Thread: Oceanside Network is a scam..

At least good ol' Andy Bowdoin was able to get a licensed attorney to go on record claiming Ad Surf Daily was legit. But as it turned out that attorney (Robert Garner) was as crooked as Andy and ASD. Be that as it may Broker knows all the tricks in the HYIP/Ponzi promoter's playbook, he's too "smart" to provide any information that could really pin him down. He'll talk about all of his very many attorneys but he wont name names just because his "investors" ask, why should he? People who ask for verifiable facts aren't his target demographic. He wants the pie in the sky crowd with more dollars than sense.

Broker's blog (the one that isn't shut down) talks about a massive advertising campaign that's soon to launch. Radio, infomercials, the works. Is he really that stupid?

Originally Posted by GlimDropper

Is he really that stupid?

Yes he is.

Broker is blathering garbage once again:
Bringing A Dose Of Reality To Investing. Who Should, And Should Not Invest.

by admin on Thursday, November 4th, 2010 | No Comments

People are pretty desperate these days. They are exploring every possible option of increasing their income, speeding up their retirement, or in some cases just making their retirement a possibility.
Unfortunately there are a lot of unscrupulous entities on the internet that will “take your money first” and answer your questions, or oftentimes more importantly….ASK YOU questions……later. And of course some “opportunities” are simply outright scams. (And there are a lot of scams out there…..)
So, in the good jolly spirit of doing the right thing today, we at Oceanside Network have some questions for you and the title of todays article is “You Know You’re a Redneck if….”…..no wait…that’s not right……….the title of todays assignment is “How To Know If Investing Is For You.”
1. Do you have a surplus of money left each month AFTER you pay your bills? If NO…..then investing is NOT for you. (If you are living paycheck to paycheck, you need either a better paying job or a second job, but investing is NOT what you should be doing.)
2. Do you expect to need to make withdrawals within 6 months of your investment? If YES……then investing is NOT for you. (If you cannot think of your investment as long term, then you are not an investor.)
3. Can you stomach a moderate amount of risk? Meaning, can you risk X amount of your money without raising your blood pressure and crawling on the ceiling like spiderman everytime you see the markets shift just a smidgeon? If NO……then investing is NOT for you. (Seriously, it’s ok…..just put some of your money into that safe comfy bank account that gives you like 0.25% per year and know that it is safe at night…we won’t make fun of you.)
4. If you intend to watch your investment “every single day” and rise with the good news and fall with the bad news……….you guessed it…..investing is NOT for you.(We teach our investors to look Quarterly……and then Yearly…..to monitor the performance of their assets.)
5. If you work for the Al-Qaeda, or you are living your life aspiring to be the second coming of Al Capone……..you probably could be an investor…….BUT…..we won’t do business with you. (We apologize, you will have to take your Jihad…..and your racketeering….elsewhere.)
There you have it folks.
Pure and simple and in plain terms.
If you have money that you can risk, while still paying your bills each month, and if you understand that investing is a long term option that does carry considerable risk as well as potential rewards, and that investing should be monitored glibly in the short term, and scrutinized only in the long term…and as long as you don’t carry around an M16 and a Koran to work each day, and or a tommy gun and a top hat……..then you my friend(s)…….CAN BE INVESTORS!
We hope you’ve enjoyed our tongue in cheek dosage of reality today. (As funny as it is…….it’s the darned truth!)
~Free Your Life, Live Your Dreams~

He just can't help himself, can he ????

Originally Posted by BrokerJones

We aren’t going to bother trying to promote our specific products, because quite frankly having the NFA call us up and say things like “you can’t use the “!” in your sign up button”……is just not something we feel like dealing with.

Unveiling The New Oceanside Network Video. The Future Of Oceanside!

Which is "scammerspeak" for: "The NFA contacted us and threatened to prosecute if we didn't stop pretending to be legitimate forex dealers"

Actually his video that he was so proud of has more lies in it than there are holes in Swiss Cheese. Guess he didn't realize that the CME and NFA have to approve "ALL" marketing material 'BEFORE' it is used. But since he is not registered with them, I guess he thinks it doesn't apply. Wait till he tries to get registered with them. All that money spent for nothing.

Whatever makes you think that he is going to apply for registration? It's far easier to say that he "is going to apply" than doing it. What's the bet that that is what he will do next?

Well, Broker is now claiming that he is a Ponzi Killer. No I am not kidding. Here's what he posted on MMG: "Not only is Oceanside not a ponzi.....but it is our mission in life, to eliminate ponzis from the world. The Ponzi Killer....has arrived."
I guess this means that I can now shut down Eagle since Broker is the new Ponzi Killer. Hmm, wonder where he has been for the past two years. LOL!

