Slashdot Log In
April Fools Sees Fake Extra Millions For Users of Brokerage Site
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Apr 06, 2009 01:43 PM
from the where-not-to-do-business dept.
from the where-not-to-do-business dept.
Upstart online brokerage site Zecco had an unfortunate April Fool's day snafu that they are claiming was an honest mistake. Users logged on to find larger balances than they should have, sometimes millions of dollars extra, and many of those users started trading with the nonexistent money. Happy April Fool's Day. "... when Zecco realized it, the company apparently started to force sell, even at a loss, charging the losses to the customers along with a '$19.99 broker-assisted trading fee.' Oops."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Once again... (Score:5, Funny)
What about those who were ahead on trades? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:What about those who were ahead on trades? (Score:5, Informative)
Except in a very small number of egregious and fraudulent cases, customers will not be responsible for losses (or gains) incurred for trades in excess of their buying power.
Parent
Re:What about those who were ahead on trades? (Score:5, Informative)
for those keeping track, its:
- slashdot links to
- techdirt links to
- consumerist links to
- mymoneyblog links to
- zecco forums
Parent
Wow! (Score:5, Funny)
Quit making excuses guys, and head on down to the gallery...
What language should we use for our site? Perl OK (Score:4, Funny)
Seriously. I thought all financial institutions had given up on using Perl for their back-end systems. One misplaced _$ and suddenly everyone is swimming in money.
Next time use a strict typing language like Haskell.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What language should we use for our site? Perl (Score:4, Funny)
use haskell;
Parent
Re:What language should we use for our site? Perl (Score:5, Funny)
I appreciate a good Perl joke as well as the next Perl hacker, but if you wedge a "_$" into your code you'll just get syntax errors. Did you mean "$_"? That error (misplaced default parameter) I've seen quite often, mostly among Perl nubs.
I can't comment on the frequency or trend of Perl back-end systems. Most back-end systems I've worked with are J2EE.
Your ideas on type-safety are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Parent
Re:What language should we use for our site? Perl (Score:5, Funny)
Hahaha, surely, thou art on the highway to Hell.
Ducketh thou, the swine that thou hast cast your perl before will rise up and smiteth thee.
Parent
Re:What language should we use for our site? Perl (Score:5, Informative)
Are you illiterate? From the summary: Upstart online brokerage site Zecco had an unfortunate April Fool's day snafu that they are claiming was an honest mistake (emphasis mine).
From the linked "article": Consumerist has updated their post with a message from Zecco claiming that it was not an April Fool's joke,...
And from the "real" article that is linked from there: Online brokerage site Zecco accidentally increased 1% of their customers' Buying Power balances by millions on April 1st, leading some customers to wonder whether it was a system glitch or some horrible April Fool's joke. It turned out to be the former.
And from Zecco itself [zecco.com]: "Additionally, we want to make it clear that contrary to some reports, this was not in any way intentional and was not an April Fool's joke. We take the integrity of our customers' accounts very seriously and we have taken measures to ensure this does not happen again."
Whether or not you believe Zecco is a different matter, but the only thing pointing towards it being an April Fool's joke is speculation, and this is flatly contradicted by the claims of Zecco, and the summary somewhat accurately conveys this.
Parent
Joke's on them (Score:5, Funny)
As of today, the money is still in my account, but there is a hold on it. Apparently, the funds transfer was initiated properly, fully authorized... so my bank is holding the funds while I accrue interest on it until they determine final disposition.
Oh hell, who am I kidding... I don't have 0.2 MM in an online investment account. Hell, I don't think I have 0.2 MM is assets, unless you include my wife & daughter, who I could probably sell for that much if I found a good buyer or if there was a bidding war.
Oops... was that my out-loud voice?
Re:Joke's on them (Score:5, Funny)
Hell, I don't think I have 0.2 MM is assets, unless you include my wife & daughter, who I could probably sell for that much if I found a good buyer or if there was a bidding war.
