It might also be prudent to get an explanation from someone less biased on this particular matter. Nothing against @mattz as I've seen countless helpful posts from him on this forum, but I would think if Vision is the only firm he clears through then the possibility for bias would be present. It is my understanding that the 2 main principals from Vision are leaving to form a new FCM called High Ridge.

I have taken the time to talk to every customer who called and present things in an unbiased manner, so the customer could make an informed decision about his/her trading and/or funds and where to hold them.
I am not the "it's all good" kind of a person and those who know me know that I have address every concern with the most serious attitude.

Matt

Excellent. And in this matter, clearly it's not "all good." It's one thing to have a series of complaints filed - quite another to lose status with the NFA. For the benefit of the board, are you, @mattz looking at the possibility of offering clients a different clearing option?

This is pure speculation and I would not expect Matt to comment, but it seems to me the eventual dissolution of Vision would free him from certain contractual obligations. It wouldn't surprise me if the business development people from other FCMs are burning up the phone lines right now because they know that Vision's various introducing brokers are soon going to be in the market for a new FCM.

If I had money at Vision right now, I'd sit tight and let things settle out but I wouldn't reward High Ridge (the "new" Vision) with my continued business. It's a competitive market and the top dogs at Vision/High Ridge have multiple blemishes in the area of failure to supervise and they should have cut loose the troublesome CTA and IB long ago.

On a slightly redeeming note, the Vision principals were not banned from the industry, they made customer restitution and they paid a pretty big fine. I suspect Vision, as it winds down, and High Ridge, as it starts up, are going to have extra NFA attention so your money should be as safe or perhaps safer than any other place.

Excellent. And in this matter, clearly it's not "all good." It's one thing to have a series of complaints filed - quite another to lose status with the NFA. For the benefit of the board, are you, @mattz looking at the possibility of offering clients a different clearing option?

This is pure speculation and I would not expect Matt to comment, but it seems to me the eventual dissolution of Vision would free him from certain contractual obligations. It wouldn't surprise me if the business development people from other FCMs are burning up the phone lines right now because they know that Vision's various introducing brokers are soon going to be in the market for a new FCM.

If I had money at Vision I'd sit tight and let things settle out, but I wouldn't reward High Ridge (the "new" Vision) with my continued business. It's a competitive market and the top dogs at Vision/High Ridge have multiple blemishes in the area of failure to supervise and they should have cut loose the troublesome CTA and IB long ago.

On a slightly redeeming note, the Vision principals were not banned from the industry, they made customer restitution and they paid a pretty big fine. I suspect Vision, as it winds down, and High Ridge, as it starts up, are going to have extra NFA attention so your money should be as safe or perhaps safer than any other place.

What part of my quoted comment do you consider pure speculation?

The owners of a U.S. futures brokerage that regulators have ordered to close for helping to misappropriate customer funds will open a new brokerage with the same leadership and staff, company executives said.