That is priceless! Did he find Jesus as well and decide to quit threatening all of us worthy scambusters? Did he see The blinding light from his preschool age daughter's 50 inch TV in her room?

Soapboxmom

Poor ol' Justin "scammer" Jones.

Now he's caught in a classic bind.

* He's not gonna get an legitimate forex clients, so he HAS to post on HYIP forums.
* The more he posts on HYIP forums, the lower his chances of obtaining legitimate clients.
* Posting on HYIP forums is gonna attract MORE unwanted attention from the NFA
* NFA attention is gonna ensure he NEVER obtains NFA registration.

*without NFA registration:

* He's not gonna get an legitimate forex clients, so he HAS to post on HYIP forums.

rinse & repeat.

Anyone with a well developed sense of what's "right" or is annoyed by Jones' behaviour and 5 or 6 minutes to spare is actively encouraged to visit the National Futures Association complaints page and spend a few minutes keeping the NFA informed of Mr Jones' latest skullduggery.

For those more inclined to using snail mail, a Downloadable .pdf form is available

Broker was extolling how great working with Gain was and how they were one of the good guys in FOREX trading. Toss in what LRM has said, and then RPanoz totally detroyed Broker's comments with this excellent post, and I quote:

"In 2009, Gain earned over $150 million in gross revenue from its forex activities and net income of about $42.5 million. As of May 31, 2009, Gain had roughly 60,000 retail customers - approximately 34,000 of whom were U.S. retail customers - with total equity of approximately $136 million."

That's piddly-ass money. An average of about $2,500/customer which shows what kind of serious, sophisticated investors are involved. lol

Beyond that, the main reason that most people are looking at FOREX is that they've been BS'ed about it being a get rich quick game and they weren't getting any returns on their money in the stock market at the time.

Better than more BS, read these excerpts which tell how the retail FOREX market really works:

NFA conducted an audit of Gain in July 2009 which again found that Gain failed to adequately review the activities of its unregistered solicitors. However, the 2009 audit also uncovered even more serious problems at Gain, the most troubling being Gain's abusive margin, liquidation, and price slippage practices that benefited Gain to the detriment of its customers. In addition, the 2009 audit found that Gain failed to maintain records for all unfilled orders placed prior to May 2009; respond promptly and fully to all inquiries and requests made by NFA during the audit; or supervise the firm's operations. These deficiencies are alleged in greater detail below.

NFA's 2009 audit of Gain found that the firm engaged in leverage and margin practices that were harmful to its customers. For example, Gain adopted a policy whereby, every Friday, it lowered the leverage for all of its accounts that were allowed to trade at 200:1 leverage - which included the micro accounts - to a 100:1 leverage. The effect of this weekly adjustment was to increase the margin requirement on these accounts from 0.5% to 1%.

As a result of Gain's practice of adjusting leverage/margin levels on Fridays, the accounts of many of its customers became under margined - even though they were adequately margined prior to the leverage adjustment. In order to bring the under margined accounts back into compliance with the higher margin requirement, Gain would liquidate the largest losing position in these accounts. However, sometimes the losing position that Gain liquidated contained multiple contracts and the liquidation of only a portion of the losing position would have been sufficient to satisfy the new margin requirement. Nevertheless, Gain would arbitrarily liquidate the whole position which would not only result in the account being over margined but preclude the customer from possibly realizing a potential gain on that portion of the position the forced liquidation of which was unnecessary to satisfy the higher margin requirement.

Gain did not disclose to its customers - either in account opening documents, on the firm's website, or through any other means - that, if their accounts traded at 200:1 leverage (which included all the micro account customers), they would be subject to these routine weekly leverage/margin adjustments.

Gain claimed that it provided e-mail notifications to its customers every Friday informing them of the leverage/margin adjustments to their accounts. Yet, Gain was unable to show that all affected customers received these e-mails. Gain justified the Friday leverage margin adjustment as a means of reducing weekend market risk for accounts trading at 200:1 leverage - which included all micro account customers. However, while promoting micro accounts to small investors and the 200:1 leverage that the micro accounts enjoyed, Gain failed to give micro account customers adequate disclosure of the higher risk associated with the 200:1 leverage - which Gain, ltsell acknowledged by adopting its practice of adjusting leverage/margin every Friday for accounts trading at these leverage levels.

