Proposed NFA Capital Requirement | Page 19 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

NFA case against Forex.com/Gain Capital 6 replies

NFA Takes Action Against Gain Capital 27 replies

What happens to brokers not meeting the NFA capital requirement? 4 replies

Is losing a requirement to be successful? 72 replies

MIG vs Northfinance Margin Requirement 2 replies

Attachments: Proposed NFA Capital Requirement
Exit Attachments

Proposed NFA Capital Requirement

  • #361
  • Aug 31, 2007 12:50pm Aug 31, 2007 12:50pm
Quoting forexfun
Despite the fact that you changed the name of the "dead pool", you still don't grasp how simply reporting information and sensationalizing it are two different things.

By posting things like "dead pool", you make people believe that a company in said list was dead and buried, when that is not actually the case. You later agreed on some of these that this wasn't actually the case, that some of them will survive. Of course, it's too late for that admission, because your dead pool, as worded, was posted like 50 times across the internet, so changing it here months later is long long after the fact. I guarantee you scared off people from some of those companies, and probably some people from companies that will actually survive and which did nothing wrong.

The article you quote does not use the same language you did, and yet you continue to miss that point. The point was never that there would be companies that would miss a 5 million mark if passed and as such would be out of business. There's not a person on this thread who said that every single company below five million currently would survive. The point was that you automatically acted as if they'd all be out of business and thus people should pull their money NOW rather than a) see if the proposal passes b) give their company a chance to prove they could make a new cap requirement when it happens. You told them to get out and get out now. It was only later that you modified that tone, but the damage was probably still done.

Sensationalizing and reporting are two things. While you bring important information to light, it's HOW you present it that makes the difference between being a respectable newspaper and being a tabloid.
ForexFun I never said all these firms were going out of business and I only changed the title of the thread after the moderator suggested it. My position has always been that the firms in the dead pool are poorly capitalized and at a higher risk of insolvency. Furthermore, the NFA proposal meant that some of them would most likely go out of business. All of this has now been confirmed by the NFA itself which has officially raised capital requirements to $5 million.

You want to talk about the "damage that's been done" then let's talk about One World Capital which has not been granting customer withdrawals for several weeks. A few days ago I got an email from a customer thanking me for writing about One World a month back. That person withdrew their funds right before the customer withdrawals were halted at One World. That customer did their due diligence and acted accordingly. But sadly a lot of customers didn't get a chance to withdraw their funds and are now sitting in purgatory.

My goal has been to sound the alarm about the crisis of capitalization in the forex industry. My own opinion is that customers should not trade with poorly capitalized firms and now thanks to the NFA proposal they won't be able to do so. And in my opinion, yes, they should still get out now.
  • #362
  • Aug 31, 2007 1:04pm Aug 31, 2007 1:04pm
What is the reason for your little crusade anyways? Are you that much of a philanthropist, or did you get burned by a broker going out of business?
  • #363
  • Aug 31, 2007 1:33pm Aug 31, 2007 1:33pm
Quoting forexfun
What does this part of that proposal mean:

"update the enhanced ANC obligation under the Requirements to impose minimum ANC requirements of $2,000,000 on affected Forex Dealer Members ("FDM"s), $1,000,000 on affected non-FDM futures commission merchants, and $250,000 on other Member categories;"

?
I just realized this was a question for me.
The Adjusted Net Capital requirements will be set to at least 2mil for FDMs who have violated the new requlations or employ persons from such firms. This way it will be more difficult for the sleez buckets to jump from one Forex pirate ship to another.

shrike asked,
"What is the reason for your little crusade anyways? Are you that much of a philanthropist, or did you get burned by a broker going out of business?"

I'd like to know the answer to this also, but I don't really care. Forex dealers have had a wide lattitude to opperate in for several years. Most of them have continually demonstrated little regard for their clients welfare by way of unexplainable spikes, increased spreads durring unexpected times (not news releases). I once had a customer service rep laugh at me and say, "we have large managed accounts who lost more than a few hundered dollars..." implying of coarse that my account was of no concern to them. Traders need to get involved in these issues unless they have complete trust for their brokers integrity.
  • #364
  • Aug 31, 2007 3:01pm Aug 31, 2007 3:01pm
Quoting forexsavior
You want to talk about the "damage that's been done" then let's talk about One World Capital which has not been granting customer withdrawals for several weeks. A few days ago I got an email from a customer thanking me for writing about One World a month back.
I'm not going to rehash the "get out now" argument, as that would be beating a dead horse.

While it is good that you did inform people about One World, you could potentially be damaging the business of some firms that haven't done anything wrong yet. The only thing they're "guilty" of is not meeting a requirement they don't have to yet. I admire your zeal, because you apparently do feel a desire to help people. But to me, it is irresponsible to scare people from every single firm under a new/soon-to-be-new requirement by saying they're dead when some of them you've openly admitted will likely make the new cap requirement. You've been scaring people by telling them that they should get out now to panic them, and in SOME of those companies, there would be no need for them to do so because they'll be fine. In other words, you'll have damaged the firm and its reputation (in the cases of ones who have done nothing wrong), you'll have damaged the client because some of them will lose wire fees when they didn't need to xfer at all to be safe.

The fact is, they don't become poorly capitalized firms simply on the basis of a new requirement when it goes into effect, nor will all of them go under. So it's silly to panic people into leaving all of them without knowing that all of them will be in trouble.