Pics?
Parent
Re:Joke's on them (Score:5, Funny)
Did the dollar got so low that now we are valuing things in m&ms?
Parent
Re:Joke's on them (Score:4, Funny)
Accrue interest in your account, not in your hand?
Parent
Re:Joke's on them (Score:5, Informative)
It's from the Roman numeral for thousand: M. MM is a thousand thousand, or a million.
Parent
Re:Joke's on them (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, it should be. And, when actually using Roman numerals, it is. But, for some reason MM means million when used like this. Don't ask me why; it didn't make any sense the first time I heard about it.
Parent
Re:Joke's on them (Score:5, Informative)
However, this character (M-bar) did not exist in most typefaces when finance was being written about & published extensively for the first time (eighteenth century) so manuscripts we printed using a second 'M' instead.
Since people learned notations from the books they read, the 'MM' abbreviation for millions stuck around, being passed into each new generation of printed books & pamphlets... it's still in heavy use in finance and accounting to this day.
Yes, it's a legacy artifact, but I like it because it disambiguates 'M' from meaning million (as an abbreviation for million) or thousand (from Roman numerals).
Parent
Re:Joke's on them (Score:5, Funny)
I made all of that up, it's a guess.
Pretty plausible though, huh?
Parent
Re:Joke's on them (Score:5, Funny)
Just as programmers have their own set of $LINGOISTIC_TERM, people in finance have theirs. Here are some more examples to help ease your understanding, and to translate from techian:
M -- a thousand. From Roman numerals.
P&L -- profit and loss statement.
S&M -- Sales and Marketing. Unfortunately.
C&D -- Cease and desist. Borrowed from Law.
C&C -- an RTS, or a Music Factory. Must be disambiguated via context.
$ -- dollar. Not string. Although worth about the same.
$$ -- More than one dollar. Not a fascist police organization.
CBA -- Cost-benefit analysis. Or maybe a basketball leage.
ROI - A French king.
DM - direct margin. Not a runner of a table-top fantasy game.
HTH.
Parent
I smell a huge lawsuit (Score:5, Interesting)
Let me see if I get this straight (understanding that the summary has a typo and should read they shouldn't have on the second statement. Or, and this is the link to the consumerist story. [consumerist.com]
You log in your account and find a huge sum of money in their. Or, I hit the jackpot you think. Now you go and start using it for trade. TFA is a bit lightly on the details, but looks like this trades were go, meaning basically, market fraud. Not, to add some salt on all this, they go out to reverse the money, sell the stocks people bought at a loss, charge than the loss and ask for a commission??? I see lawsuits coming from so many points it gets ridicule.
From the consumerist post: "west: ummmm, this is ridiculous. so i thought it was an april fools joke, put in an order for SKF, and it went through then Zecco just sold it â"-- more than likely making me take the loss please let me know if any of you experienced this! lol....and they charged me $19.99 for commission". So basically they did an April's fool joke, it went wrong, and they are trying to make people pay for their mistake.
Impressive. They do get credits because you need a lot of balls to joke with the market after all it went through recently. And no, I don't buy the "honest mistake" line.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So basically they did an April's fool joke, it went wrong, and they are trying to make people pay for their mistake.
They've retracted the charges & losses (at least according to them); I'm just going to guess that they were still present for a while while they were sorting out WTF happened.
And no, I don't buy the "honest mistake" line.
I'm not sure I do either... I'm going to guess "rogue employee playing April 1st joke". The company would have to be pretty damn retarded to actually go through the normal
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not sure I do either... I'm going to guess "rogue employee playing April 1st joke". The company would have to be pretty damn retarded to actually go through the normal decision channels and approve this.
I'm going with the "April's Fool" not followed to the end. Someone at IT screwed it up and forgot to route the transactions with that money to an "Ah-ha page". Someone at finance forgot to put safe places to flag really strange movements. And someone at marketing screwed it up thinking about this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I smell a huge lawsuit (Score:5, Insightful)
You log in your account and find a huge sum of money in their. Or, I hit the jackpot you think. Now you go and start using it for trade. TFA is a bit lightly on the details, but looks like this trades were go, meaning basically, market fraud.