In addition to Gain's weekly practice of routinely adjusting leverage/margin for accounts trading at 200:1 leverage, when Gain anticipated a significant market move over the weekend due to some important weekend event or potential development, Gain further adjusted the leverage for its customers' accounts to 50:1 , which increased the margin requirement for these accounts to 2%. This occurred on three occasions in 2008 and 2009 - on Friday, December 19, 2008, in anticipation of the potential weekend bankruptcy of GM; on Friday, March 13, 2009, in anticipation of a G-20 meeting that was scheduled for the weekend; and on Friday, June 12, 2009, in anticipation of a G-B meeting that was scheduled for the weekend. In all three instances, Gain had ample advance notice of the event in question but failed to provide customers with any advance notice of the margin change.

Most of the positions that Gain liquidated on the aforementioned three dates - in anticipation of adverse market moves over the weekend - would have experienced minimal gains or losses if they had remained open over the weekend instead of being liquidated. However, because of the liquidations that occurred on these dates, affected customers realized overall losses totaling nearly $425,000.

Another troubling aspect of Gain's practice of adjusting leverage and margin levels on Fridays, whether as a routine matter or for special circumstances, was that it would wait until late in the day to make the adjustment. As a result, customers would acquire positions on Fridays, at one leverage/margin level, unaware that hours and, in some cases, only minutes later that same day, the margin required to maintain open positions over the weekend would be increased.

Gain's practice of routinely and repeatedly adjusting leverage and margin requirements on Fridays, without giving affected customers adequate prior notice of the adjustment, denied customers the opportunity to deposit additional funds to maintain their open positions or, at the very least, select which positions to liquidate, and caused them to experience significant losses in their accounts. As such, Gain breached its obligation to uphold high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade.

For the three months of trading that NFA tested as part of its 2009 audit (viz., May, June and July 2009), it does not appear that the Virtual Dealer Plug-ln's slippage parameters negatively impacted customers' trades on the retail server, overall. However, orders involving greater than five standard contracts were blocked when the slippage was favorable to the customers but filled when the slippage was unfavorable to the customers and favorable to Gain. As a result, from May 1, 2009 through July 31, 2009, customers trading greater than five standard contracts on the retail server experienced $169,502 in losses due to unfavorable slippage, yet never received any gains when favorable slippage occurred. Thus, the Virtual Dealer Plug-ln's "maximum profit slippage volume" parameter only negatively impacted customers but never benefitted them.

Gain's institutional server was purportedly for money managers who traded underlying retail customer accounts. However, during testing of this server, NFA also discovered that there were approximately 800 individual retail customers that used this server.

Like the retail server, the institutional server also limited profitable slippage(slippage favorable to the customer) to five standard contracts while negative slippage (slippage unfavorable to the customer) was allowed on order sizes up to 100 contracts by default (the maximum volume setting). However, unlike the retail server, the institutional server had asymmetrical seftings for maximum losing and maximum profit slippage and allowed for negative slippage up to 20 pips before the customer would be requoted. Therefore, customers were far more likely to have their orders filled when there were large market movements unfavorable to them as opposed to when they were favorable to them.

Customer orders on the institutional server were negatively affected by slippage due to the "maximum profit slippage volume" setting (i.e., greater than five standard contracts). From May 1, 2009 through July 31, 2009, customers ordering greater than five standard contracts on the institutional server experienced almost $100,000 in losses due to unfavorable slippage when the market moved against them, but their orders were rejected when the market moved in their favor resulting in them experiencing zero gains.

Although Gain's customer agreement claimed that Gain would make its best effort to execute trades on or close to prevailing market prices, Gain appears to have done this only when the market movement was favorable to Gain.

The slippage settings that Gain established for the Virtual Dealer Plug-ln on the MetaTrader platform allowed Gain to manipulate the prices that customers received on their forex transactions and allowed Gain to benefit from order slippage to the detriment of its customers.

At the time of NFA's 2009 audit, Gain had 215 unregistered solicitors that solicited U.S. customers for Gain. NFA reviewed eleven websites of these unregistered solicitors and found numerous deficiencies in these websites. Gain had also noted many of these deficiencies during its own review of these websites and had advised its unregistered solicitors to correct these deficiencies. However, Gain failed to follow-up with its unregistered solicitors to ensure that they had taken appropriate corrective action to remedy these deficiencies.

