Slashdot Mirror


April Fools Sees Fake Extra Millions For Users of Brokerage Site

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."

21 of 280 comments (clear)

  1. Once again... by actionbastard · · Score: 5, Funny

    the conservative, sandwich-heavy portfolio pays off for the hungry investor. - Dr. Zoidberg

    --
    Sig this!
  2. Joke's on them by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Funny

    I logged in to Zecco 4/1 at around 9:30 AM... my cash-on-hand was off by about $1.6 MM (balance was 1.8 MM instead of 0.2 MM). I immediately instructed Zecco to wire me the excess funds... and the funds hit my bank account at 12:02 PM!

    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?

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    1. Re:Joke's on them by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

    2. Re:Joke's on them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Did the dollar got so low that now we are valuing things in m&ms?

    3. Re:Joke's on them by johnsonav · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's from the Roman numeral for thousand: M. MM is a thousand thousand, or a million.

      --
      ... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
  3. What about those who were ahead on trades? by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    TFA and the summary both state that the broker "started to force sell, even at a loss, charging the losses to the customers". However, they are silent on what happened to those who were ahead on their trades. Did they get to keep the profits?

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    1. Re:What about those who were ahead on trades? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
      Here's TFPR:

      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.

    2. Re:What about those who were ahead on trades? by Intron · · Score: 5, Informative

      for those keeping track, its:
      - slashdot links to
      - techdirt links to
      - consumerist links to
      - mymoneyblog links to
      - zecco forums

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
  4. Re:What language should we use for our site? Perl by idontgno · · 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.

    Next time use a strict typing language like Haskell.

    Your ideas on type-safety are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  5. Why We Don't Need Paperless Statements... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Screw ups like this is why I insist that all financial institutions that I have business with send me paper statements.

  6. Call me an optimist but... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  7. Generally speaking... by Grashnak · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... if a ridiculously large amount of money shows up unexpectedly in your bank account, rushing out to spend it wildly before the mistake can be caught is not actually the smartest of the available options. The authorities look disapprovingly on such activities.

    --
    Life needs more saving throws.
    1. Re:Generally speaking... by TheKidWho · · 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.

  8. Is why 'conficker' is also called 'up and down'? by Bearhouse · · 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

    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*

  9. Re:What language should we use for our site? Perl by EvanED · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you had bothered to read the summary, this was an intentional April Fools joke that went wrong. It has nothing to do with Perl and any lack of strict typing in the language.

    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: "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.

  10. Re:I smell a huge lawsuit by Theaetetus · · 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.

  11. I see the problem by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 5, Informative
    • You are a Zecco customer with $20,000 in your account
    • One day you log in and see that you now have $1,020,000 in your account
    • Your heart is filled with bliss
    • You start making trades with your new-found fortune
    • Zecco discovers the error and reverts the trades at your expense
    • You are angry and feel cheated
    • You are a complete and utter dipshit
    1. Re:I see the problem by Anonymous Coward · · 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

    2. Re:I see the problem by JustinOpinion · · 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.

  12. Re:Anything to do with by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  13. Re:Responsibility..... by vux984 · · 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.