InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 0
Posts 336
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 09/17/2007

Re: CapnDon post# 55169

Wednesday, 08/06/2008 11:57:18 AM

Wednesday, August 06, 2008 11:57:18 AM

Post# of 87867
I don't know how much more "proof" you need! In black and white from the court documents, the published "amazing" results of SWARM are fabricated. This pretty much means SWARM is BS.

We were LIED to plain and simple. Maybe not intentionally, but lied to all the same.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

44. Groves indicated in his written statement that:
All trading occurred in the account of Jim Pearce. The beta test period began July 2,
2007 and continued through July 18, 2007. For the beta period, only two spreads in the
energy complex were traded. The following unaudited results were generated from
account statements:
Trading Days: 12
Number of Trades: 244
Average Trades per Day: 20.3
Number of Winners: 234
Number of Losers: 5
Number of Scratches*: 5
Winning Percentage: 95.9 %
Losing Percentage: 2.05 %
Scratch Percentage: 2.05%
Average Winning Trade: ** $30
Average Losing Trade: ** $16
*A scratch is a trade initiated and offset at the same price. Transaction fee apply.
** Based upon one contract; excluding commissions and fees
Case 1:07-cv-07265 Document 1 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 8 of 16
9
45. Based on Groves’ representations and prior approval, Spooz issued a press release
disclosing the record. Spooz also used these results to inform potential clients and investors of
Spooz’s success.
46. Groves’ representations were falsified, as Spooz later discovered.
47. In fact, Groves’ trading resulted in a $9,111.08 debit, rather than a winning
percentage as represented by Groves.