Sources close to the transaction claim that Samuel Leach, the founder of Samuel & Co Trading in London, is an authority on algorithmic trading and has just finished a seven-figure contract. As part of the contract, an outstanding performance trading algorithm was created for a European investment firm, and continuing support was given to modify the algorithm to meet future performance goals.

This information was released soon after ARK Investments’ Cathie Wood updated her projections, estimating that the corporate software market size for artificial intelligence (AI) is expected to reach $80 trillion over the next ten years, much beyond the $30 trillion previously estimated.

Leach says that in 2013, while still a student, he started creating algorithms while working for one of the UK’s leading private banks. With an emphasis on the USD, he created two main algorithms: the Dow Jones index and GBP exchange rates. Remarkably, in March 2020, during the US COVID-19 Financial Crash, his Dow Jones algorithm supposedly produced a 20% return. Since then, Leach has increased the range of products he offers and is currently competing at a greater level.

However, opinions about his methods and products are mixed within the trading community. While Leach highlights the growth of his business and presence—pointing to his expanding product range and his reach on platforms like YouTube and Instagram—some traders remain skeptical. They note that several of his strategies, such as the use of reversal indicators that align with the trend (notably the Cluster algorithm), have circulated widely online, sometimes being available for free. Others have questioned the true profitability of these algorithms, pointing to strategies like “fusion,” which is rooted in martingale principles and has allegedly been restarted after previous performance issues. These critics urge caution and suggest that relying solely on indicator-based systems may not be a sustainable approach for all traders.

Leach says his popularity has grown as a result of his posts on YouTube and Instagram, where he first posted the results of his algorithms. He says that Yahoo Finance named him one of the Top Traders To Follow in 2020 and that he was acknowledged as the 7th Top Fintech Disruptor in the UK.

This industry deserves particular attention now and in the future due to the prospects for growth and wealth creation in algorithmic trading along with associated AI sectors. For thirty-year-old Samuel Leach, there are no restrictions on what he can accomplish in the future as far as his career is concerned.

Samuel Leach: Let us examine the actual situation 

The clients described their interaction with Samuel Leach as being bad.

One of the clients mentioned that he had been trading for some time and that SamuelandCo, the company owned by Yield Coin’s Samuel Leach, had urged him to trade on a funded account after they had finished their training. He was ecstatic, but regrettably, things did not work out as planned. He’s launching this thread so that you can be ready for opportunities such as these throughout your trading career. Please conduct your study, as he requested. 

He strongly recommended that Samuel & Co trading not be used by the general people.

The authenticity of Samuel & Co.’s operation was called into question by one of the consumers. On the other hand, Samuel & Co. had agreed to employ him as a junior forex trader even though he had no prior expertise or knowledge in the field. He stated that he was new to foreign exchange and had recently graduated from university. On the other hand, it appears that the procedure of hiring involves several costs that altogether amount to several hundred pounds (in addition to further fines if he does not meet his monthly target of a 4% return). Does this represent the industry as a whole? In his opinion, the legality of the corporation Samuel & Co. trading was called into question.

A few clients described Samuel & Co. Trading as a dubious and unreliable business. 

Samuel & Co trading was referred to as scammers by other clients. He stated that “OP could have checked their website himself,” so let’s see what he said. He isn’t here due to the website’s appearance (though to be fair, no shady character would ever display such a trait on their website).

Red Flags and Patterns of Concern

Several clients and industry watchers highlighted a string of warning signs surrounding Samuel Leach and his firm. These include:

• Self-promotion disguised as education: Some clients noticed that educational materials promoted by the company lacked transparency, sometimes downplaying the connection between contributors and the business itself.
• Cultivated online persona: Critics accused Samuel Leach of curating a flashy lifestyle—renting luxury cars and properties, and spending heavily on PR to bolster credibility.
• Focus on selling courses, not trading profits: Repeated claims were made that the company’s main revenue source stemmed from selling training programs and “arcade” trading seats, rather than from actual trading success.
• Dubious trading results: There were allegations of faked trading results and exaggeration of performance, with some clients pointing to a lack of verifiable evidence.
• High-pressure recruitment with fees: Multiple individuals described being offered “junior trader” roles without prior experience, only to discover substantial upfront fees and ongoing penalties for not meeting performance targets.

It’s acceptable to charge for instruction while marketing educational products.

It’s acceptable to charge for training and auditions if the clients are aware of what they are getting into and the prop firm is selecting talent.

