The following analysis of Cooper Markets is based on available online information, including complaint data, risk assessments, regulatory status, and other relevant factors. Given the concern that Cooper Markets may be a shell company, I’ve approached the analysis with heightened scrutiny, focusing on red flags, potential risks, and the lack of verifiable information. Since no website information was provided, I’ve relied on data from credible sources like WikiFX, TraderKnows, and other platforms, while cross-referencing for consistency and avoiding speculation. Note that the absence of a website and limited verifiable data significantly raises concerns about the company’s legitimacy.

1. Online Complaint Information ¶

• High Volume of Complaints: According to WikiFX, Cooper Markets has received 71 complaints in the past three months, a significant red flag indicating widespread user dissatisfaction.
• Specific complaints include:
• Inability to Withdraw Funds: Users report being unable to access their funds, with accounts becoming inaccessible. One user, claiming to be blind, stated they lost nearly all their savings and appealed for a refund, highlighting severe financial harm.
• Malicious Practices: A Taiwanese user alleged that Cooper Markets promoted “stable income” and “transparent transactions” but later blocked withdrawals, describing the operation as a scam.
• Fraudulent Leadership: Complaints name individuals like Liang Jie (head of marketing) and a Malaysian surnamed Wang as founders involved in fraudulent activities, including using foreign exchange transactions to deceive investors.
• Ponzi Scheme Allegations: WikiFX explicitly labels Cooper Markets as a Ponzi scheme, describing it as a platform that uses new investors’ funds to pay earlier ones, a hallmark of pyramid schemes. Such schemes typically collapse within 1–3 years, and Cooper Markets is accused of operating in this manner.
• User Impact: The emotional and financial toll on users, particularly vulnerable individuals, underscores the severity of the complaints and suggests predatory practices.

2. Risk Level Assessment ¶

• WikiFX Score: Cooper Markets has an extremely low WikiFX Score of 1.80/10, reflecting poor trustworthiness based on over 40 factors, including command execution, customer capital static index, liquidity, and credit index. This score is reduced further due to the high volume of complaints.
• High-Risk Classification: WikiFX classifies Cooper Markets as a high-risk broker, warning users to stay away due to its illegal status and expired licenses. The platform’s risk management team and cloud system evaluations highlight significant operational and financial risks.
• Unregulated Status: The lack of valid regulatory oversight (detailed below) amplifies the risk, as unregulated brokers are not subject to financial standards that protect traders, leaving investors vulnerable to fraud.
• Potential for Total Loss: The combination of withdrawal issues, Ponzi scheme allegations, and lack of regulation suggests a high likelihood of investors losing their entire principal, making Cooper Markets a very high-risk entity.

3. Website Security Tools ¶

• No Website Provided: The absence of a verifiable website for Cooper Markets is a critical red flag. Legitimate brokers typically maintain transparent, secure websites with clear contact information, regulatory details, and terms of service. Without a website, it’s impossible to assess:
• SSL/TLS Encryption: Whether the site uses HTTPS to secure user data.
• Privacy Policies: How user data is collected, stored, or shared.
• Security Vulnerabilities: Potential exposure to phishing, malware, or data breaches.
• Shell Company Concern: The lack of a website aligns with characteristics of a shell company, which often operates without a digital footprint to evade scrutiny or accountability. This suggests Cooper Markets may exist solely to collect funds without providing legitimate services.
• Recommendation: Without a website, users cannot verify the broker’s operations or security measures. This opacity is consistent with fraudulent platforms, and extreme caution is warranted.

4. WHOIS Lookup ¶

• No WHOIS Data Available: Since no website was provided, a WHOIS lookup cannot be performed. For legitimate brokers, WHOIS data typically reveals:
• Domain registration date (recent registrations can indicate scams).
• Registrant details (hidden or offshore registrants raise concerns).
• Hosting provider and server location.
• Comparison to Similar Brokers: For context, RADEX MARKETS, a regulated broker, has a WHOIS record showing a domain registered in 2021, with transparent registration details. Cooper Markets’ lack of such information suggests it may be hiding its identity, a common tactic for shell companies or scams.
• Implication: The inability to perform a WHOIS lookup reinforces suspicions of a shell company, as it prevents verification of ownership or operational history.

5. IP and Hosting Analysis ¶

• No IP or Hosting Data: Without a website, IP address or hosting provider details are unavailable. Legitimate brokers typically use reputable hosting providers with servers in stable jurisdictions (e.g., U.S., EU). Offshore or low-cost hosting can indicate a lack of investment in infrastructure, common in scams.
• Shell Company Risk: Shell companies often avoid traceable hosting to minimize legal exposure. Cooper Markets’ lack of a digital presence suggests it may operate through temporary or untraceable channels, such as social media or encrypted messaging apps.
• Recommendation: Users should demand transparency about a broker’s digital infrastructure. The absence of this information is a major red flag.

