7 Reasons You Should Be Highly Wary of Fosterhart.com
7 Reasons You Should Be Highly Wary of Fosterhart.com
1) Regulator Warning from ASIC — Unlicensed Operation
The Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC) has issued an investor alert against Fosterhart. The alert states that Fosterhart may be providing financial services or products in Australia without proper authorization. In particular, ASIC flagged Fosterhart for “impersonation of eSuperfund Pty Ltd.” This is a strong red flag, because it means that at least some of their operations are considered illegal under Australian law.
2) Claimed Regulation by FINMA Not Verified
Fosterhart claims on its website that it is regulated by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA). However, inspections by regulatory databases and watchdog websites found no matching record of Fosterhart in FINMA’s registry. If regulation claims can’t be verified, they’re unreliable.
3) Young Domain and Hidden / Weak Footprint
The domain fosterhart.com was registered on June 4, 2025, which is very recent. The site is also flagged by safety tools like ScamAdviser as having a low trust score, low traffic, and limited online visibility beyond their own marketing. For a broker that claims to offer global service, that weak footprint suggests a higher risk.
4) Mixed User Reviews — Many Negative Complaints of Scam Behavior
While Fosterhart has some high reviews on Trustpilot (showing a 4.4/5 average in certain listings), there are also serious negative reviews. For example, some users assert that they were lured with promises of high returns, then when investing larger amounts, the platform allegedly stopped responding or denied withdrawals. One user says: “This is an absolute scam … They will groom you with good returns then when you invest big they will suddenly …” The presence of both praise and strong criticisms can sometimes indicate fake positive reviews balancing or hiding bad behavior.
5) Claim of Service Features Not Matched by Verifiable Information
On sites like TraderKnows, Fosterhart is described as offering many account types, advanced trading tools, a variety of assets (stocks, crypto, forex), etc. But deeper checks show that some of these services are not clearly documented or available (for example, demo accounts or downloadable platforms aren’t clearly visible). This may be an attempt to present legitimacy without delivering substance.
6) Scam Tracking Services Mark It as High Risk
Wikifx, BrokersView, Scamadviser, and community forums have flagged Fosterhart as suspicious or unregulated, or explicitly label it as a scam. For instance, BrokersView lists its operating status as “SCAM,” and notes “no governing body” found to regulate it, making it highly risky.
7) Potential For Unexpected Fees & Reclaim Tactics
Based on user feedback, many of the reported issues involve difficulty withdrawing funds, and sometimes being asked for extra payments — “bank reclaim fee”, “wire transfer reclaim”, compliance costs, or other “unlocking” payments — before funds are released. These types of unanticipated fees are classic in scam broker operations. Users who later try to “reclaim” their deposits (crypto or bank) are frequently told there are hidden fees. While I didn’t find a confirmed detailed fee schedule from Fosterhart that supports those fees clearly, the number and nature of complaints suggest that this is a likely risk.
Conclusion: Why Fosterhart.com Is Very Risky
Together, the clues around Fosterhart.com paint a picture that strongly suggests high risk — potentially fraud or at least seriously unsafe for investors who are not extremely cautious.
Starting with regulator warnings: when a major authority like the ASIC issues an alert that a platform may be operating without authorization, that is not a minor matter. That implies that some or all of Fosterhart’s offerings are not legally permitted under Australian financial law, which means customers in Australia have few protections, little oversight, and potential difficulty enforcing their rights. The use of “impersonation” in the alert (i.e. claiming to be something they are not) raises further concerns about the platform’s trustworthiness.
The claims of FINMA regulation that fail verification are another serious indicator. If a company claims to be regulated but cannot be found in that regulator’s register, it’s either dishonest or mistaken — in either case, it undermines credibility. Regulation is a legal commitment, and the absence of verification suggests one of two things: either the regulation is being misrepresented, or the company is not compliant. Neither is a good sign.
The domain’s new age and low online presence amplify the concern. A company that has just appeared, with little or no historical footprint, is inherently riskier. Legitimate brokers often have years of operation, verifiable media footprint, third-party audits, established social media presence, and so on. Fosterhart seems to lack those things. When combined with positive reviews that may be sparse or artificially elevated, it suggests that some positive reviews could be false or incentivized to build trust while hiding negative experiences. The negative reviews that do exist (complaints from users about not being able to withdraw, sudden stops or lack of response) are especially worrying.
The recurring reports of “large returns promised but not delivered,” and of difficulty accessing larger investments, are classic red flags. Many websites designed to defraud will allow small deposits, show small or paper profits or fake data (charts that look nice), then when larger money comes in, introduce hurdles. Those hurdles are sometimes new or hidden fees (bank reclaim fee, wire transfer reclaim, or crypto deposit reclaim), or compliance steps that are difficult to satisfy, or requests for more documentation or “unlocking” payments. These are common ways to stall or block withdrawals while extracting more from the user. Even though I didn’t find a fully verified record of exactly how Fosterhart imposes those fees, the combination of user complaints suggests that the risk is real.
On top of all that, being labeled as “SCAM” by BrokersView is very significant. BrokersView is known to track broker claims, regulator authority, and user feedback. If it has declared Fosterhart as scam in its summary, that means authoritative checks turned up multiple issues simultaneously. Being flagged by multiple independent watchers (ASIC, BrokersView, Scamadviser, Wikifx) adds weight. It’s not a one-off suspicion—there are repeated signals from different types of sources.
So, what should someone do if they are considering or already involved with Fosterhart?
- Before depositing: Check with official regulators (ASIC, FINMA, etc.) whether the firm is in their public register.
- Demand clear documentation of fees, withdrawal processes, legal entity name, address, proof of regulation. If you cannot verify those, do not send money.
- If you’ve already deposited: gather all evidence (contracts, screenshots, deposit proof, communications), try to withdraw a small amount first, avoid sending more until you get valid returns, contact your bank or payment provider if you suspect fraud.
- Report to your local financial regulator and consumer protection agency.
- Be very skeptical of anyone offering recovery or reclaim services that ask you for upfront fees — they are often part of the problem, not the solution.