I think filing a lawsuit would be overwhelmingly stupid, because anyone who opens their account and sees the balance off by a million dollars should reasonably know that there's been a mistake. If a jury agrees, then you've got a case of fraud. File the lawsuit and the SEC will come down on you hard for 10b violations.
Parent
First of all... (Score:5, Informative)
First of all, it obviously WAS an honest mistake. Even if they millions showing up as "buying power" were intended as a joke, the fact that the system allowed them to be used for actual purchases, most certainly was a mistake.
Now, when you have a brokerage account and are trading stocks, you should know what you are doing and be responsible for your actions. So, when you see several million in you account, you should know as much to not start investing them. If it is not your money, at best it will be considered a margin trade which has to abide to SEC mandated rules. IIRC on a margin trade you have to have equity worth 25% (or whatever the figure is) of the security that you acquired on margin. Otherwise the broker has to automatically sell to cover. If you don't know things like that, you should not be trading at the stock market.
Re:First of all... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, when you have a brokerage account and are trading stocks, you should know what you are doing and be responsible for your actions. So, when you see several million in you account, you should know as much to not start investing them.
Unless of course you see the date, think that it is a joke and start bidding with it to go along with the prank. If you go with the company "it was a mistake, sorry.", you can't blame the costumers for going along and pretend they had that money.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly. Bidding because you think you'll actually use the money is stupid; bidding because you think it's a prank is at least somewhat reasonable. From the comments in the linked article, sounds like there were several at least who did this, and were quite surprised when they actually went through. Zecco is going to have a "fun" time sorting this stuff out.
Why We Don't Need Paperless Statements... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why We Don't Need Paperless Statements... (Score:4, Insightful)
And how exactly does that help if there's a computer error? In the process of "generate document, print it, mail it to you", replacing the last two steps with "email it to you" has no effect on that crucial step one.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No financial institution that I am aware of actually emails you the paperless document. They email you a link or notification to log in and view it online with the option to download a copy. It is difficult to automate the log in and download process based on receipt of an email, probably beyond the ability of 99.999% of their customers. That means that there is plenty of opportunity for manipulation of the "paperless document" on their servers at least until the user actually saves a copy and I'll bet y
Re:Why We Don't Need Paperless Statements... (Score:5, Insightful)
Screw ups like this are why I never, ever spend money someone else (the bank, the brokerage, etc) tell me I have unless I can verify through my own records that I actually have that money.
Despite what Monopoly may have taught you, there is NEVER a bank error in your favor. If a financial institution screws up in a way that benefits you, you can GUARANTEE they will eventually find it and fix it, and if you've tried to take advantage of the situation in the meantime you're going to get hosed.
Parent
Re:Why We Don't Need Paperless Statements... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Generally speaking... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Generally speaking... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Generally speaking... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you thought that ridiculously large amount of money was a prank and you didn't think you could actually spend it.
Parent
Is why 'conficker' is also called 'up and down'? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's true, we're doomed, I tell you!!!
*reaches for tinfoil hat*
More seriously, original post is here. They're claiming it was a mistake in a feed...
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ca37sl [tinyurl.com]
An abstract...
"The surge in "Buying Power" was an accidental extension of credit to the customers' accounts. Actual funds were not deposited therein. After the error was discovered, the mistaken credit was withdrawn. However, not before some executed trades on the lines of credit, including including one guy who bought over $1 million in shares. The company then acted to reverse the errors, saying on their blog, "Except in a very small number of egregious and fraudulent cases, customers will not be responsible for losses (or gains) incurred for trades in excess of their buying power."
Wonder how they define "egregious and fraudulent"?
