5 Percent Per Week Percent Corp. 5PercentPerWeek Investment Newsletter reports fraudulant returns and does not fulfill length of paid subscription. Internet

An Iron Condor trade SHARES the maintenence requirement.  5 Percent Per Week employees are clearly the novices.  The capital requirement is divided into two equal parts and each one of those parts is assigned to the upper and lower spreads of the trades.  This is how a true investor calculates the trade performance.  Secondly, the author of this newsletter claims that I am responsible for name calling and insults and in the next sentence calls me "a disturbed individual"!  Based on this preposterous level of hypocrisy it is clear who is responsible for the name calling and insults.  Furthermore, the author of the newsletter once again lies with regard to the listing of the reporting results.  The change to the performance page occurred in the beginning of December 2010 directly after their trade which lost their investors 75%.  It is clear they wanted to bury this trade result at the bottom of the page, not because of beginning of the year marketing as they falsely suggest.  Regarding "signing their emails with their names" all they do is sign their first name!  The email address is nothing more than a general address.  Again, they will not give their full name, telephone number or physical address.  I believe most will agree they are seriously guilty of a lack of transparency.  The facts speak for themselves, do yourself a favor and stay away from this newsletter.  There are a multitude of professional, transparent and superior performing newsletters out there, don't do yourself the disservice of dealing with the rougue outfit that makes up 5 Percent Per Week.

It is obvious that the author does not know how to calculate returns on an Iron Condor trade.  They can be opened as two trades, but it is a single position.  The first spread has a capital requirement but the second spread does not.  If both were treated separately, as this novice investor suggests, the second spread cannot be calculated.  For example: If one earned $0.50 with a capital investment of $5.00, they'd make 10%.  If one earned $0.50 with a capital investment of $0.00, what would the return be?  100%?  1000%?  It cannot be calculated his way.  Since they are tied together with the same capital requirement, the total credit is divided by the total investment to calculate the return.

We are not licensed, nor are we required to be.  About 90% of the newsletters out there are not licensed either since they all fall under the exemptions listed by the SEC.All of the rudeness stems from this individual.  We have scores of emails proving this and can provide them upon request.  He resorted to name calling and throwing insults when he didn't get his way.  He is obviously a disturbed individual.We sign all of our emails with our names.  No phone number because we cannot handle the call volume.  We prefer email since we can document all correspondence.  There is no physical address since we are a network of traders that live throughout the US and created this site for the average investor.  Nothing is being hidden as the author claims.

At the beginning of the new year, the performance results were displayed chronologically for marketing purposes.  All trades are displayed and nothing is hidden.  Our losing trades are still visible on our site. The author is simply seeking attention and looks forward to this rebuttal.If you need the other side of the story, feel free to contact us through our site.  No more of our time will be wasted on this false report or with the author himself.

The individuals at 5PercentPerWeek simply don't know the meaning of ethics.  Their response is totally inaccurate.  The description of their results is not true.  Fact: 5PPW adds the resuts together on a winning Iron Condor trade.  For those of you that don't know an Iron Condor is technically two trades, however it only requires the maintanence of one as both trades cannot be simultaneous losers.  They don't understand this as their knowledge of the markets in pathetic.  This is easily determined by communicating with them.  It is my opinion that they have never been securities licensed and they did not disagree with me when I brought this question up to them.  Fact:  I cancelled my subscription through PayPal NOT their site.  Therefore, it was never brought to my attention that I would immediately lose access to the newsletter.  Fact: I never risk more than 5% in any one of my trades, so my concerns have nothing to do with monetary losses - losses happen when trading and I fully accept this fact.  My concern is the way they rudely communicate with their subscribers, do not report results accurately and do not fulfull their subscription requirement.  Fact: They did not stick to the newly written mandate after their 75% loss.  I will not bore you all with the full details of the mandate but it simply cannot be debated that they absolutely did not follow it immediately after issuing it.  Fact:  They keep themselves cloaked.  Take a look at their site.  Do you see any names, contact telephone numbers or mailing addresses?  The answer is no!  They do not want anyone to know where they are located or anyone to be able to contact them via telephone.  Ask yourself why.  I trade a total of 12 other newsletters and they all proudly display their names, telephone numbers and mailing addresses and are readily accessible.  Why is it that 5PPW keeps themselves hidden to their subscribers?  Fact:  5PPW recently adjusted the way their performance is displayed on their website.  Previously the most recent results were at the top of the performance page.  However, they recently moved the most recent results to the bottom of the page in an attempt to hide their recent horrific losses as the first thing someone sees when navigating to this page.  Now one must scroll down to see the most recent trades, rather than see them at the top as was previously the case before their recent meltdown.  I'll let you all decide, do these sound like ethical people?

The claims of fraudulent reporting are completely inaccurate.  As stated on our site, each published return is the weekly result for all positions.  When two positions are opened/closed in a single week, the returns are averaged.  This is for BOTH winners AND losers.  The author of this report did not invest equally in a losing trade and a winning trade during the same week.  Because of this, he had a different result than what was published.  He expects our results to be a reflection of his own account which would not be an accurate result of our positions.

The week after his complaint of averaging losing trades, we had two winning trades.  Those were averaged together and NOT added as he claims.  He wanted us to change our numbers to make him happy or he would blog negative comments such as he has here on Ripoff Report.

To make our results easier to read, we may break down EVERY trade and have them published separately, even if they are in the same week.  All of our trades are published and we pride ourselves with integrity and accurate result reporting.

With regard to us cancelling his subscription, this was a voluntary act on his part.  He was informed via email that any cancellation is effective immediately, removing oneself from any emails, member's area access, or trade alerts.  In addition to his email notice, when one clicks on the Cancel Subscription button in our member's area, they are again notified that the cancellation is effective immediately without refund.  If they agree to it, they have to click on the Cancel Subscription button a second time to proceed with cancellation.  Despite the notices, he elected to cancel the subscription before his billing cycle ended, knowing the consequences.  His use of the service for 2 weeks, coupled with his rude comments and demands, made it easy for us to deny his request for a refund.

We invited him to open up a dispute with his credit card processor about the charge if he felt he deserved a refund.  He did, and after an investigation, the payment processor found that he was NOT due any type of refund.  The author of this report was just unhappy that a losing trade occurred (which is a part of trading) and he didn't get his way.

Subscribers who have been with us for the long run have been profiting consistently and accept that losing trades will occur.  This person may have bet the farm on what turned out to be a losing trade instead of using basic investment sense.