or just “Dark Pools.”

    Most investors have never even heard the term – and are truly shocked to discover these “off-the-books” trading networks actually exist.

    But to Wall Street insiders looking to anonymously move billions of dollars in stocks, bonds, and other investment instruments, dark pools are de rigueur – especiallywhen you’re an institutional trader who doesn’t want to reveal your intentions or your actions to the “rest” of the market, until after the fact when the orders are “printed.”

    And that makes these dark pools of capital highly problematic when it comes transparency: There is literally none in most pools and only limited visibility in others.
    Dark Pools: From Trading Haven to Heavyweight

    Dark Pools are electronic….

  131. To all other bloggers.

    I generally will be polite in any debate. However, if you disrespect me or the intelligence of other pro-olint bloggers, then you are asking for a fight. When I first responded to Jason ever a week ago, it was due to his incorrect assertions about how brokerage accounts are used by everyone. I was polite and gentlemanly. But Jason responded in a disrespectful way, insulting the intelligence of others. So based on that, I decided to give Jason a taste of his own medicine, to put him in his place. I was speaking up for those who might have been either turned off by Jason (like pipsologist) or otherwise intimidated by his claims of superiority. My main purpose in coming to this site was to get the news flashes provided by the authors of this site, just like everyone else. But I could not sit back and watch Jason run amuck with impunity.

    So if you see me deal with Jason in a strong manner, it is because he deserves it.

    However, If we can all agree to be respectful of each other, then we can have a civilized debate and perhaps learn from each other.

    In fact, if Jason can agree to humble himself and stop denigrating others, I will stop dealing him so harshly.

    Let us debate the facts. Each of us have different viewpoints and different facts. Is not that what blogging is about anyway?

  132. …. the discussion has degraded into personal attacks… if this were a forum I’m sure this thread would have been locked.

    Both sides posted some pretty useful info. And on one hand when I read what Jason says, I agree, all the signs WERE there, and were (the club members) WERE warned…. but between the greed and peer pressure (you know, friends and family saying “WHY YOU NOT INVESTING IN OLINT), a risk was taken. DESPITE what is now becoming crystal clear. There was a clear avoidance of any form of disclusure, poor communication, and despite what people say about Olint ‘surviving the run’ then never DID have a run. While they were paying out jittery members, they were still accepting new members directly (before the CAD order), indirectly, through lewfam, f1, etc… so this ‘run’ they survived at least in MY eyes wasnt really anythign like what they are and WILL be experiencing now.

    I find it strange that in all this specultion that has been going on (yes much of what is being said even here is speculation) nobody has mentioned that word on the street that a certain Issa, and Bovel, and other ‘rich peeple’ pulled a SIGNIFICANT portion of money from Olint VERY early in the year. And this is another reason being thrown around for the delays in payments.

    In any case, Hermes, Jason.
    I think the debate as to whether or not people that invested money with Olint were sophisticated, smart, educated, whatever is pointless. There were ALL SORTS of people that invested with Olint, people that by ANY standards would be considered intellgient, sophisticated, whatever. You also had peopel that were just jumping on the wagon. But I think many people knew the risk, knew the possibility existed that they could get burned, and ‘played with’ money that would not impact their lifestyle if they lost. Whether or not that choice makes them foolish, is itself a foolish debate.

    I think both of you guys and by extension many of the people on ‘THIS BUS’ (sorry to throw words) are far more willing to have an open intelligent discussion and I hate to see it degrade to personal attacks. Keep it on topic.

    for those that need it.. KEEP HOPE ALIVE (cause as of right now… thats all you CAN do .. hope)

    for those that want to scream “WE TOLD YOU SO” the time might be soon… but not just yet 🙂

  133. Hermes, great interpreter of the gods you have proved nothing. I actually enjoy your posts and hope you will stick around for the many excuses that are about to come from Super Dave. I want an inside view of what you and your ‘sophisticated; investors think.
    If you call that putting me in my place hermes the great interpreter I love the place I am in.
    Also hermes ask the gods to continue to pray for Dave and I am keeping my fingers crossed

  134. Hermes,
    You don’t know me as most others on the blog but having read your points and reasoning you know nothing about DS and most of your facts are flawed. This is not the forum for your debate but I can confirm one thing for sure is that you are wrong about Olint and Super D. Even if Olint started out trading Fx – which I know was happening in the early days – it quickly became a Ponzi scheme which it is today.

    All the reasons given for hold ups in payments are excuses.. it all has played out as all many before it. You have no clue as to what is about to happen. Lots of us turned a blind eye and put money there for all different reasons but the signs were there from day one. I was disappointed with his interview and he would have been better off not speaking in that forum. It doesn’t make sense to blame the brokers.. because they cant freeze your funds like that without you being under investigation and convicted. The broker has no right to hold your funds because of due diligence!!

    On this matter as well due diligence for these companies are done before opening accounts. If activity on the accounts are then felt to be suspicious then thats reported as per what ITradeFx should have done. During this process the client is not even going to know that they are being watched because that would prejudice the investigation. A trading account cannot be used as a float either cause that is a red flag in itself..

    Isnt JIJ a 3rd party? it was said in no uncertain terms that there were no third-party transactions. In addition why should you give money to a third-party to trade when you are supposedly the best trader. The early ones benefit ..the late ones suffer.. thats how the game works. But with all games there has to be an ending.. One day you will see the sign GAME OVER.

