The topic of this is 10:1 leverage but I think any and all points concerning scams, ponzi schemes etc should be raised as an argument.
The reason is the "cloak" they are putting this 10:1 garbage under is in the name of protecting the consumer. They like to make us think they have our backs.
But yet they don't tell you that someone that is trading with $500 will now likely need $5000, trading $2,500 now you will likely need $25,000.
This is not to say I or anyone else would trade with more than 10:1 currently... but if something goes wrong I want some cushion before all my positions are liquidated.
I think raising various points about CDS as well as other various schemes raises questions as to what this 10:1 rule is meant to do on an off-exchange market?
Is it to protect the consumer from fraud or give the broker and even better opportunity to claim someone's account? The reason they give for all these rules is "protect the consumer" from fraud / scams.
So if that is the case... tell me how lowering the leverage limit is going to protect me from fraud?
Jumping to futures? puhlease. I don't care if it only cost me $1 RT, if liquidity is absent what difference does cost make? That's the $1 Bil dollar answer.... and it will not change with a 10:1 leverage enforcement in the US. The only thing that will change is the CFTC / NFA will be regulating a non-existant entity.
So I think any point concerning scams, ponzi schemes or whatever should be raised... it might not matter much, most of these rule making folks are in over their heads and they are just coming up with ways to destroy the market and push it off responsibility on someone else all in the guise of acting like they are protecting something or someone...
go back a page or three and watch that video on the SEC if you don't believe me.
I've probably sent 5 letters to the CFTC, 1 to a senator and 1 to the President. In the end if leverage is dropped "any" from the current 100:1 my money will leave U.S. jurisdiction for greener FX pastures.
At least after the decision is made (whatever it is) I will have nothing left to say (communicatively)... I will finish what I have already said by speaking with my money and where I put it.
I suggest all of you do the same. Even if it is something as little as this:
put in subject header>>>> "Regulation of Retail Forex" send to [email protected]
David Stawick,
Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission,
1155 21st Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20581.
RE: RIN 3038-AC61
Dear Mr. Stawick,
"I oppose any lowering of leverage from 100:1. I am against 10:1 leverage rule. "
"add additional comments here: why you are against it if you want to go that far."
send to the CFTC, senators, cogress people, president etc.
You have until March 22. Thank you for any effort you put in.
The reason is the "cloak" they are putting this 10:1 garbage under is in the name of protecting the consumer. They like to make us think they have our backs.
But yet they don't tell you that someone that is trading with $500 will now likely need $5000, trading $2,500 now you will likely need $25,000.
This is not to say I or anyone else would trade with more than 10:1 currently... but if something goes wrong I want some cushion before all my positions are liquidated.
I think raising various points about CDS as well as other various schemes raises questions as to what this 10:1 rule is meant to do on an off-exchange market?
Is it to protect the consumer from fraud or give the broker and even better opportunity to claim someone's account? The reason they give for all these rules is "protect the consumer" from fraud / scams.
So if that is the case... tell me how lowering the leverage limit is going to protect me from fraud?
Jumping to futures? puhlease. I don't care if it only cost me $1 RT, if liquidity is absent what difference does cost make? That's the $1 Bil dollar answer.... and it will not change with a 10:1 leverage enforcement in the US. The only thing that will change is the CFTC / NFA will be regulating a non-existant entity.
So I think any point concerning scams, ponzi schemes or whatever should be raised... it might not matter much, most of these rule making folks are in over their heads and they are just coming up with ways to destroy the market and push it off responsibility on someone else all in the guise of acting like they are protecting something or someone...
go back a page or three and watch that video on the SEC if you don't believe me.
I've probably sent 5 letters to the CFTC, 1 to a senator and 1 to the President. In the end if leverage is dropped "any" from the current 100:1 my money will leave U.S. jurisdiction for greener FX pastures.
At least after the decision is made (whatever it is) I will have nothing left to say (communicatively)... I will finish what I have already said by speaking with my money and where I put it.
I suggest all of you do the same. Even if it is something as little as this:
put in subject header>>>> "Regulation of Retail Forex" send to [email protected]
David Stawick,
Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission,
1155 21st Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20581.
RE: RIN 3038-AC61
Dear Mr. Stawick,
"I oppose any lowering of leverage from 100:1. I am against 10:1 leverage rule. "
"add additional comments here: why you are against it if you want to go that far."
send to the CFTC, senators, cogress people, president etc.
You have until March 22. Thank you for any effort you put in.