To me, it seems unethical to frame the entire process as employing a worker, charging them for training, and then charging them again if they don’t perform.

Profiting from the client rather than trading presents a serious conflict of interest.

This brings up a broader issue in the trading education and prop firm space: too often, the business model seems to hinge on extracting revenue from would-be traders rather than supporting genuine trading success. Many educators and prop firms emphasize short-term trading and technical analysis, which often benefits them more than the trader—think commissions, spreads, signup fees, and even taking the opposite side of clients’ trades. This cycle is lucrative for the firms but leaves most traders at a disadvantage.

Meanwhile, the reality is that profitable trading—especially in forex—requires a deep understanding of macroeconomic fundamentals, not just technical patterns. There’s merit in learning technical analysis, but pairing it with a solid grasp of economic trends, inflation, and broader market conditions yields better results, especially for those who adopt longer-term swing trading strategies. Unfortunately, most prop firms and educators rarely promote this approach, favoring high-volume trading that pads their bottom line.

If you’re considering these programs, be clear-eyed: some value may be found in their technical teachings, but always scrutinize where the true incentives lie. If a firm’s primary profit comes from onboarding fees, penalties, or high-volume trading, rather than their own market performance, that should be a red flag. Proceed with caution, do your own research, and, if possible, seek out mentors with proven track records in the industry—people who have thrived at established investment banks or hedge funds, rather than those who profit mainly from teaching others.

Industry Comparisons and Ethical Dilemmas

Clients also raised broader concerns about the prop trading industry, suggesting that many educators and brokers teach short-term trading strategies that benefit the firm more than the trader. There were repeated warnings that such setups primarily generate revenue through fees, commissions, and spread agreements rather than genuine trading profits—mirroring complaints leveled at Samuel & Co.

I’ll ask you once more: Are you certain you understand what you’re discussing? Do you operate in the institutional purchase side of the business or as a prop? In regards to his career, OP came here seeking knowledgeable responses. 

According to a client, Samuel Trading Company’s actions are deemed dubious since, of approximately fifty individuals who spend a total of £17500 on their “administrative fee,” only one will be selected as the successful candidate to become a member of their club. I wish these people were still in business today, as opposed to when it’s unclear whether anyone had to pay to work for them. 

Final Thoughts

The overall pattern described by clients is one of disappointment and skepticism, with many questioning the legitimacy of Samuel Leach’s business practices and warning others to exercise extreme caution. In an industry often clouded by marketing and hype, thorough research and a healthy dose of skepticism remain your best defense.

Why Do So Many New Traders Struggle With Profitability?

When it comes to trading, there’s a persistent pattern: newcomers, perhaps inspired by success stories on Instagram or promising YouTube channels, tend to fall into the same traps set by educator-taught strategies. But why does this cycle continue?

First, many educators and brokers push models centered on short-term trading—think rapid-fire strategies focused on tiny price movements, loaded with technical indicators. The reason? Higher-frequency trading often benefits these educators and brokers through commissions, spread fees, and sometimes from internal agreements that aren’t exactly transparent. In other words, the more you trade, the more they earn—regardless of whether you’re actually making progress or not.

Consider this: true market professionals—the ones quietly building real wealth—often lean toward longer-term strategies. They swing trade, they hold positions for weeks, sometimes months. It’s not flashy, but it’s effective. Yet, these approaches don’t sell as many training courses or rack up as many clicks on social media as quick-win tactics do.

Another hurdle: new traders are frequently encouraged to focus on methods like five-minute charts, scalping, or strategies dependent on two indicators aligning. While seasoned traders and institutional desks might thrive with this approach, beginners are more likely to see their accounts dwindle. The learning curve is steep, and the market is unforgiving.

The landscape is even tougher because market volatility—something only briefly mentioned, if at all, by most educators—plays a massive role in success. Yet, in the race to attract paying students, deep dives into volatility or risk management rarely make the front page.

In summary: strategies designed around high trading frequency, vague promises, and surface-level education set up most beginners for failure. Instead of building a foundation rooted in patience and robust risk management, many new traders are steered toward practices that ultimately favor the educators and brokers, not their own long-term success.

It’s a cautionary tale—a reminder to critically evaluate what you’re learning, who’s teaching it, and what’s really at stake when you hit that “place trade” button.

What are the potential risks of short-term indicator trading for new traders?