    P.S. LightTheFuseandRun is 100% correct but as he/she has done there will be no further information. Remember the saying you never see smoke without fire. There is no rumour here.. go and do some real investigation..get the truth and return and post your findings.. Whether you get paid this week or not does not change the truth.

  135. Jdollar has a good point which should be viewed with seriousness. If DS is discredited then it would create doubt and doubt in banking will lead to the demise of the bank. Articles have been placed in newspapers in JA to discredit DS so as to facilitate local banks the right to remove his accounts. The supreme court has allowed his accounts to stay open. The question I ask who owns NCB?, where was/is the FX within JA going?. Not to the bank.

    The broker could be possibly be under pressure to restrict funds from the NFA, but I don’t believe they have the remit to implement that idea. There could be another US entity which is forcing the broker to hold onto the funds based on their usual belief that all non US beings could be untrustworthy.

    Hermes I agree with you, keep the discussions respectful as it will create platform for debate.

  136. Hermes

    I like people like you who strive to educate. If any of you out there can tell me where the name Sirach comes from you will win a brand new Olint TCI recommendation from a member whose account number is less than 50.

  137. TakeitfromOnewhoknows:

    Your post is mother of all post. It sums it up completely. My only hope is that I attain your writing skills! I don’t think there will be another post about Olint after this. Yours was direct, to the point, concise…let’s just say irrefutable!!!

  138. Sir Archimedes? Where is the recommendation and how can I arrange to collect.

  139. Davesin

    I feel rejected. My large BACCRA/TOPGENERAL post was surely a contender. Have you absorbed it? Read between the lines?

    Anyway MTI is said by DS to have been doing some bulk conservative trading from the onset.

    Also with the freeze/Due Dill argument the host of super nefarious people whether shaded in orange or green and outside that colour range generally came in later…..could this have raised the flag after initial DD exersises….I make no soild assertation here….just putting a theory out there for review.

    Takeitfromonewhoknows

    If you are one of the two people who have seen DS’d trading screen or DS himself then I can accept your argument that you knew it was about trading in the beginning. But if you are not one of the three then I has to place your assertion in the speculation/opinion category. I truly HOPE u are right though.

  140. Takeitfromtheonewhoknows

    My calculation of who has seen the screen are two confirmed definates DS of course and another person who has 5 names….I speculate that the third person “Probably” has a first name starting with a T or a L

    So I ask— Do you have 5 names or Does the name you are commonly known by begin with a D,T or L?

    If not…although I cannot say with certainty…you are probably not in the “know” to the degree you claim.

  141. InvestForlife

    Sirs

    I am kindly asking that you keep this particular blog thread at the No 2 position on the Home Page, where persons can find it easily. Position No 1 can always be dedicated to the breaking (newest) news.

    Reason, I have monitored your blog stats now for the past 2 weeks since I started to actively participate. At that time, the blog Stats was at approx 34,000+.
    By my check just a while ago, it is now at 66,000+, almost a doubling of hits.
    Furthermore, it was at 64,000+ yesterday morning, and I think in the 50,000+ on the weekend last (you can double check this last one).

    This particular thread when you first created it was listed at the third most read thread yesterday morning, and I watched it move to second, then to the most read by yesterday evening, and is still so as we blog.

    I am sure that this thread in particular has generated a lot of those new hits, especially when it was first under the other “F1” heading, and continues to do so.

    And I like the continuity of the Olint discussions in ONE place for ALL of us to continue this debate.

    Grateful for a positive response.

    Olint-for-life

  142. TakeitfromOnewhoknows and DaveSin

    I honestly can’t effectively respond to your last post.
    I don’t have the facts or evidence to refute “what you claim to know”.

    However, I and other bloggers and readers here, would like you to come with your facts and evidence, since you know it all” (smile).

    Olint-for-life

  143. Jamwoman:

    What’s your nick on the invest4life site?

  144. Hermes

    Big up yuself man, BIG UP!
    No bwoy can test you bredda.
    Di man HHHOTTT, and sizzling.

    Is there anybody, anybody out there who is willing to take up the challenge to debate with Hermes?
    Anybody?
    Somebody?
    If not even one person, then at least a pair a unoo?
    Alright, Hermes will siddun right here and wait pan unoo when unoo ready.
    SMILE, LOL

    Anyway, that comment is for when the debate was on a HIGH, and nobody dared to come close to challenge you di “big man” Hermes.

    Guys
    I agree with Sirach, that while we debate, we can lighten up sometimes.
    And I also agree with the recent calls for us to be respectful to each other in these posts as I too have made that call earlier.

    Olint-for-life

  145. Davesin,what do you mean whats my nick?

  146. Davesin

    you are wrong…… leave the greek world and com up a bit in history…..the recommendation could still be there….this is your bingo maaan Rampuss….or this is your bingo maan Winston Cassanova…..try again Davesin try again

  147. Jamwoman is your nick (nickname or screen name)on this site.

  148. Hermes

    Not going to try to decipher the origins of Sirach? Have I stumped the great debater? Give it a try.

