Breaking: Australian Parliament Passes Product Intervention

Here's a couple of less known ones I found that look ok.
https://www.byfx.com
http://mtcookfinancial.com
Please share any experience..

Mt. Cook Financial has good reviews especially from fund managers.

They were in fact the broker of choice previously by Traders4Traders for their funded trader program.

have to agree with you on Jfd, upon closer inspection, their margin requirements are extremely high even for actively traded pairs.
5% margin for AUD/USD is akin to only 20x leverage. lower than ASIC's proposed.

having work in the interbank, can attest that SBI is a legit and a active interbank participant

that said,
might wanna check with SBI directly if byfx is indeed one of its subsidiaries. instead of relying on byfx's claim.

if indeed it is, will be a good option.

They show up multiple times when doing a search on SBI's website.
http://mf2ap005.marsflag.com/sbi_hd_...earch.x?q=BYFX

Hmmm, my additional question ...

When ESMA - Europe & ASIC - AU & Co will see that their measures had no effect (retail traders will move to unregulated brokers/jurisdictions like Seychelles), causing more HARM than BENEFITS for traders ... do they have the power to enforce the traders (based on their residency) to trade only with EU/AU entities?

The brokers (like IC) are now with one step forward (providing offshore entities). But, it smells that ESMA/ASIC/Co won't stop here ...

Btw, I am still meditating about whether to move my "business" from ICMarkets-AU to IC-SC (after 29th March 2021) ... really dunno. It's about 4 digits $ ....

I think it would be more accurate to say that one rather strange poster on FPA claimed that Anish Lal previously ran a fraudulent binary options brokerage. He provided no proof to back his claim and if you read to the end of the thread, he sounds quite deluded. He goes on to claim that he was given investors accounts to manage in lieu of his money back and that he was satisfied with that resolution because he could make the money back with his ‘profitable system’.

So, it all started in 2010 with the CFTC in the US. 50:1, even 20:1 on GBP crosses, no hedging, FIFO rule etc. There were probably 100 choices for US traders, including many regulated brokers in other countries. Not only did the CFTC enforce the new rules, but one by one the regulated brokers from other jurisdictions were prohibited from accepting or maintaining US clients as well. It left us with Oanda, GAIN and FXCM (who has since been kicked out for owning there own LP on their STP accounts)
Had to go offshore and trade with the unregulated brokers. Trader's Way, FXChoice, etc. By the way, these brokers provide WAAAAAAAY better conditions as far as spread, commission, no stop hunting as opposed to the scams that are allowed to continuously operate in the US. So, in that sense, none of these regulatory bodies have the traders best interest at all no matter how they try to disguise it. Now, the CFTC is, one by one, shutting down the unregulated brokers from accepting us as well. I would anticipate this will be the case around the world.
It's funny how they are protecting us by requiring we deposit 10-15 times more now for margin than we used to. I'm sure it's the same in all countries, you can walk into a casino and bet your entire life savings on one spin of the roulette wheel, nobody says a word. But god forbid, I take part in something I actually have an edge in, but their grubby hands aren't in.....yeah you're protecting us alright.

Some sad news from Pepperstone. I have asked the following question:

"As a retail trader who does not qualify as a Pro trader, can I choose an offshore entity of Pepperstone?"
"(which does not subj. to leverage restrictions)"
"(Bahamas / Seychelles for example)"

Response:
You are able to sign up under ASIC with Pepperstone Australia but As I mentioned ASIC will be putting in place leverage restrictions for retail clients as well.
We are not onboarding clients residing in the EU under our Bahamas license.

"Thanks, the last answer clarifies my question. So there are no legal ways to trader under Bahamas license (being an EU citizen)."

Response:
Exactly.

So ... it's clear.

Btw, I don't know then why IC Markets does onboarding clients to SC (when requested) and Pepperstone not ...
So with ICMarkets I can move my business to SC (as an EU citizen) and with Pepperstone not ...

Just be happy you got to use them 10 years longer than us poor saps here in the US. Really sucks when they say they are protecting you, but won't allow you to use brokers with better conditions and regulations than their own. The CFTC in the US does not even allow for segregation of funds, brokers goes broke, you lose all of your money. Land of the free, baby!!!!!