*removes tinfoil hat, reaches for lawyer*
NO sympathy for the "victims" (Score:4, Interesting)
If a large amount of money shows up in your bank account, and you have no idea how it got there, spending it WILL land you in jail if you withdraw the money and hide it or blow it.
This is the case even if you ask the teller if the money is yours and he/she says yes. Once they figure out the truth, they WILL hold you responsible for the cash.
I see no difference between that and this case. These folks knew they did not actually have an account worth millions, yet they bought stock based on money they did not have. Gee, what did they think was going to happen; of COURSE the broker is going to get their cash back ASAP.
If I was the broker, I would waive the trading fees for selling your shares, but would hold the account holder responsible for any losses. Maybe, in a goodwill gesture, sign over the gains (if any) also, but that would be the limit of my generosity.
SirWired
I see the problem (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I see the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Try this:
* You are a Zecco customer with $20,000 in your account
* On APRIL FOOLS day you log in and see that you now have $1,020,000 in your account
* Your heart is filled with humor. "I get the joke!" you say.
* You start making joke trades with your joke fortune
* Zecco executes the trades, then reverts the trades at your expense
* You are angry and feel cheated
Parent
Re:I see the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed. But there are some fringe cases that I'm sure will cause headaches. Like:
-Zecco customer with $20,000 in their account.
-One day they log in and see that they now have $1,020,000 in their account.
-They make an investment for, let's say, $15,000.
Does Zecco cancel the investment, or honor it, or what? Consider:
A. If the investment went up, the customer can claim that they were trying to invest $15k of their $20k, that it was a legitimate transaction, and that they should be allowed to keep the gain.
B. If the investment went down, the customer can claim that their investment strategies were unduly influenced by their seemingly-increased buying power. They claim Zecco's mistake is responsible for their overly-risky investment, and that Zecco needs to cancel the trade, and restore their account to the way it would have been if the trade had never happened. They can say "You canceled the investments of all those other customers! Why not mine?"
If Zecco cancels all transactions (including those of type A), there will be plenty of legitimately angry customers. They tried to play by the rules, and yet had their sound investment (and associated gain) taken away. On the other hand if Zecco cancels only transactions of type B (but lets type A go through), they will lose a lot of money: for that one day everyone was only able to make investments that made them money! What a deal! Yet if Zecco says it won't cancel any transactions for amounts below a person's previous buying power, people can still argue that their strategy was disturbed by the mere presence (and psychological effect) of all that other money sitting there.
And a further complication: what if someone makes two $15k investments on that day? They spent over their 'real' limit. But which transaction was the one that spent the "money they don't actually own"? Also, having an extra million $ is obvious. But a customer could legitimately claim that they thought they had $30k in the account (when it fact it should have been $20k). It's up to Zecco to report it correctly, and if they don't then customers will become legitimately confused and may make trades somewhat beyond their previous buying power. Even if they are trying to act in good faith.
All this to say that this is going to be a mess for Zecco to sort out. They will likely have to make concessions to numerous customers, which will cost them a ton of money.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nonsense. Mistakes can happen on the other 364 days, but on April 1st they are all purposeful pranks!
Call me an optimist but... (Score:5, Insightful)
...people aren't that stupid.
More likely many of them realized "Hey, this could be an aprils fool or then not. I don't know. I could check it and get confirmation oooor.... I could act as if it wasn't and sue the hell out of them if this is!"
While nobody should be stupid enough to fall into that joke for too long, no organization should be stupid enough to make jokes with large sums of money.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd prefer to think Option C.
If a person had $10k in the account, and it's suddenly $1m, spend it. Even if they have to resell tomorrow, maybe (just maybe) they'll turn a quick profit. so, you only get 1$ on that $1m, now you've just doubled your real starting capital.
The big boys play this game all the time. They play with imaginary money, to make real money. It just burns them sometimes too.
Re:Call me an optimist but... (Score:4, Insightful)
And what happens when you're forced to resell at a loss?