  149. I may just be off for some time. By the time I come back one of you should be able to solve the “puzzle”

  150. Davesin, FYI it’s my screen name, anything else you would like to know like the other rampusses around.

  151. Jamwoman:

    What’s a “rampusses”? How come mi never see you before now?

  152. Guys

    If you are at home and can watch CNBC, there is a LIVE hearing right now, about the increase Regulatory requirements of the Feds over their (US) financial system.

    There seems to be an increased emphasis on REGULATION in recent times.

    Olint-for-life

  153. Davesin let me define it for you. The male cat is what I am referring to. I was using the phrase from your friend Sirach. I am sure you are not a male cat, but I believe Sirach is referring to a common behaviour amongst members of the opposite sex from our tropical isle.

    Get back to the issue, where’s the money DS has for the OLINT followers. Let him sing a sanky and bring the money back home soon, if it still exists.

  154. incidentally, has anyone heard further word on Mr Smith having a meeting today at their local offices? ( as to how people will fit in there, that’s another issue). Hope and Dreams are fading fast… Despair and anger may soon set in.

  155. “Rampuss” Nutten like ah Yaad site

  156. New rumours…new dates…..the sh….t is obout ot hit the fan ohh yeah baby the water break already….countdown….Braemar spitting out pure BS….goalpost moving all kinda way……Jamwoman? what’s your phone number?

  157. the rampusses are slowing coming out….luckily mi is an american male cat!

  158. Jamwoman you sound cute pon de text…i want to mek a link.

  159. Sirach leave my Jamwoman alone, she dont want nuh bruk pocket man , like how u lose u money inna olint

  160. Cynic

    Despair and anger set in long time. Otherwise none of us would be here….you think we hang around on blogs for fun……also if the money was safe Jamwoman and I might be enjoying each others company in private.

  161. Jamwoman…my lady…please tell oneil that she is crude and crass andt hat money isn’t everything

  162. Who sey Oneil don’t have a sense of humor!

  163. Anyway—-Latest from Braemar in about 15mins

  164. The problem with thissa site is too much man deh pan fi wi bus, while the anna bus full a pear woman.

    Mi think sey Jamwoman is an undercover woman from the anna bus, but she nuh want reveal her true self in fear that when she go back over deh she will not be welcome. Mi dida try pierce the vile, but she put up nough resistance…but mi have mi suspicion a who she is (mi a try speak Jamaican, but mi nuh good at it, since me is American).

  165. The poeple at Braemar just mumbling the same rubbish …a wire going come and thursday to friday payouts will begin in the order they were requested….well Thursday is here. Any of you know anybody who has been paid?

    Other than the bad man them that is. Cause WE KNOW THEY HAVE BEEN GETTING PAID.

    Another Rumour—-“they want to scale down the club to 300 million” what do we say to that? SCALE IT DOWN TO 30 dollars and give us our money!

  166. “Nuh seh nutten” Davesin…fram she a sample..den she naw faward….if she ises den she wi fawad back.

    So most of you are American ehhh…..put money with DS and not dealing with IRS?? Yeah man…seen. At least when I lose my money mi not owing smaddy. Lose and get the tax audit? and you paying mortage pan a yard dat don’t worth nutten…and merica naw seh nutten fi di langest while…..

    Jack mandora? Me nuh choose none

  167. InvestForLife

    This blog is going very well.

    This morning your blog stats was at 66500+.
    I just peep and you are now at 68400+.

    That’s almost 2000 hits and the day still nuh ova yet.
    Di man blog big now.

    Olint-for-life

  168. Here is my response to TakeitfromOnewhoknows, who addressed his post to me

    I respond in exposition style with his points in regular font, and my response in ALL CAPS, to show the distinction
    ————————————————–
    TakeitfromOnewhoknows, on July 10th, 2008 at 9:52 am Said:

    Hermes,
    You don’t know me as most others on the blog but having read your points and reasoning you know nothing about DS and most of your facts are flawed.

    TO MAKE THE CLAIM THAT I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT DAVID, MUST MEAN THAT YOU HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE ABOUT DAVID.

    SO MAY I ASK:
    DO YOU KNOW DAVID PERSONALLY? WERE YOU WORKING WITH DAVID AT ANY TIME? DID YOU GO TO SCHOOL, CHURCH, WORK WITH HIM? HOW DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT DAVID?

    WHICH OF MY FACTS ARE FLAWED? YOU NEED TO PROVIDE COUNTER-FACTS WITH EVIDENCE TO MAKE SUCH ASSERTIONS. I PROVIDED EVIDENCE FOR MY ASSERTIONS. ANYBODY CAN SAY ANYTHING. THAT’S WHAT HAS BEEN WRONG WITH JAMAICAN CULTURE FOR A LONG TIME. WE DEAL IN RUMOR AND INNUENDO AND TREAT IT LIKE FACTS. PEOPLE ON THIS BLOG COME TO GET THE FACTS NOT UNSUBSTANTIATED RUMOR.

    ———————————–
    This is not the forum for your debate but I can confirm one thing for sure is that you are wrong about Olint and Super D.

    WHAT EXACTLY AM I WRONG ABOUT? YOUR STATEMENT IS WAY TOO BROAD TO BE MEANINGFUL

    ———————————
    Even if Olint started out trading Fx – which I know was happening in the early days – it quickly became a Ponzi scheme which it is today.