Yes, it's certainly interesting the way different brokers are still taking on clients, or not, given this is supposed to be a regulated change.
As an AU citizen ICM won't let me access their SC products. It doesn't even show on their website any more, while it initially did, so they've now implemented Geo-locating on their site.
Likewise, my friend in DE can't currently open an additional account under ASIC regulation. Though I'm guessing that this could be a temporary measure they're taking so they don't have to deal with complaints from newbies when their trading requirements suddenly change completely in a few months, easier from a management perspective to take them on when 1:30/20 is the only option and the client is actively choosing that.

I've been having a conversation with the head of the ICM Partners team and they're a little too cagey with their answers to my questions about MAM accounts and possible legal protections available to clients who select their 'Pro' classification option. When I pressed for an answer after nothing was being provided the responses became hostile.

I think that the next step will be enforcing EU citizens to trade only with CySec entity. But, then, who will be eligible for Seychelles entity ?! Neither AU / EU ...

It's beyond my comprehension: How can a regulator (being it ESMA - EU, ASIC - AU, CTFC - US) enforce a citizen to "do business" only with a broker ascribed to a given jurisdiction . At most, a regulator should be able to give a license to a broker.

Isn't a bit illegal for a third regulator to say: "You, german citizen must trade ONLY with an ESMA licensed broker" ? [german, US, aussie, etc.]

As a gambler, I can go in Las Vegas and "play" under the US law. They don't ask me whether I'm from North Korea or not (even if gambling is prohibited in North Korea).
Similarly, why can't I choose the Seychelles entity?

Looks like a 'basic' pro account with leverage is available if you can show 200k income in two years, or 100k in one? not sure on exact details as it seems to vary a bit on different brokers.

63% of fx lose money? far out, years ago the numbers were 80%+

Why Is ASIC Imposing Tougher Regulation?
When trading forex and other CFDs, investors are exposing themselves to unpredictable markets and volatile assets. As an investment activity, CFD trading is considered very high-risk. Over the past few years, the financial authority has been looking into tougher regulation to combat the high percentage of retail traders losing money.
An ASIC June 2018 report showed:

1. 80% of binary options traders lose money
2. 72% of CFD traders lose money
3. 63% of Margin FX lose money

I have received 2 messages from one of my Brokers.
I'm not surprised by this, I know the situation.
Just to share.

"Dear Trader,
International Capital Markets Pty Ltd regulator, ASIC, has announced changes to the way in which we can offer products and services to our retail clients.
The changes include a reduction in the leverage offered, changes to margin close-out, negative balance protection, and restrictions on certain inducements. You can find more details about the proposed changes on our website or checking directly the full ASIC media release.
These changes are due to come into effect from 29 March 2021.
Nothing will change until the 29th of March, 2021. We were expecting these changes from ASIC and we have worked hard to ensure our processes are fully prepared. This means we will continue to offer the best-in-class products and services you have come to expect from us in the past.
How do these changes affect you?
The ASIC changes apply only to retail investors. If you would prefer not to be impacted by these changes, then you can check to see whether you qualify as a wholesale or professional investor and become an IC Markets Pro trader."


"Dear Trader,
On Friday 23 October 2020, ASIC announced it will be introducing several changes to the way we can offer CFDs and services to retail clients trading with International Capital Markets Pty Ltd, our ASIC licensed entity.
These changes include new minimum margin rates, leverage reduction, negative balance protection, and some restraints on certain inducements (such as bonuses and promotions) – effective from Monday 29th March 2021.
For now, there are no immediate changes to your IC Markets trading account.
Future changes to margin rates
Below is a table that showcases the new maximum margin rate/leverage level for retail clients. The rise in margin requirements as a result of ASIC’s rules will apply from Monday 29th March 2021.
It is important to understand that these new changes will only affect retail clients, and not apply to wholesale clients or professional traders."

OPINION - Related to the new ASIC changes ( mostly recently effecting Australian retail traders but ultimately all traders world wide )

I was making noises about this to brokers over a year a go, traders were not listening or thought it would not happen, well here we are and there is a subset of retail traders that actually believe this is a step in the right direction, how wrong they are.