Just because my credit card company keeps increasing my limit doesn't mean I go and throw it all on the markets straight away. Note, this glitch was only on the available balance, not on the account assets. All this was was an error on the amount allowed to be borrowed... if there's anything the recent recession has taught us, it's that just because someone wants to loan us the money doesn't mean we should take it.
Or am I missing something?
Parent
Re:Call me an optimist but... (Score:4, Insightful)
The big boys play this game all the time. They play with imaginary money, to make real money. It just burns them sometimes too.
In the case of the "big boys", they were able to privatize the profits and socialize the costs to their hearts content after they had the Glass-Stiegel act pulled. They profited enormously off of trading imaginary money for tangible wealth, and burned us.
Parent
Re:Anything to do with (Score:5, Insightful)
Poorly done April Fools joke.
Come on. Anyone with half a brain could figure out that no financial company would do something like that just for a "joke". Their liability for lawsuits and shit would be so obvious that they wouldn't even dream of doing that.
However, it would be more likely that it could have been an April Fools' joke of some idiot employee thinking it was funny to do such a thing without company approval. And according to their press release, likely was thrown out the door.
From their press release...
On April 1, 2009, one of our vendors provided Zecco Trading with an incorrect data feed which caused some customers to see erroneously high buying power.
[...]
Additionally, we want to make it clear that contrary to some reports, this was not in any way intentional and was not an April Fool's joke.
Parent
Re:Anything to do with (Score:5, Informative)
People have no obvious way of knowing they're fake. People do what people do - use the money.
And people who have done the same type thing with ATMs find they are fully responsible for their spending habits. If today you have $1,000 in the bank and tomorrow you find $1,000,000 in your account, it is rather obvious you didn't just make $999,000 dollars over night. If you spend it, you just spend dollars out of your original $1,000 and not out of your desired $999,000. If you go in the negative, you're still responsible for the negative balance. At least that's how the courts have treated these cases in regards to ATMs. And guess what, they even had to pay their applicable ATM fees.
Parent
Re:Responsibility..... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think a car analogy is due.
Zecco made the error. Zecco eats the consequences. Period. Why should people be held liable for someone else's mistakes?
So you drive into work, and manage somehow to park your car in the wrong spont, belonging to and reserved for a neighboring business. Upon leaving the office to head home, you discover the mistake, and find the parking spots owner has stripped it down to the frame and sold all the parts on craigslist.
Explain why you should eat these consequences.
If maybe your neighbor had called a tow truck and had the vehicle impounded, sure I could see you having to eat that.
But I'm not following why you should have to eat your neighbors blatant theft of something he knew wasn't his. Just because you put the car in his spot is not a valid reason for him to think its now his car. Similarly, if the bank makes a mistake in your favor with your account, its not valid to assume the money is yours. The bank should eat all the costs of fixing their mistake, but if you attempt to try and keep or use the money that isn't yours, you become liable for that. Their is lots of supporting precedence for this too.
Parent
Re:Not the only problem Zecco has with their balan (Score:4, Informative)
If you make a deposit in your account, you cannot cash it until either (1) it clears or (2) a hold is placed on your account in the amount of the check to cover it in case it bounces.
Since your buying power was not affected, this means that you are able to treat the deposited item as cash, investing it in securities. This is only possible if there is a hold on equivalent funds in your account.
What is boils down to is that in order for the funds to be available for you to purchase securities with, a hold has to be placed on covering funds. If Zecco instead had a policy where funds could not be invested until the deposit clears, then you'd be able to withdraw the $10000 without a problem.
Say your buying power is 1x your deposits. Your despoits were 10,000 (100% cleared) and $500 (not cleared). You buy 500 of securities, and withdraw $10000. Then the check bounces. Now you have $0 deposits to cover $500 of securities. Uh-oh... FTC securities violation.
Because of the fact that Zecco needs to make funds available for investment immediately (I dunno if this is statutory, or if it's to compete in the marketplace), they have to place the hold on your $500.
Parent