Let’s talk about the pitfalls awaiting newcomers who jump straight into trading strategies that rely heavily on technical indicators—particularly over short timeframes like the infamous five-minute chart. While you’ll find countless YouTube videos promising easy gains using some combination of MACD, RSI, or Bollinger Bands, experience offers a sterner lesson.

Firstly, navigating these rapid-fire strategies is not as straightforward as it appears in tutorial videos. New traders are often enticed by the promise of quick profits, but short timeframe scalping demands precision, discipline, and the ability to remain unfazed by market noise—the exact qualities that most beginners haven’t yet developed.

Here’s where things tend to go wrong for the uninitiated:

• Overreliance on indicators: Indicators can be helpful as part of a broader toolkit, but using them as the sole basis for trade decisions is risky. Markets shift quickly on the five-minute chart, and indicators can lag, delivering signals after the move has happened.
• Emotional decision-making: High-speed trading environments can produce a rollercoaster of emotions. This often leads to irrational decisions—like abandoning your strategy halfway through or doubling down after a loss.
• Rapid losses: Unlike seasoned professionals, new traders typically don’t have the risk management practices or the psychological resilience to handle fast-moving losses. Bleeding an account dry with a flurry of poorly considered trades is, sadly, all too common.
• False sense of security: The illusion of mastery provided by flashing indicators and wins in demo accounts can fade fast when real money is on the line.

In summary, strategies built almost entirely around indicators and ultra-short timeframes are far from a shortcut to trading success—especially for those still learning the ropes. This is a classic trap that contributes to why so many inexperienced traders see their capital evaporate faster than they ever imagined.

Alternative Trading Educators and How They Stack Up

Several individuals who’ve spent years in the trading trenches—often after less-than-stellar experiences with certain providers—find themselves searching for credible alternatives. The training landscape is vast, but not all educators and mentors deliver equal value.

Some traders, after trying various well-marketed courses focused on technical analysis, have sought mentorship under professionals with real backgrounds in investment banking or hedge fund management. These seasoned mentors, often with verifiable track records and regulatory credentials, tend to emphasize a global macro approach over the purely technical day trading so commonly sold online.

For example, industry veterans coming from major investment houses or established proprietary trading programs may teach strategies that blend fundamental analysis—such as evaluating inflation or deflation cycles on a macroeconomic scale—with technical overlays. Holding positions for several weeks, rather than short-term scalping, is a hallmark of these programs, aiming for higher quality trades rather than volume.

When considering alternative educators, here are some points to look for:

• Track Record: Does the mentor have experience working at recognized investment banks, hedge funds, or a portfolio you can verify?
• Course Content: Is the curriculum skewed toward long-term, fundamentals-based strategies, or does it repeat the ubiquitous short-term technical tactics found on YouTube?
• Regulatory Credentials: Have the educators held licenses or registrations in reputable financial jurisdictions?
• Community Feedback: Are students actually applying what they learn to gain profitable, consistent results over time?
• Prop Firm Policies: Be mindful that many proprietary firms and their educational arms have restrictive rules—like prohibiting weekend holds or imposing high costs for failure to meet targets.

In summary, while trading educators span a spectrum from “quick-fix” marketers to genuinely knowledgeable mentors, those with institutional experience and an emphasis on macroeconomic strategy may offer more robust frameworks for traders willing to approach markets with patience and discipline. Before enrolling, seek out success stories, request proof of results, and scrutinize the business model behind the training—profit should derive from trading skill, not endless student fees.

With the right guidance, it is entirely possible to build a verifiable track record and enhance your trading career—just be sure to do your due diligence before committing significant time or capital.

Short-Term Technical vs. Long-Term Fundamental Strategies in Forex

Here, it’s important to clarify the distinctions between short-term technical trading and longer-term, fundamentally-driven approaches in forex—two strategies often pitched at aspiring traders, yet with markedly different objectives and risks.

Short-Term Technical Trading

Short-term technical trading relies heavily on analyzing charts, patterns, and technical indicators to make frequent trades—sometimes holding positions for mere minutes or hours. Educators and brokers commonly promote this method by highlighting potential quick profits. However, several clients have pointed out significant pitfalls:

• High Turnover, High Costs: Trading frequently increases transaction costs, spreads, and slippage, ultimately benefiting brokers and prop firms through commissions and data generation, rather than the trader.
• Market Structure Challenges: Most retail traders are pushed toward day trading currencies because of liquidity, but the reality is forex volatility is generally lower than equities, limiting substantial opportunities for outsized gains.
• Institutional Edge: Many brokers and educators benefit when customers overtrade. They may also take the opposite side of customer orders or use generated data for automated models, putting individual traders at a disadvantage.
• Prop Firm Restrictions: Many proprietary trading firms offer funding primarily for forex, but they often set strict rules (like avoiding overnight or weekend positions), which can severely restrict strategy flexibility and profit potential.