NFA also reviewed the website of Gain's unregistered solicitor, Equity Research Services, LLC ('ERS). This website, [www.equityresearchservicesllc. com], included profitable hypothetical performance results purportedly for ERS's trading signals but failed to disclose the actual performance results of ERS's managed accounts, the majority of which had losing performance. As these managed accounts traded at Gain, Gain was aware that most of them had losing performance. Yet, when Gain reviewed ERS's website on April 28, 2009, at which time ERS's managed sccounts had already been trading at Gain for over three months and had already sustained losses, Gain failed to require ERS to disclose the actual losing trading results for these managed accounts on ERS's website.

Gain also failed to adequately review the promotional material of its unregistered solicitor, Horizon Solutions and Associates ("Horizon"). In January 2009, Gain received a customer complaint about the promotional material being used by Horizon. According to the customer complainant, he had received printed promotional material from Horizon which showed positive trading performance without a losing month. However, the customer's own trading account managed by Horizon had experienced trading losses."

Now if Gain is one of the "good guys," it makes you wonder what the "bad guys" are up to doesn't it. Between LRM and RPanoz, I think Oceanside is done. Great work guys.

I see Broker tooting his horn over on mlm.com about how successful his little enterprise is.

Pardon me.

It's not "Broker" any longer.

Now he goes by: "Justin P. Jones the conartist formerly known as "Broker Jones" President of O C E A N S I D E"

I just had to point out to him that as President of O C E A N S I D E, he should look the part at least.

He looks like a bum in that avatar he uses.

On the Oceanside Forex website Broker has links showing how his jack-in-the-box forex robot performs, those links go to the MT Intelligence website. He posts these as "proof" of his system, this got me wondering if those results could be in any way manipulated. I don't claim to be an expert but from what I understand what ever trading platform Broker uses uploads a file to the MT Intelligence website, so I did a little poking around and found:


(Link)

It’s entirely possible to manipulate something like MT4Stats. All that’s happening is that an HTML report is getting sent via FTP to a web server. The report could say anything. For example, you could do the following:
- Create a very simple piece of software which replicates MT4’s report format
- Sit in front of your computer, live, working out what would have been a successful trade over e.g. the last 5 or 15 or 30 minutes, and continually feed these historic winning trades into the software.
- The “report” then shows trades which have been manually selected based on what’s been successful.
Very hard to detect if done within the 5-minute reporting granularity of mt4stats. A bit easier to detect if the timeframes of the “trades” are longer. Not particularly hard to automate the selection of the historic winning trades.
Having said all that, I am not claiming that these results have been manipulated.

It depends on the form in which you’re being shown the “forward trades”. For example, I work for www.mtintelligence.com and I can assure you that the stats on that (or on mt4stats.com, or mt4live.com etc) could be faked by someone with enough incentive to do so. I’ve mentioned this before in page 2 of ‘Make profit 250% a weeks’. I’m not saying it’s easy to fake this kind of thing, but it’s perfectly possible if the financial incentives are there.

I've found numerous other mentions of the possibility of falsifying this sort of output data and while it isn't a trivial task it does seem a good bit easier than designing a desktop Forex robot that consistently outperforms the professionals.

Please note I am not saying that Broker Jones IS faking his performance data, I'm only saying that he COULD if he wanted to.

Great work everyone, It is long and sordid thread but If i were to summarise the chances of it being legit I would use the NFA July 2009 audit statement, this alone should pique their attention.

"According to the customer complainant, he had received printed promotional material from Horizon which showed positive trading performance without a losing month. However, the customer's own trading account managed by Horizon had experienced trading losses."

Cookbooks seem to be Oceansides area of speciality

Today's E-Mail Bleat:

January, 28th, 2010

— LATEST NEWS & EVENTS —

You know I finally got around to watching the original Wall Street for the first time last week with my family.

I was totally blown away by how much I understood the language they were speaking, and I thought to myself.....how many people who watched that movie really understood the terminology being thrown around?

Probably not many.

In fact if it weren't for Michael Douglas and Charlie Sheen most people probably would of watched the movie and gone "huh?"

And that's the thing with trying to pick stocks on the marketplace. Not only do you need to be an expert at what you do, but all too often there is some sort of "insider trading" and many times "corruption" going on behind the scenes that shifts the market in the favor of "big institutions".

Wall Street...as you know. Took a little bit of a "hit today", and as I type this email to you, the market is down 167.83 points and counting. (Now it may correct itself by the time the market closes but so far it's looking rough for the day.)

I know Doctors an Lawyers who over the past 5 years have lost 80% of their stock portfolios. That's got to be a painful hit for their retirement plans.

This is why we love Forex so much.

It's the largest and most liquid market in the world, with over 4 TRILLION USD exchanging hands daily. (That's over 10 times the size of Wall Street).