    HOW DO YOU KNOW IT BECAME A PONZI? WHAT CONCRETE FACTS DO YOU HAVE FOR THIS CONCLUSION? NOT QUESTIONS BUT ACTUAL DIRECT FACTS? WHEN EXACTLY DID IT BECOME A PONZI? A YEAR AGO? 2YRS?
    BUT I AM GLAD THAT YOU SAY YOU CAN CONFIRM THAT DS WAS LEGITIMATELY INVOLVED IN FX TRADING AT SOME POINT IN TIME. THIS SHOULD MAKE THE NAYSAYERS AT LEAST PAUSE, IF THEY ARE INCLINED TO LISTENED TO YOUR ASSERTIONS (WHICH I KNOW SOME WILL)

    —————————————-
    All the reasons given for hold ups in payments are excuses.. it all has played out as all many before it. You have no clue as to what is about to happen.

    SINCE YOU KNOW WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN, WHY DON’T YOU ENLIGHTEN US? MY CRYSTAL BALL HAS NOT BEEN WORKING PROPERLY LATELY BUT IF YOUR CRYSTAL BALL IS WORKING THEN PLEASE INFORM US.

    —————————–
    Lots of us turned a blind eye and put money there for all different reasons but the signs were there from day one.

    HOW CAN YOU SAY “THE SIGNS BE THERE FROM DAY ONE”… IF YOU SAY YOU KNOW FOR A FACT THAT OLINT WAS LEGITIMATELY TRADING FX IN THE EARLY DAYS? IS NOT THIS A CONTRADICTION? YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS

    ————————————————-
    I was disappointed with his interview and he would have been better off not speaking in that forum. It doesn’t make sense to blame the brokers.. because they cant freeze your funds like that without you being under investigation and convicted. The broker has no right to hold your funds because of due diligence!!
    On this matter as well due diligence for these companies are done before opening accounts. If activity on the accounts are then felt to be suspicious then thats reported as per what ITradeFx should have done. During this process the client is not even going to know that they are being watched because that would prejudice the investigation.

    I TEND TO AGREE WITH THE NEED FOR CLARIFICATION THAT YOUR QUESTIONS RAISE HERE REGARDING THE LAST 6 MONTHS SINCE JANUARY 2008 (I ALSO HAVE RAISED QUESTIONS MYSELF BEFORE IN OTHER POSTS). I HAVE NEVER ARGUED AGAINST THE FACT THAT OLINT HAS CLARIFY AND ANSWER FOR THE PAST 6 MONTHS.

    HOWEVER, MY POSITION IS “LETS WAIT ON THE FACTS. WE WILL SOON FIND OUT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER”. I ALSO AGREE THAT THE INTERVIEW WAS NOT DS BEST MOMENT EITHER. EVEN THOUGH HE STARTED OFF STRONG, HE ENDED WITH HIM SOUNDING KINDA DESPERATE.

    —————————————————————————–

    A trading account cannot be used as a float either cause that is a red flag in itself..

    PLEASE SEE MY FOLLOWING POSTS UNDER
    [ MARTINEZ’S (I-TRADE) IN TROUBLE WITH NFA – INGRID LOITEN, DAVID SMITH NAMED ]

    1) HERMES, ON JULY 5TH, 2008 AT 9:00 AM SAID:
    2) HERMES, ON JULY 6TH, 2008 AT 12:29 PM SAID:

    I DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE OF USE OF BROKERAGE ACCOUNTS EXTENSIVELY AND PUT IT TO REST.

    ———————————-
    Isnt JIJ a 3rd party? it was said in no uncertain terms that there were no third-party transactions.
    In addition why should you give money to a third-party to trade when you are supposedly the best trader.
    The early ones benefit ..the late ones suffer.. thats how the game works. But with all games there has to be an ending.. One day you will see the sign GAME OVER.

    MARTINEZ TRAINED DAVID SMITH VIA THE MTI COURSE. SO IF DAVID ORIGINALLY USED MARTINEZ TRAINING TO HELP HIM HONE HIS FX TRADING SKILLS, WHY WOULD IT SEEM ILLOGICAL FOR DAVID TO HAVE MARTINEZ TRADE A PORTION OF THE MONEY.
    The Jamaican Gleaner has confirmed that Martinez did train David in a report about FX courses growing in Jamaica:

    QUOTE: “Present at the expo were traders and potential traders who sought to benefit from the information that the institute had to offer in the same way that former student David Smith, now proprietor of Olint, has benefited.”
    http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20070819/business/business4.html

    PLUS DOES IT SEEM LOGICAL THAT DAVID ALONE WOULD ALWAYS DO ALL THE TRADING BY HIMSELF?
    HE ALLUDED TO THIS IN AN INTERVIEW WITH THE OBSERVER ABOUT TRADING FOR THE GOVT IF ASKED.

    QUOTE:
    “I would insist on having a solid team of hand-picked traders around me in order to get the very best returns for Jamaica.”
    http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/magazines/Business/html/20070614T230000-0500_124354_OBS_DAVID_SMITH_IS_WILLING_TO_TRADE_FX_ON_BEHALF_OF_THE_JAMAICAN_GOV_T.asp

    ———————
    P.S. LightTheFuseandRun is 100% correct but as he/she has done there will be no further information.
    Remember the saying you never see smoke without fire.
    There is no rumour here.. go and do some real investigation..get the truth and return and post your findings.. Whether you get paid this week or not does not change the truth.