Let me first say I'm against these new regulation changes and did my best being vocal about my displeasure both to ASIC and to the brokers I use, non of it was worth the time spent, though non of my protests were done correctly since the process is a lot deeper than just vocally protesting, you need to get involved and it goes right down to parliament level, non of you here have time to go this deep, this was going to happen no matter what and I will explain why as simple as I can.

I read all the submissions that were given to ASIC by the brokers related to the Intervention Order Consultation Papers 322 which can be found here if interested (https://asic.gov.au/regulatory-resou...ions-and-cfds/) most of the brokers seemed happy enough to implement these changes whist trying to seem displeasured by it's introduction, this is a very smart move by them, to seem upset about the changes but knowing full well these amendments changes pretty much nothing and actually increases the chances of retail traders failure rate increasing. Let me explain how.

Let's get the philosophical concept of trading out of the way first, governments do not want people sitting around speculating on markets as a source of income, especially if it's your main source of income, they don't want it banned though because it's beneficial to the economy but ultimately they want to raise the bar to who has viable access to make a meaningful amount. It's been pretty good up till now being able to trade with 500:1 for those knowledgeable enough not to sink or blow accounts but instead thrive ( there are many of you ) however that is coming to an end. It still will be possible, but you are going to be hamstrung, which is their intention, they would much rather you go out there and work a job, leaving the trading to professionals with larger capital reserves, ill tell you why later.

Another thing we need to clear up first is "Most retail traders fail" while this statement is true, most retail traders who sign up are random people who heard about it, saw an add and thought bugger it ill deposit $500 into an account and have a play around, you are lumped into the same category as these folk, they have no intention of taking it seriously either long term or short term. Most will not even understand how position size or swaps work before blowing that account then scratching their heads as to why that happened, then go and deposit again and this time might learn a little more only to find out it takes years to fully understand trading to make a profit, then give up. This is your typical retail trader that inflates the "most retail traders fail" statistic. If you are a trader ( even if you have blown up an account before ) are still trading, learning, developing your strategy, have the proper systems and risk management in place, you spend time reading news, following trends, getting involved in the community and want to be better, congrats you are miles ahead of those traders I mentioned above, your still here, still trading, still learning but alas it does not matter you will forever be classified as just another one of those randoms who sign up and blow accounts then never come back. You will be treated the same way, there really should be another class of trader, Retail, semi-pro and professional. Making the distinction between those 3 classes would not be that hard, this is a discussion for another day, because today is certainly not that day.

I've been speaking to some retail traders who don't understand leverage, there is a lot of clueless people on Reddit especially that don't understand how it's a tool that can make you thrive if used correctly, but just like a knife can be equally deadly if you don't understand how to use it, but the crux of this entire debate is that ASIC is projecting these new changes will protect consumers from harming themselves when it's simply not true, their true intention is not to protect consumers but to make trading conditions as harsh as possible in order to act as the deterrent, basically lifting the bar of entry to a much higher level, so your average person does not see it as a viable option to success. Especially pushing away low income earners or people with low net assets of ever thinking about getting involved here, though still possible on a restricted leverage, your potential is limited, however if you're skilled you should not have an issue.

Leverage - Think of it as a barrier to entry instead ( change the concept for a second ) - lets set a benchmark

There is a reason people use leverage, If I asked you to chose between 1:1 or 1:30 which would you choose? I can tell you that you're not picking 1:1 at least if you want to make any money, to trade 1:1 you need a lot of money well into the multi-millions to make any form of meaningful profit. If forex trading was limted to 1:1 no one but banks, hedge funds, corporations and multi millionaires would trade, now if you start lifting this ratio slightly higher you start to include more people, so think of leverage as an inclusion meter firstly. If you raise it slightly to 1:5 you start to include business's, people who need to hedge for price stability, wealthy people can get involved, if you raise it to 1:10 small / medium business can start to trade, 1:20 you start to enter middle class citizens being able to access the market, 1:30 you start to include lower to middle class, 1:50 you're now letting lower income earners trade. After 1:100 you're pretty much including everyone of legal age to be able to trade who has a few hundred dollars laying around, any more leverage after that is no longer a barrier for entry but a tool for those who want or know how to use it.