With a market this large, and with Retail Forex, (that's us), becoming such a large part of the market space, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the "big players" to manipulate the markets.

Just because someone as powerful as let's say....Warren Buffet sells 20 Million EURO on any given day, the chances are that he will have little impact on the actual "tug of war" between the EURO and it's major competitors.

Wall Street lost big today.

Oceanside's Typhoon Trading System raked in around 1.8% in profits on it's category 2 system at Gain Capital UK.

---

Tomorrow (Saturday the 29th), at 11:30AM Eastern, we are starting a new "Saturday Mornings At Oceanside" webinar series, and we'd love for you to attend.

You'll get to hear the latest news updates on Oceanside as well as visually see the President, Justin P. Jones, as he talks about the present and future of the company, details on our products, how to market the opportunity and get paid residual income, and most importantly he will have an in depth Question and Answer session near the end of the presentation.

We look forward to seeing you there, and we hope that you bring your best questions for us!!

Here is the Link:
http://www.wiziq.com/online-class/45...anside-network

~Free Your Life, Live Your Dreams~

(If you have any questions, feel free to reply to this email and our Support Staff will be happy to assist you!)

Hey, when I watch the movie Trading Places I understand all the words Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd say, maybe I should start investing in frozen concentrated orange juice futures.

If anyone wants to get on broker's call and ask him some questions, please record it for posterity/evidence.

Originally Posted by GlimDropper

Today's E-Mail Bleat:

Hey, when I watch the movie Trading Places I understand all the words Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd say, maybe I should start investing in frozen concentrated orange juice futures.

If anyone wants to get on broker's call and ask him some questions, please record it for posterity/evidence.

So, let me see. If I understand it correctly, BJ thinks he's qualified to trade peoples money based on the fact he understood the jargon in a movie...? Isn't that like Hillary Clinton saying she's qualified to be President because she's married to Bill...? Or, a little closer to home, my wife is qualified to pilot a plane because.....!

Oh Dear, Oh Dear,

ANOTHER lie, Broker ????

Here is the building from their website HERE Oceanside and Jones are claiming is the "Oceanside Forex University:



and here is an image of the REAL university, which just happens to be the from Heriot-Watt University Dubai campus:

Originally Posted by littleroundman

Oh Dear, Oh Dear,

ANOTHER lie, Broker ????

Here is the building from their website HERE Oceanside and Jones are claiming is the "Oceanside Forex University:

In fairness to Broker I don't think he actually purports that his "forex university" is a brick and mortar institution and the photo is just a web graphic. He does pretend to know enough about forex that he can teach people about it but that's a separate issue.

But nice work tracking down the original picture.

Ummn,

I don't know that Photoshopping out the name and logo of the institution and substituting his own quite falls under the classification of just using a "web graphic"

If it is permissible behaviour, it would open up a veritable Pandoras' Box of internet trickery.

Originally Posted by littleroundman

Oh Dear, Oh Dear,

ANOTHER lie, Broker ????

Here is the building from their website HERE Oceanside and Jones are claiming is the "Oceanside Forex University:



and here is an image of the REAL university, which just happens to be the from Heriot-Watt University Dubai campus:

Just one lie after another from Broker Jones.

What a complete dirt bag this guy is.

I have asked Broker about this over at TG....Waiting for him to talk his way out of this one

I note that Mr Jones' latest shill, the Extortion Buster is now claiming the image was a web graphic and now exists only in naysayers' Photobucket accounts.

Maybe Oceanside and tEB should learn how to use "Google Images"

Do a simple search of "Heriot-Watt University Dubai campus" on Google Images and, Lo and Behold, what do we get as the first hit on the resulting page ????

The exact same image entitled dubai_campus.jpg which then leads us to THIS PAGE

Originally Posted by littleroundman

Here is the building from their website HERE Oceanside and Jones are claiming is the "Oceanside Forex University:

I think this version of the graphic is more appropriate.

I'd have to agree.

The boys really aren't very good at this scamming business, are they ???

Originally Posted by okosh

I have asked Broker about this over at TG....Waiting for him to talk his way out of this one

Just between you and I (shhh, don't tell anyone else) but I think Brokers' latest apologist shill, "the Extortion Buster" might actually believe Oceanside is real and Broker Jones is legit.a
I know, I know, it's almost impossible to believe anyone with the ability to string together a sentence could be so silly, but, there you have it.

Either young "Buster" is in training for a career as a stand up comic, he's an actual true blue, dinky di "true believer" or he's a few 'roos short in the top paddock.

As Mr Ripley was fond of saying "Believe it, OR NOT"