    REMEMBER THE SAYING IF YOU ASSUME YOU MAKE AN ASS OUT OF YOU AND ME

    WHY DON’T YOU TELL US SINCE YOU KNOW THE TRUTH. WHY ALL OF THIS CIA, CLANDESTINE APPROACH TO THE FACTS. THERE IS A NAME FOR WHAT “YOU AND LIGHTFUSEAND RUN SEEM TO BE DOING”…ITS CALL PROPAGANDA WARFARE.

    WHY DONT YOU COME OUT FROM DARK SHADOWS, AND STOP THE WINKING AND NODDING AND MAN UP WITH THE BASIS FOR YOUR INFORMATION.

    BY THE WAY, DO YOU KNOW LIGHTFUSEANDRUN? WHY DON’T YOU TELL US WHAT’S THE BASIS FOR HIS TWO POINTS:

    IN FACT, ARE YOU LIGHTFUSEAND RUN UNDER ANOTHER NAME? THIS KINDA SMELLS LIKE A SNEAKY SMEAR CAMPAIGN TO ME.

  169. Hermes:

    Given the clear pronouncements on your path that you are a “fact-driven”/”data-driven” individual, I will show you how someone like myself will trap YOU in your own web that you weaved.

    You requested facts and that in itself would imply that if the facts were supplied, then you are in a position to accept or refute the authenticity of those facts. Continuing on this path, it would then stand to reason that you are the arbiter of all FACTUAL matter as it relates to Olint and DS. I’m I right? Now, if we agree on this premise, I would therefore ask you to factually supply the following data on Olint:
    (1) What is the total amount of funds that Olint have under management, as of June 30th, 2008?
    (2) What is the % change in the total amount of funds under management between June 30th, 2007 and June 30th, 2008?
    (3) What is the number of individuals, firms, pigs, etc. in Olint as of June 30th, 2008?
    (4) How much money have been paid out (to members of the club) year-to-date from Olint?
    (5) Please provide all the major traders for Olint, apart from their own paid (employed) Traders?
    (6) Year-to-date, the cumulative rate of return for Olint?
    (7) Is Olint, in spite of the FSC cease-an-desist order; is Olint operating in defiance of the Jamaican regulatory system?
    (8) Can you tell us what the two “main” Olint’s FX Brokers and Bankers are?
    (9) Why is Olint reticent to provide audited Financial Statement and become registered/Licensed in Jamaica?

    I could continue, but I think you get the point. Could you respond with only facts…just the way you like it. You see failure to supply these basic statistics only shows how disingenuous you have been all along. It will clearly demonstrate to me that the buffoonery that you constantly spew on this blog is just that…hot air.

    Now don’t avoid the questions like you did with the academic/professional certification questions. You conveniently sidestep those.

  170. HERE IS MY RESPONSE TO DAVESIN:

    ——————————————-
    DaveSin, on July 10th, 2008 at 7:08 pm Said:

    Hermes:
    Given the clear pronouncements on your path that you are a “fact-driven”/”data-driven” individual, I will show you how someone like myself will trap YOU in your own web that you weaved.

    WHEN SINCE IS THE BEING FACT-DRIVEN, A SIN? SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU WILL TRAP ME SO THAT I WILL NO LONGER ASK FOR FACTS?

    I THINK YOU HAVE BITTEN OFF MORE THAN YOU CAN CHEW HERE, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, WITH YOUR PROCLAMATION THAT YOU INTEND TO TRAP ME

    ———————————–
    You requested facts and that in itself would imply that if the facts were supplied, then you are in a position to accept or refute the authenticity of those facts.

    HERE YOU ARE USING FAULTY LOGIC. I HAVE REQUESTED FACTS WITH BACK-UP.
    THE DECISION TO ACCEPT OR REFUTE FACTS IS BASED ON THE NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED.

    THIS IS THE NATURE OF HOW ARGUMENTATION WORKS. CONCLUSIONS ARE DRAWN FROM PREMISES. PREMISES ARE FACTS THAT ARE AGREED UPON AS TRUE BY THE PARTIES INVOLVESD IN THE ARGUMENT. HOWEVER, IF ONE PARTY QUESTIONS THE VALIDITY OF THE PREMISE, THEN IT THE OBLIGATION OF THE OTHER PERSON WHO SUPPLIES THE PREMISE TO PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE, PROOF, BACK-UP OR FOUNDATION FOR THAT PREMISE TO BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE. SOME PREMISES ARE SELF-EVIDENT FACTS BASED ON COMMON KNOWLEDGE. OTHERS REQUIRE BACK-UP IN ORDER TO BE ACCEPTED. THIS IS WHAT CRITICAL THINKING AND SOUND REASONING IS ALL ABOUT.

