Global Prime - The World's Most Transparent ECN Broker?!

A recent thread says that Globalprime will no longer offer hedged positions.

Globalprime needs to update the faq on their own website:


Is there a Globalprime representative, or a nonrepresentative, that has some information:
1. Why has Globalprime not updated their website about this change?
2. The "recent regulatory guideline" change, is there a link to a government website about this?

I don't have a live account with them, since most in U.S. are not eligible; but the same rule was put in place for U.S. brokers a few years back.

One possibility is that other regulators are doing the same rule change.
Another possibility -- I can hope! -- is they are preparing to offer support to U.S. clients who cannot hedge.

I am fully aware that taking both Buy(s) and Sell(s) of the SAME instrument, e.g. EURUSD, does on the surface seem stupid. However, it practice, what it means with no hedging is that you can't use multiple EA's (not necessarily hedging their own trades) that will make decisions to Buy or Sell an instrument that a second EA, or manual trades, want-to-open orders in the opposite direction. The later orders will fail to open. EA's are mostly written for MT4 accounts that allow hedging; it's so much easier to allow

I used to have a broker, MB Trading (an ECN), that had IMO a *great* way to implement the no-hedge rule, and it mostly worked fine until either the regulators told them stop, or, that their bookkeeping was a mess, or, they simply sold their Fx business and the next company got rid of their brilliant method, which was:

1. Using MT4, a user could open multiple Buys & Sells for the same Fx pairs, (i.e. hedging allowed; multiple EA's could work fine on the same account)
2. A user could close any order or partial order in any order. (i.e. appear to ignore FIFO rule).
3. The broker then used BACK-OFFICE accounting to manage net position sizes, and implemented the FIFO rule. They *refunded* the daily swap that appeared as charges for separate Buys and Sells of the same thing, and you only were paid, or you paid, the net swap after hedging was eliminated. (By the way, the difference in calculating simultaneous Buy/Sell swaps, then converting to a net swap, is always a credit for the user, because the swap they pay you for a position is always smaller than the swap you have to pay for the opposite hedge position).
4. You could have existing positions, e.g. EURUSD Buy, and an EA -- or you -- could enter EURUSD Sell of any amount. MT4 would see both the original Buy, and the later Sell, but the back-office accounting would instead interpret your Sell order as an order to close some-or-all of your original Buy. If the Sell was larger, the back-office knew you now have a smaller net Sell position. The accounting software they used could provide the user with a list of trades, which would show every position are either a Buy, or a Sell, never both at the same time. It was a net position. The swap earned, or paid, was the net swap.

Bottom line was: MT4 could *appear* to hedge. The user only paid, or was paid, the swap for the *net* position. The FIFO rule was met behind the scenes. So why should regulators care?? It was fine to me.

P.S. The rule changes for U.S. brokers were supposedly to protect U.S. traders, I suppose, from paying too much swap when holding hedged (opposite) positions. But in reality, it screwed U.S. MT4 traders who could no longer use independent EA's because they might try to hedge each other. Some people attempted a workaround to divide their funds into two accounts, where one is for BUYS only, the other for SELLS only, but that still doesn't comply with the FIFO rule. If one attempts to close a later opened trade, a U.S. MT4 will refuse because it breaks the FIFO rule.

Oh, another way that regulators claimed to protect traders was to reduce leverage from 100:1 or more, down to 50:1, 30:1, 20:1, ... less. While I know that some traders get in trouble with high leverage and blow accounts faster, a disciplined trader can know what is his/her TOTAL capital for trading. Deposit only a small portion (i.e. 10%) in a far more risky FX broker account, trade it with what appears to be big leverage, BUT your other 90% of capital can stay in a safe bank account. If you lose FX, you transfer more in. If you make with FX, you transfer out to safe bank. THAT is ultimately less risk for the trader. But nothing prevents the trader from putting 100% into the high leveraged FX, risky account, so... I get it. I just don't like it.

I have been trading with Broker Global Prime since the last 3-4 months. But I am wondering if Global Prime is really a good broker or a scam broker or it is the credit of their Advertisement department that spend huge money in advertisement? Ps see the screen shot then you will understand why I have to say against them.

I have opened a trading position Date: 3.4.25 2 (long) for 0.10 & 0.05 lot. But on Date: 4.4.25 the trade turned into the opposite direction. Then I have to open a short position of the same lot size so that when the trade will be in its normal course, I will cancel my reverse position and continue the trade in its original direction. But the next day the "ask price line" gap was increased to 400 pips and its bouncing up and down with the price since the last 6 days (from 04/04--10/04). It seems this trade is never ending as it will take a long time for the price to go up to 400 pips for a pair like GBP/CHF. Moreover my trading investment will totally vanish as everyday they are deducting swap charges.
So do anybody of you have a negative experience with Global Prime or I am the only one who is facing problem with them? Thanks.
Salim Chowdhury.

They should be able to answer. Coz hey i stopped using them and moved with the team to Afterprime. I can't really know what happens there anymore coz i don't trade with them

Perfectly stated