I was with Globalfx from early on, 2008 I think. All went well for a couple of years, with monthly statements showing mostly healthy profits. One could see the trades in real time on the website, and so gauge genuine profitability, which was one reason I’d invested in the company. But then in 2013, our troubles began. David Hick’s sales operator Andrew Frankland came to visit us and made a strong case for investing further funds in GFX, and we were taken in – it all looked good on paper, and historically our account had years of growth showing. So we invested further only to be informed weeks later that Frankland had left GFX under acrimonious circumstances. Problems then began to escalate: To begin with, David Hick urged me to put some of my trading fund into CFD trades. It all sounded fine, and Robert Mathewson, Mr. Hick’s colleague in this new branch of trading, made much of the positive benefits of long positions based on the value of BoA shares. The new trading investment was to be accessed by an all-new website separate from the normal Globalfx sites.

The first issue in this which caused me concern was that Mr. Hick then transferred a significant proportion of my account to the new CFD account, when we’d agreed verbally that only the profit proportion of the account would be moved across. In all this I was surprised that no documentation containing agreements or terms and conditions had been issued.

I then noticed on the website that the volatility of the position was very high – enough to make me worry that a relatively small down-turn could result in a margin call or closure of the trade at a loss. I had made the mistake of assuming that the carefully devised risk profile governing the Forex trades would apply here, but Mr. Hick had not made clear to me that this was much riskier trading format. It was based on a single position, the leverage was very high, and there was no risk management. But after some insistence on my part, Mr. Hick closed the CFD account, thankfully with a profit showing. I know that others were less fortunate, because shortly after I came out there was in fact a down-turn in the share value, and this did indeed result in margin calls and account closures leaving some investors with nothing.

I spent time from the end of 2012 insisting my remaining Fx account should be closed, which eventually it was at the end of February 2013. However, Hick argued that our account should be liable to a proportion of several open losses not showing on the monthly statements – losses  which were news to me. And on inspection, it became clear to me Hick had breached the trading agreement when he removed the stop positions which effectively limit potential loss. I therefore found it strange he didn’t subsequently accept that he is personally responsible for the losing trades, and my wanting to close our account didn’t suddenly make those trades our responsibility. And in addition, he was proposing to charge 45% commission on profits before the losses are taken into account. Apart from the fact this level of commission had nowhere been agreed in the terms of our contract, my view remains that profits should be subject to the deduction of commissions only after any losses applying have been deducted.

After some insistence, Hick sent me a statement showing open trade losses (which as above, I don’t accept as my liability anyway) showing double the “correct” level of loss applicable if the actual leverage agreed for my account had been properly factored-in.  However, all this is academic given that our Trading Agreement states categorically that the maximum loss on any trade is 1%. But Hick introduced an apparently arbitrary new rule saying this agreed limitation on loss doesn’t apply when closing an account.

Last year, I launched a website designed to inform the public about Hick and Globalfx’s previous behaviour based on my experiences. However, Hick placed enormous pressure on me to close the site with threats of legal action. The website was then closed, since when I have received no statements or offers to refund even my basic capital. Rather, Hick has deemed it appropriate to make any discussion of the return of my funds conditional on – amongst other things – my apologising for publishing the facts as known to me concerning Globalfx. It did strike me, and continues to, that the issue of my funds and their management should not in any way have been tied to Hick’s perception that I had behaved in a way which was damaging to him.

However, as a contributor to this new website, I can only hope that my experience with Hick and Globalfx provides useful information for other actual and potential investors.