    ———————————-
    Continuing on this path, it would then stand to reason that you are the arbiter of all FACTUAL matter as it relates to Olint and DS. I’m I right?
    NO. NO . NO. NO. NO. YOU ARE VERY WRONG ON THIS. IF YOU SUPPLY A FACT, AND I ASK FOR THE EVIDENCE OF THE FACT BECAUSE I MAM SURE OF ITS TRUTH, THEN WHY AM I THE ARBITER OF ALL FACTS ON THE SUBJECT. THIS IS CALLED IN LOGIC, A “NON-SEQUITIR REASONING” FALLACY. IT DOES NOT FOLLOW.
    IF “TAKEITFROMONE WHO KNOWS” OR “LIGHTFUSEAND RUN” COMES ONTO THIS BLOG AND BLURTS OUT A FACT THAT IS NOT COMMON KNOWLEDGE, THEN IF I ASK THEM TO BACK-UP THAT FACT,IAM NOT MAKING MYSELF OUT TO BE THE ARBITER OF ALL FACTS CONCERNING OLINT. DAVESIN, SERIOUSLY….YOU ARE SO BIASED THATY OU CANNOT EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IN SEVERAL PREVIOUS PISTS I STATED THAT, I LIKE EVERYONE IS WAITING FOR MORE INFORMATION AND FACTS TO COME OUT PERTAINING TO THE LAST 6 MONTHS, MEANING THEREBY THAT I DON’T KNOW THESE FACTS AS IT RELATES TO WHAT IS GOING WITH OLINT SINCE JANUARY 2008. HOW IN THE WORLD COULD YOU GET FROM THAT THAT I THINK I AM THE ARBITER OF ALL FACTS CONCERNING DS AND OLINT. ARE YOU FOR REAL? GOOD TRY WITH THE TRICKY LOGIC, BUT NOW I WHOLLY REJECT YOUR PREMISE AND YOUR REASONING AS WHOLLY FAULTY.

    BY THE WAY. NOTICE THAT IN MY ORIGINAL POSTS, I LISTED 17 PREMISES AS FACTS ALONG WITH 9 CONCLUSIONS. THIS IS MY 9 POINT MINI-DEBATE CHALLENGE THAT YOU KEEP IGNORING AND REFUSE TO ENGAGE ME. SINCE I SUPPLIED THOSE PREMISES AND FACTS, IT WOULDB E WHOLLY LEGITIMATE FOR YOU TO ASK MET OP BACK UP MY PREMISES. THIS IS WHAT NOCOTEC DID WHEN HE ASKED ME FOR THE PROOF OF DAVID BACKGROUND AT JMMB AS A TRADER. HE STILL HAS NOT RESPONDED TO MY RESPONSE AND CHALLENGE BASED ON THAT. SO YOU SEE MY FRIEND.

    —————————————–
    Now, if we agree on this premise, I would therefore ask you to factually supply the following data on Olint:

    IT IS ONLY LEGITIMATE TO ASK SOMEONE TO SUPPLY OR PROVIDE BACK-UP OR PROOF FOR PREMISES THAT THEY HAVE INTRODUCED. WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU ASKED SOMEONE TO SUPPLY DATA ON QUESTIONS THAT THEY HAVE COMMENTED ON OR TALKED ABOUT? YOUR ATTEMPTT O TRY TO TRAP ME IS CLEAR BUT UNCONVINCING. AT CLOSE EXAMINATION, YOU REVEAL YOURSELF TO BE SILLY FOR ASKING ME TO SUPPLY DATA ON ALL THINGS OLINT.

    BUT AGAIN, I HAVE COMMENTED ON 17 PREMISES FOR WHY OLINT WAS A RATIONALE INVESTMENT. WHY ON EARTH WOULD GO OUT OF YOUR WAY TO NOT CHALLENGE ME ON THOSE. YOU SILENCE ON THIS, THAT IS ENGAGING ME ON THE VALIDITY OF THE FACTS OR PREMISES IN MY 9 POINT MINI-DEBATE, IS DEAFENING. IN DFACT, IT ALMOST SEEMS LIKE YOU HAVE CONCEDED THOSE FACTS BECAUSE YOU HAVE DODGED ADDRESSING THEM, EVENTHOUGH I HAVE CHALLENGED YOU TO DEBATE ME ON THEM, IF YOU THINK I AM WRONG. I WILL LET THE BLOGGERS DECIDE HERE WHO IS FULL OF HOT AIR.

    ————————————————
    (1) What is the total amount of funds that Olint have under management, as of June 30th, 2008?
    (2) What is the % change in the total amount of funds under management between June 30th, 2007 and June 30th, 2008?
    (3) What is the number of individuals, firms, pigs, etc. in Olint as of June 30th, 2008?
    (4) How much money have been paid out (to members of the club) year-to-date from Olint?
    (5) Please provide all the major traders for Olint, apart from their own paid (employed) Traders?
    (6) Year-to-date, the cumulative rate of return for Olint?
    (7) Is Olint, in spite of the FSC cease-an-desist order; is Olint operating in defiance of the Jamaican regulatory system?
    ( Can you tell us what the two “main” Olint’s FX Brokers and Bankers are?
    (9) Why is Olint reticent to provide audited Financial Statement and become registered/Licensed in Jamaica?

    I could continue, but I think you get the point. Could you respond with only facts…just the way you like it.
    THE QUESTIONS YOU ASK ARE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR AN EMPLOYEE OF OLINT OR A PRINCIPAL OF OLINT OR A LAWYERF OR OLINT. YOU ARE BEING SILLY HERE

    ————————————————————
    You see failure to supply these basic statistics only shows how disingenuous you have been all along.
    THIS SHOWS NO SUCH THING. HOW EXACTLY HAVE I BEEN DISINGENIOUS ALL ALONG.