This is where the evidence is point to, they do not want people who don't have substantial capital reserves or any at all to trade because it risks them blowing what ever money they have and then seeking social security if shit hits the fan. Their goal is to limit these people who have pipe dreams of making a fast buck with what ever little money they have, whilst I agree with this, the people who pay the price are those traders who know how the forex market works, have been doing it for years and use the leverage they are offered as a tool rather than simply a "barrier of entry". What these new regulation changes do is lump all retail traders into the same basket without coming up with better ways to sort it all out.

I know for a fact that some of you retail traders are better traders than some professionals, I know it because statistical probability tells me so, how much money you have is not related to how skillful you are at reading and understanding price, however if you're a lousy trader but have capital reserves as a safety net you will be given special treatment and offered pro accounts that allow you to access higher leverage even if you suck, however if you're not wealthy and are skillful at trading you will be held down simply because "you don't have capital reserves to protect you from a financial calamity" if something goes wrong.

This is the true reason behind the governments ratio changes, making sure people with little net assets don't ruin themselves, but at the same time throwing all those traders who are responsible into the same category.

Why leverage caps won't change anything.

Those random people who sign up on a weekend, deposit $200 to $1000 and blow it on the first NFP because they have no idea what is going on will still happen. This will never change, brokers will make money from this lot for ever. Changing the margin requirements for this group does nothing. Give them 1:10, 1:20, 1:50 or 1:500 they will blow the account.

Lower leverage hamstrings current retail traders who know what they are doing, the risks they are taking and have their own financial situation under control even if it goes sour. It limits their potential, increases the amount of capital they need to cover margin requirements and leaves them in a more less flexible position. Higher leverage gives you more breathing room if you know what you're doing, it makes you last longer, you are at less risk of being margin called and I would argue is safer to use for someone who knows what they are doing.

At the end of the day, lower leverage is there to slow you down, lift the barrier of entry and give the edge to the professionals who will out trade you with the higher leverage. You're using a butter knife whilst they are wielding a katana, who's going to win that fight? Not you, this is end game.

well who knows what the motivation is, but decreasing leverage available to certain people does also mean in order to maintain 50% margin on 1:30 will require people to ESSENTIALLY RISK MORE..

leverage and account closeout in the event of a black - swan type event is an advantage.. but now if you cannot show worthiness, you are expected to PONY UP more equity cash balance which puts it at risk in these types of events because what is the bet Broker will slip losing positions if the account hits 50% DD overnight?

oh, and if it doesn't, it means the Broker gets a massive increase in their client reserves, which who knows what they will do with.

it is like they are trying to recreate the bucket-shops of the early 2000's

Where are you getting this?

If you satisfy either of the below criteria, you may be eligible.
Pro Level 2:

1. You have 12 months' consistent leverage derivatives trading experience, AND
2. You have net assets exceeding A$2.5 million or annual income exceeding A$250,000

Pro Level 1:

1. You have 12 months' leverage derivatives trading experience during which you consistently placed trades of qualifying size* or you have held a professional role which gave you experience trading derivatives, AND
2. You have income exceeding A$100,000 or savings and investments exceeding

https://www.ig.com/au/professional

Long story short, only the wealthy should be allowed to steal from the poor, and not the other way around..

I don’t agree that having to put more money into your account is a bad thing.
Lets be honest, how many newbies put $200 into a forex account after watching a online video and lose it within a few days. Where else in the world do you get such cheap finance with incredibly cheap fees.
No where, it’s too good to be true.

Perhaps traders will now think more carefully about there trading in the future and start winning more.

My only concern is the security of my increased funds I will now have to pay into my brokers account. I will need to have insurance to protect the funds once I deposit more than $10k from April.

Where it will hurt me is in my Algo portfolio where I run 6 EA’s almost 24/7. Presently they only need about $5K per account to run so about $30k in total.
There is no way I would put a few hundred K next year to run them all, so it’s probably just the best 2 and cut the rest. The only reason I am not concerned with this issue is I have no time to maintain them anyway, and the returns are small compared to my profits I achieve out of scalping.

Cheers