6. Social Media Analysis ¶

• Limited Social Media Presence: No specific social media accounts for Cooper Markets were identified in the available data. Legitimate brokers typically maintain active, verified profiles on platforms like Twitter, LinkedIn, or Facebook to engage with clients and share updates.
• Red Flags in Social Media Context:
• Impersonation Risk: Fraudulent brokers often create fake social media profiles mimicking reputable firms to lure victims. Cooper Markets’ lack of a verifiable online presence makes it difficult to distinguish legitimate communications from scams.
• Unsolicited Offers: The SEC warns that fraudsters use social media to spread unsolicited investment offers or manipulate markets. Cooper Markets’ alleged promotion through individuals (e.g., Liang Jie in Taiwan) suggests it may rely on personal networks or messaging apps like WhatsApp or Telegram, common for scams.
• ATO Fraud Risk: Social media is a key vector for account takeover (ATO) fraud, with 24 million U.S. households affected. Cooper Markets’ unregulated status increases the risk of such fraud if it collects user data through unofficial channels.
• Implication: The absence of a professional social media presence, combined with reports of promotion through individuals, suggests Cooper Markets operates covertly, consistent with a shell company or scam.

7. Red Flags and Potential Risk Indicators ¶

• Ponzi Scheme Characteristics: WikiFX’s designation of Cooper Markets as a Ponzi scheme is supported by:
• Use of new investors’ funds to pay earlier ones.
• Promises of high returns with low risk, as reported in Taiwan.
• Short operational lifespan (typically 1–3 years).
• Unregulated Operations: No valid regulatory licenses, with all claimed licenses expired or unverifiable. This leaves investors unprotected against fraud or mismanagement.
• Withdrawal Issues: Consistent user reports of blocked withdrawals indicate potential insolvency or intentional fraud.
• Opaque Leadership: Named individuals (e.g., Liang Jie, Wang, William Sea) are accused of fraud, with one (William Sea) allegedly moving to a new project (“PPP”), abandoning investors. This suggests a pattern of creating and abandoning fraudulent schemes.
• High Complaint Volume: 71 complaints in three months is unusually high, far exceeding typical complaint levels for regulated brokers.
• Lack of Transparency: No website, no verifiable contact details, and no public corporate records align with shell company tactics to evade accountability.
• Pressure Tactics: Reports of aggressive promotion (e.g., “stable income, transparent transactions”) are consistent with high-pressure sales tactics used by scams.
• Potential for Brand Confusion: The name “Cooper Markets” is similar to “Crib Markets,” another high-risk broker flagged as unregulated and potentially fraudulent. This similarity could be intentional to confuse investors or exploit brand recognition.

8. Website Content Analysis ¶

• No Website Available: Without a website, content analysis is impossible. Legitimate brokers provide:
• Detailed regulatory information (e.g., license numbers verifiable with authorities like FCA, ASIC).
• Transparent trading conditions (spreads, leverage, fees).
• Risk disclosures and terms of service.
• Comparison to Crib Markets: Crib Markets, a similar high-risk broker, advertises attractive trading conditions (e.g., MetaTrader 5, high leverage) but is overshadowed by its unregulated status and scam allegations. Cooper Markets likely follows a similar pattern, using enticing claims to lure investors without delivering.
• Implication: The lack of a website prevents users from evaluating claims or risks, a deliberate tactic to obscure fraudulent activities.

9. Regulatory Status ¶

• No Valid Regulation: WikiFX confirms that Cooper Markets has no valid regulatory information and all claimed licenses have expired. It is listed on WikiFX’s “Scam Brokers” list.
• St. Vincent and the Grenadines Registration: The broker is reportedly registered at Suite 305, Griffith Corporate Centre, PO Box 1510, Beachmont, Kingstown, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, a common offshore jurisdiction for unregulated brokers. This location is associated with minimal oversight and is a red flag for scams.
• Contrast with Regulated Brokers: For example, RADEX MARKETS is regulated by the Seychelles Financial Services Authority (FSA), with verifiable license details. Cooper Markets lacks any such oversight, exposing users to unchecked financial risks.
• SEC and FINRA Context: The SEC and FINRA emphasize that unregulated brokers pose significant risks, including market manipulation and fraud. Cooper Markets’ lack of registration with any reputable authority (e.g., FCA, ASIC, FINRA) confirms its high-risk status.
• Implication: Operating without regulation is a hallmark of fraudulent brokers, as it allows them to manipulate funds without accountability. Users have no recourse in disputes.