    —————————————–
    It will clearly demonstrate to me that the buffoonery that you constantly spew on this blog is just that…hot air.
    EVEN NOCOTEC HAD TO ADMIT THAT I HAVE PRESENTED CLEAR FACTS AND HAVE DEMONSTRATED ADEQUATE GRASP OF FINANCE ETC. SO I GUESS YOU DISAGREE WITH NOCOTEC. HE THINKS I HAVE PRESENTED FACTS. YOU THINK IT IS ALL HOT AIR.

    —————————————-
    Now don’t avoid the questions like you did with the academic/professional certification questions. You conveniently sidestep those.
    I WILL ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT MY QUALIFICATIONS IF AND ONLY IF:
    1) YOU CAN QUOTE FOR ME ANYWHERE WHERE I INTRODUCED MY QUALIFICATIONS AND MADE THAT THE ISSUE (SIMILAR TO HOW JASON INTRODUCED HIS QUALIFICATIONS AS AN ISSUE)
    2) IF YOU WILL TELL ME YOUR QUALIFICATIONS TOO

    I HAVE NEVER MADE MY OWN QUALIFICATIONS AN ISSUE ( AND IN FACT I HAVE BEEN STAUNCHLY ARGUING THAT WE SHOULD NOT MAKE THAT AN ISSUE), EVENTHOUGH I THINK IT CLEAR TO ALL THAT I AM WELL-EDUCATED AND KNOWLEDGEABLE BASED ON THE CLEAR PRESENTATION OF THE FACTS AND ARGUMENTS THEMSELVES. I HAVE NOT DISCLOSED MY EDUCATION LEVELS AND BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE BECAUSE I DON’T THINK IT APPROPRIATE TO BOAST [ AND TRUST ME, BOAST I CAN!]. WE SHOULD LET OUR ARGUMENTS AND POSITIONS AND VIEWPOINTS STAND ON THEIR OWN.

    ————————
    THIS IS GETTING RIDICULOUS. YOU CLAIM THAT I HAVE BEEN A BUFFOON BLOWING HOT AIR. SHOW ME EXACTLY WHERE IN MY PREVIOUS POSTS HAVE I BLOWN HOT AIR.

    LIST THEM FOR ME. I DARE YOU TO. IF YOU CAN’T LIST THEM, THEN PLEASE REFRAIN FROM DENIGRATING MY VIEWS OR OTHERWISE, IRONICALLY, YOU WILL BE GUILTY OF JUST THAT, BLOWING HOT AIR YOURSELF

    I CAN SEE YOU GUYS ARE GETTING DESPERATE AND GRASPING AT STRAWS BECAUSE YOU GUYS HAVE ESSENTIALLY AT THIS POINT AL OF YOU, CONCEDED THE DEBATE CHALLENGE THAT I HAVE LAID DOWN.

    I DONT THINK YOU UNDERSTAND HOW OBVIOUS IT IS THAT NONE OF YOU TAKING ME UP ON MY 9-POINT MINI-DEBATE CHALLENGE

    AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE, PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

  171. InvestForLife

    Blog statistics:
    Present – 71501
    Morning – 66400 (approx)
    Total hits today alone 5101 (approx)

    This is a one day record (so far).

    Great going InvestForLife

    Olint-for-life

  172. Has the bubble burst ???

    One thing that Dr Ross has not mentioned in his otherwise comprehensive analysis is the impact on our economic growth if financial bubbles, both in Jamaica and abroad, continue to burst.

    In an article “Pyramids crumbling — Major financial hurricanes have arrived, both local and foreign” for the Jamaica Observer early this year, I forecast that the “local” financial hurricane” had now arrived “as the players in our own “shadow banking system” appear to be suffering widespread redemptions, forcing many (and perhaps soon all) to cease paying.

    The “musical chairs” money game appears to be finally at an end, even for what were supposedly “blue chip” schemes.

    Read the entire article :

    http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/magazines/Business/html/20080710T220000-0500_137726_OBS_JAMAICA___DOWN__BUT_NOT_OUT.asp

  173. I have read that Observer article.

    Again, just like others, Mr Ross limited his analysis of the supposedly imminent failure of “Olint” (he didn’t say so, he said rather “blue chip schemes”) to the NFA document which speak about certain transactions with the main FX broker (implying i-TradeFX Broker).

    Now , if these are all/only the transactions that David is conducting for Olint for the past 6 months, then I certainly will be extremely uncomfortable. As Sirach would say, I would probably be at my lawyers office already, and be camping out at Braemar Avenue.

    However, wouldn’t it have been a more balance analysis if he and others had the benefit of of knowing what other transactions were being conducted on the Oanda platform? Sorry, I forgot that we won’t know about that, that’s private business.

    So, could somebody have set him up to comment on that NFA document alone, and hide from him David’s comment that most of his transactions are not conducted on that platform anyway, but elsewhere (but he didn’t name that broker). O, I forgot, it is the Observer again. They didn’t report on anything that David said to clarify and rebuff that NFA document.