Longer-Term Fundamental Trading

On the other hand, fundamental trading strategies focus on broader economic trends—the monetary policy, inflation, and macroeconomic health of different countries. This approach is about understanding the big picture and trading based on anticipated moves over weeks or months, not hours. Key aspects include:

• Global Macro View: Traders analyze underlying economic data, comparing factors like inflation rates or central bank policy between currencies before entering trades.
• Longer Holding Periods: Positions are held much longer—sometimes from a few days to several months—capitalizing on significant fundamental shifts rather than fleeting price movements.
• Less Churn, More Strategy: Lower trading frequency reduces costs and the overall impact of spreads and commissions. This style demands patience, deeper research, and a willingness to weather short-term volatility.
• Overlap Opportunities: Some successful traders combine elements of both—using technical analysis to refine entries and exits within a fundamentally-driven trade.

Final Thoughts

In summary, short-term technical trading is marketed heavily for its action and quick results but often serves broker interests more than client profit. Longer-term fundamental approaches, while slower and requiring more research, may offer a path to profitability for those willing to adopt a global macro perspective and exercise patience.

Regardless of the path you take, conduct thorough research, stay wary of promises of easy returns, and always consider the underlying incentives at play within the trading education and brokerage ecosystem.

Are there free alternatives to Samuel Leach’s trading tools?

Yes, there are indeed free options available if you’re looking to try algorithmic trading scripts or analytical tools, without committing to any hefty upfront costs. Platforms like TradingView offer a variety of publicly shared scripts, including popular tools such as Trademate, accessible directly from their scripting library. These open-source resources are maintained by a large community of independent traders and developers, so you can experiment freely and see what suits your style and needs before spending any money.

That said, many clients voiced concerns about buying into costly solutions or training programs that overpromise and underdeliver. If you explore these free alternatives, approach every tool and claimed “edge” with the skepticism you’d reserve for any significant investment or business partnership. It’s always wise to thoroughly test, check user reviews, and ensure you genuinely understand any strategy’s underlying mechanics before relying on it for real trades.

How does insider trading work? (The offense that Samuel Leach committed)

Insider trading is defined as the use of confidential information that has the potential to materially affect a company’s stock price for trading purposes. This is illegal and carries severe consequences, such as large fines and jail time. It is forbidden to use this non-public information—also referred to as substantial non-public information—in the stock market for one’s benefit.

On the other hand, legitimate insider trades take place when people who possess access to proprietary information about a business trade its stock and promptly notify the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of their transactions. This guarantees the market’s fairness and transparency.

The purchasing or selling of publicly traded firm stock by those who have significant access to confidential information about the company is referred to as insider trading. This includes any data that has not been made public but has the potential to have a big impact on an investor’s choice to purchase or sell shares.

It is strictly forbidden to engage in insider trading using materially unknown information, and doing so can have serious repercussions, such as fines and jail time. Adherence to SEC requirements is crucial for investors who possess sensitive corporate information to prevent engaging in illicit insider trading practices.

Samuel Leach: Does insider trading carry a negative connotation, similar to the trading connected with Samuel & Co.?

The term “insider trading” can have a bad connotation because of the belief that it is unjust to the average investor. The term “insider trading” basically describes the selling or purchase of stock in a publicly listed company by an individual who possesses significant, confidential knowledge about the stock. An insider’s trade is eligible to be considered an authorized insider transaction if it is properly reported. It is forbidden to trade insider information. 

Conclusion

When someone with a financial stake in a company uses non-public information to inform a trading decision, it is known as insider trading, similar to the trading that took place with Samuel & Co. While trading your company’s shares is lawful as long as you go by the SEC’s regulations, insider trading is prohibited.

One of the clients claimed that Samuel Trading Company’s dubious reputation stems from the fact that, of roughly fifty customers who pay, say, £350 (or a total of £17500), only one will be selected as the winner to become a member of their organization. I wish these people were the same as those from the past when it was unclear if anyone had to pay to work for their companies.