10. User Precautions ¶

To avoid risks associated with Cooper Markets or similar brokers, users should:

• Verify Regulation: Check broker licenses with reputable authorities (e.g., FCA, ASIC, FINRA) using official registries. Avoid brokers registered in offshore jurisdictions like St. Vincent and the Grenadines without additional oversight.
• Demand Transparency: Only engage with brokers providing a verifiable website, clear contact details, and audited financial records.
• Research Complaints: Use platforms like WikiFX or BrokersView to check user reviews and complaint history. A high volume of complaints, as with Cooper Markets, is a warning sign.
• Avoid High-Pressure Sales: Be wary of promises of guaranteed returns or urgent investment opportunities, as reported in Cooper Markets’ promotions.
• Secure Accounts: Use strong passwords and two-factor authentication (2FA) for trading accounts, and avoid sharing personal data on unverified platforms.
• Test Withdrawals: Deposit small amounts initially and test withdrawals to confirm the broker’s reliability before committing significant funds.
• Report Fraud: If affected, report issues to authorities like the SEC, FINRA, or local financial regulators, and submit complaints to platforms like WikiFX.
• Consult Professionals: Seek advice from licensed financial advisors before investing with unfamiliar brokers.

11. Potential Brand Confusion ¶

• Similarity to Crib Markets: The name “Cooper Markets” closely resembles “Crib Markets,” another broker flagged as high-risk and unregulated.
• Crib Markets Details: Crib Markets has a TU Overall Score of 1.13/10, is unregulated, and is associated with scam allegations, including withdrawal issues. It offers MetaTrader 5 and a proprietary platform but is considered unreliable due to its lack of oversight.
• Confusion Risk: Fraudulent brokers often use similar names to exploit brand recognition or confuse investors. Cooper Markets may be leveraging this tactic to appear legitimate or piggyback on Crib Markets’ visibility.
• Implication: Investors must carefully verify the broker’s identity, as confusion with other high-risk entities increases the likelihood of falling for a scam. Always cross-check regulatory status and website details.

12. Shell Company Concerns ¶

• Indicators of a Shell Company:
• No Website: The absence of a digital presence is highly unusual for a legitimate broker and suggests an intent to avoid traceability.
• Offshore Registration: St. Vincent and the Grenadines is a jurisdiction with lax oversight, commonly used by shell companies to obscure operations.
• Opaque Leadership: Named individuals (e.g., Liang Jie, William Sea) are linked to fraud, and their involvement in multiple projects (“MAM,” “PPP”) suggests a pattern of creating disposable entities.
• High Complaint Volume: The scale of complaints indicates active operations but no legitimate service delivery, consistent with a shell company collecting funds without intent to fulfill obligations.
• Operational Tactics: Shell companies often rely on temporary channels (e.g., social media, messaging apps) to solicit funds, then disappear. Cooper Markets’ reported promotion through individuals in Taiwan and Malaysia aligns with this model.
• Implication: The strong likelihood that Cooper Markets is a shell company underscores the need for extreme caution. Users should avoid any engagement until verifiable evidence of legitimacy is provided.

13. Additional Notes ¶

• Lack of Positive Data: No sources provided positive reviews or evidence of legitimate operations for Cooper Markets. All available data points to fraud, unregulated status, and user harm.
• Comparison to Industry Standards: Legitimate brokers (e.g., Interactive Brokers, RADEX MARKETS) maintain transparent websites, regulatory compliance, and robust security measures. Cooper Markets fails to meet these standards.
• Critical Examination: While sources like WikiFX are credible, their data may not always sync with regulatory authorities due to the complexity of the forex industry. However, the consistency of negative reports across multiple platforms (WikiFX, user complaints) strengthens the case against Cooper Markets.

Conclusion ¶

Cooper Markets exhibits numerous red flags that strongly suggest it is a fraudulent broker and likely a shell company designed to deceive investors. Key concerns include:

• A high volume of complaints (71 in three months) detailing withdrawal issues and financial losses.
• An extremely low WikiFX score (1.80/10) and classification as a Ponzi scheme.
• No valid regulatory oversight, with expired licenses and an offshore registration in St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
• No verifiable website, preventing assessment of security, content, or legitimacy.
• Opaque leadership linked to fraudulent activities and multiple scam projects.
• Potential brand confusion with Crib Markets, another high-risk broker. Recommendation: Avoid Cooper Markets entirely. Investors should prioritize regulated brokers with transparent operations, verifiable websites, and positive user feedback. If you’ve already engaged with Cooper Markets, immediately attempt to withdraw funds, document all communications, and report issues to regulatory authorities (e.g., SEC, FINRA) and platforms like WikiFX. Exercise extreme caution with any broker lacking a digital footprint or regulatory compliance, as these are hallmarks of scams. If you provide additional details (e.g., a website URL, specific claims from Cooper Markets), I can refine the analysis further. Would you like me to search for more recent data or assist with reporting a complaint?