    Can somebody call Mr Ross and ask him to read what the Gleaner, RJR and Nation Wide News reported afterwards. We need some balance to the reporting by the Observer. (LOL)

    Olint-forlife

  174. Jay:

    Could you comment on the section of that same article. I’m curious as to what it really saying…..

    …..”The “musical chairs” money game appears to be finally at an end, even for what were supposedly “blue chip” schemes. What is remarkable is the extremely small size of the main “foreign exchange trading” broker mentioned in terms of all the key measures of capital, assets under management (far smaller than those of our smallest local securities dealer), and average assets per customer, as well as the totally negligible amount of trading that occurred in relation to the assets moved in and out of the broker by the scheme, which is normally a “red flag” for money laundering.”…..

  175. Dave,

    From the NFA documents there is reference to funds of IFX customer base in terms of assets which was only US$10M or J$720M.

    The average customer accounts were noted as US$50K or less.

    The document also mentioned that very little trading actually took place, as funds went in and then back out.

    Note Ross comments are based on the Broker which was mentioned, he is therefore not assuming that Olint uses some other broker.

    We have heard of US$750, but author has only sought to comment on factual information presented and not speculations.

    I hope this answers your concern.

  176. Jay:

    I guess I asking about which “broker/Dealer” is he refering to. Is I-Trade or Oanda (capital base, etc.). I suspect it is I-Trade FX. However, what are the “key measures of capital” for Oanda and how what does these measures say about the “projected” amount of funds Olint might have placed there?

  177. Jay just a correction…

    “…the firm had approximately $10 million in customer liabilities and approximately 3,000 active customer accounts, though only nine of these accounts had more than $50,000 in equity.”

    only 9 accounts had $50K or more…. NOT an average of $50K.

  178. I-Trade Fx,
    That is the broker whose funds were noted in the NFA document.

    Key measure of capital.

    Each FCM – has to maintain a certain level of capital as defined by the CFTC, the amount of which varies for each FCM.
    If they become undercapitalize then the CFTC in most cases with issue a complaint against the firm.

    Check this link, and you will note something rather interesting that you can choose to comment on.

    Check I trade FX # 78 down the list.

    http://www.cftc.gov/files/tm/fcm/tmfcmdata0704.pdf

  179. Correction to above post

    “If they become undercapitalize then the CFTC in most cases will issue a complaint against the firm.”

  180. @jay that was April 2007 after I Trade acquired the dead broker CFG Trader…
    http://www.itradefx.com/press_release_cfg.htm

    The time line is probably what we need to look at. DS became a principal in March 2007 at a time when I-Trade badly needed capital.

    Could it be that when the NFA refered to the 100% capitalisation they’re saying that at that point DS provided the Capital that I Trade needed so that at the end of May 2007 their adjusted capital position had moved from by US$ 6M to a positive position.

  181. Jay:

    I’m not a forex person, what is the correlation between lets say “Adjusted Net Capital” and funds under management? I saw the data on I-Trade FX. I’m however, more interesting in Oanda.

  182. Thanks for the correct JohnDoe

  183. Johndoe:

    Could that translate into inflows in I-Trade’s account to create the “appearance” at a specific point in time, the I-Trade is “adequately” capitalize than they really are? i.e., fooling the regulators…after all the funds were eventually ship back out, with no or very little utilization.

    I think we have all be guilty at one point or the other of putting large amount of funds into specific bank accounts, get a statement from the bank to say that we have X amount of funds and then withdrawing the funds after getting the statement.

  184. Dave,

    Refer to the calculations of “net adjusted capital” as defined by the CFTC.

    http://www.nfa.futures.org/compliance/issues_fcm_ib.asp

  185. Hermes
    Just giving you a shout out.

    I just wanted you to know that I have read elsewhere where your contributions to these blog discussions is getting rave reviews, has been warmly received, and that people have been tremendously impress with your presentations given your vast knowledge, sharp mind, a willingnessto share, and your ability to reason logically .

    Regardless of how things turn out, on behalf of the many bloggers who have been reading these past days, I thank you most sincerely.

    Olint-for-life

  186. Jay

    Your contributions seems to be making a complete turn around.
    They are devoid of innuendos and insinuations, regardless of what personal biases you may retain.

    Please keep it up

    Olint-for-life

  187. InvestForLife

    Blog statistics continue to do well.

    Blog hits todate (Just now) – 74407
    About midnight (last night) – 72300 (approx)
    Blog hits today (so far) – 2107 (approx)

    Yesterday’s (Jul 10) record was a minimum of 5900 hits.
    Sorry I wasn’t keeping accurate score.

    CONGRATULATIONS, you are doing well.

    Olint-for-life

  188. If there is a middle ground where one can stand in this debate,you will find me there.I am also waiting for encashment and am very dissapointed in the way DS has been operating his Buisness.Let me just throw an idea out there,does anyone really feal that DS has been trying his best….no no I mean his ABSOLUTE BEST to try and get funds to his clients?All I can say is that if I had over a billion dollars invested in my company I would have the best of the best law team working on my behalf and Oprah Winfrey as head of my Public relations team,no limit to where I would not go to ensure the safety and well being of my Company and clients.The biggest problem that DS has is that he is not making us feel that he is working his A@# off on our behalf ,worst than that his public relations is attrocious.Come on David Smith step up to the plate,it’s about time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: