Correct me if I'm wrong, but the NFA isn't a government agency has no real authority, right?
Buy Stop Limit and Sell Stop Limit Orders on MT4 6 replies
Auto SL/TP & buy limit, sell limit/buy stop, sell stop EA/indi 2 replies
Difference between buy limit, sell limit, buy stop, & sell stop? 4 replies
NFA New Rule Not allowing stop and limit orders 74 replies
NFA Rule "No Stop/Limit Orders" Not for all US Brokers 8 replies
QuoteDislikedCorrect me if I'm wrong, but the NFA isn't a government agency has no real authority, right?
DislikedThey are a private oversight body. But in order to run a forex brokerage you must be a part of an approved futures organization. Currently there's only 1 approved futures organization, and that's the NFA. So while it's not a gov't agency, if a broker fails to comply with NFA rules it will lose it's NFA membership and be unable to do business within the US.Ignored
DislikedSo FXDD is screwed? Hope not. I am not sure the above post is 100% accurate.Ignored
QuoteDislikedDon't believe everything you read..There are many spot forex brokers operating in U.S. that are not regulated by NFA. Registration is VOLUNTARY if they only deal in spot forex. It is only mandatory for brokers conducting business with U.S. futures exchanges. This thread is Unbelieveable!!! Sort of like a true and false test.
DislikedWrong. Keep up with the law.
Link:
http://www.forexfactory.com/showpost...&postcount=392
It was passed in 2008, it's called the "CFTC Reauthorization Act" and it mandates that spot forex brokers register with a futures organization. The text of the bill is included for you to read.Ignored
QuoteDislikedNope, a contract for future delivery is a future, not spot forex.
QuoteDislikedBoth (I) and (II) need to apply, it does not say I or II
DislikedYou need to read the entire text, not just some random part of it. Earlier on, above the part you're talking about, it says...
"Agreements, contracts and transactions in retail foreign currency."
Ie:
"This Act applies to, and the Commission shall have jurisdiction over, an agreement, contract, or transaction in foreign currency that--"
And then goes on to label different elements. Element 1 is, as you said, a futures contract. But element 2 proceeds to define use the text "eligible contract participants" via:
"(II) is offered to,...Ignored
QuoteDislikedNope, you need to read the section where it says when they have jurisdiction. As stated earlier, it does not say (1) or (2), it says (I) and (II) BOTH (I) and (II) need to be true,not just one or the other. But, as earlier, I am not going to waste any more time with somebody so stubborn. This is my last post on the subject and good luck.
``(C)(i)(I) <<NOTE: Applicability.>> This subparagraph shall apply to any agreement, contract, or transaction in foreign currency that is-- ``(aa) offered to, or entered into with, a person that is not an eligible contract participant (except that this subparagraph shall not apply if the counterparty, or the person offering to be the counterparty, of the person that is not an eligible contract participant is a person described in any of item (aa), (bb), (dd), (ee), or (ff) of subparagraph (B)(i)(II)); and ``(bb) offered, or entered into, on a leveraged or margined basis, or financed by the offeror, the counterparty, or a person acting in concert with the offeror or counterparty on a similar basis.
``(II) Subclause (I) of this clause shall not apply to-- ``(aa) a security that is not a security futures product; or ``(bb) a contract of sale that-- ``(AA) results in actual delivery within 2 days; or ``(BB) creates an enforceable obligation to deliver between a seller and buyer that have the ability to deliver and accept delivery, respectively, in connection with their line of business.
``(ii)(I) Agreements, contracts, or transactions described in clause (i) of this subparagraph shall be subject to subsection (a)(1)(B) of this section and sections 4(b), 4b, 4c(b), 4o, 6(c) and 6(d) (except to the extent that sections 6(c) and 6(d) prohibit manipulation of the market price of any commodity in interstate commerce, or for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any market), 6c, 6d, 8(a), 13(a), and 13(b).
``(II) Subclause (I) of this clause shall not apply to-- ``(aa) any person described in any of item (aa), (bb), (dd), (ee), or (ff) of subparagraph (B)(i)(II); or ``(bb) any such person's associated persons.
``(iii)(I) A person, unless registered in such capacity as the Commission by rule, regulation, or order shall determine and a member of a futures association registered under section 17, shall not-- ``(aa) solicit or accept orders from any person that is not an eligible contract participant in connection with agreements, contracts, or transactions described in clause (i) of this subparagraph entered into with or to be entered into with a person who is not described in item (aa), (bb), (dd), (ee), or (ff) of subparagraph (B)(i)(II);
DislikedPeople. I have been trading with MB for a while and can tell you this issue is really a NON-ISSUE. Relax, OCO orders are simple (with MB at least) and if your broker is giving you a hard time, maybe it;s time to consider the alternatives.Ignored
DislikedThis is only strike two traders... if leverage gets mandated below 50:1 then it will be strike three and time to move offshore!Ignored
DislikedWell it looks as if Jason Rogers has been reinstated, so I have these questions for him.
1. A while back when no hedging became a rule FXCM appeared to want to move FXCM US clients to FXCM UK. This also appeared to be the case when FXCM quit offering MT4 for US and made it only available to UK clients. At that time, it did not make much sense, but now with this FIFO silly rule, it appears possible that the MT4 decision had considered this.
2. One question that I have is, assuming that MetaQuotes Software makes MT4 compatible with FIFO, is there...Ignored
Dislikedyeap, MT4 in it's current state is not compatible with FIFO. But moving UK will solve both the problems the EAs have with no hedging and will have with FIFO, as neither of these two silly rules exist under the FSA. Besides, the NFA is not done with their silly regulations, there is more to come.Ignored