Like I said though, I admire your zeal, and we'll see what happens.
  • #365
  • Aug 31, 2007 3:19pm Aug 31, 2007 3:19pm
Ive been with a broker where i smelled the rotten fish it wasnt a big account, i wanted to have small money before i ever would raise capital but as time go it was weird they widened the spreads ( wiped out ) closed trades way before actual price where hit and many times they had peaks that no other broker had! well thats normal it may differ a litle but this was not fair gameplaying.I closed with them many month ago but this year they got bankrupt and many custommers is waiting and wondering if they get their funds so it def matter to stay with a healthy company and i recomend to investigate the firm before opening live accounts if 1 forgot that well it could be to late 1 day good weekend all


revoke
  • #366
  • Aug 31, 2007 4:50pm Aug 31, 2007 4:50pm
Quoting shrike
What is the reason for your little crusade anyways? Are you that much of a philanthropist, or did you get burned by a broker going out of business?
As I said before I was burned by a collapsed broker. And I see other people getting burned by brokers right now (One World Capital, Tradex Swiss AG) and quite frankly it makes me livid. There is no one out there talking about these issues. The focus is always on trade execution and while that is important at least when a firm shafts you on trade execution you have the option of picking up and taking your business elsewhere. But often times you can't pick up and leave when a broker goes bust financially or runs off with your funds when massive fraud occurs.

As I have also said before any firm that feels I am unfairly targeting them need do only one thing, publish their financials and let everyone know just how much money they have. None have done so. Of course that's their prerogative. But the alternative of not being transparent about your company's financials means that you leave yourself open to those (like me) who are going to point that weakness out.

In any case I am quite satisfied with the actions the NFA is taking and that the CFTC will hopefully take as well. With the industry getting cleaned up I expect I'll be able to get back to my own personal forex trading account soon and lay down my crusading arms. Let's see what the CFTC does next...
  • #367
  • Aug 31, 2007 5:50pm Aug 31, 2007 5:50pm
Quoting forexsavior
In any case I am quite satisfied with the actions the NFA is taking and that the CFTC will hopefully take as well. With the industry getting cleaned up I expect I'll be able to get back to my own personal forex trading account soon and lay down my crusading arms. Let's see what the CFTC does next...
You had me woried for a second. Please don't lay down your arms just yet. Undercapitalization is just one warning sign of a broker that should be approached with caution. When a broker does something unethical the investor should report it to the NFA. Such is the case with the ammendment I mentioned in an earlier post. As of Nov. 1, 2007 many brokers who were reported for a variety of unethical practices will be inspected routinely, phone conversations with existing and potential clients will be recorded and accurate records will be required of the brokers. It was the investors complaints that lead to this ammendment.
  • #368
  • Sep 3, 2007 4:26am Sep 3, 2007 4:26am
Is NFA protecting customers or the crooked?

Why those companies got bad records wiped out and also the list is no long available to public?

  1. current list of Disciplined Firms will no longer be provided on NFA's public website but will be available through ORS. This list will divide Disciplined Firms into two subsets-those permanently barred and those sanctioned within the preceding five years.

NFA proposal:
http://www.nfa.futures.org/news/news...ArticleID=1782

  • #369
  • Sep 3, 2007 7:00am Sep 3, 2007 7:00am
Quoting hughlong
Is NFA protecting customers or the crooked?

Why those companies got bad records wiped out and also the list is no long available to public?

  1. current list of Disciplined Firms will no longer be provided on NFA's public website but will be available through ORS. This list will divide Disciplined Firms into two subsets-those permanently barred and those sanctioned within the preceding five years.

NFA proposal:
http://www.nfa.futures.org/news/news...ArticleID=1782

I couldn't find where your quote came from. Instead I found this quote from the link you provided:
A current list of the firms which meet the definition of a Disciplined Firm is maintained on NFA's Web site at www.nfa.futures.org. For purposes of this Interpretive Notice, a Disciplined Firm is defined very narrowly to include those firms that fall into one of the following two groups:

Regardless, your suspicion raises a question that's been on my mind for a while. Personally, I welcome any new rules that attempt to oversee the actions of Forex brokers. Three years ago my live trading experiences lead me to conclude that retail Forex brokers could do almost anything they wish, short of obvious fraud, with little chance of more than a small fine being imposed upon them. Now I'm beginning to feel that I can get a better picture of my brokers true intensions by watching the NFA reports.
  • #370
  • Sep 3, 2007 4:42pm Sep 3, 2007 4:42pm
Quoting Micro-MiniMe
I couldn't find where your quote came from. Instead I found this quote from the link you provided:
A current list of the firms which meet the definition of a Disciplined Firm is maintained on NFA's Web site at www.nfa.futures.org. For purposes of this Interpretive Notice, a Disciplined Firm is defined very narrowly to include those firms that fall into one of the following two groups:

Regardless, your suspicion raises a question that's been on my mind for a while. Personally, I welcome any new rules that attempt to oversee the actions of Forex brokers. Three years ago my live trading experiences lead me to conclude that retail Forex brokers could do almost anything they wish, short of obvious fraud, with little chance of more than a small fine being imposed upon them. Now I'm beginning to feel that I can get a better picture of my brokers true intensions by watching the NFA reports.
Sorry for this. The link should be:
http://www.nfa.futures.org/news/news...ArticleID=1943
  • #371
  • Sep 3, 2007 4:51pm Sep 3, 2007 4:51pm
It appears they keep updating their proposals. Guess we'll just have to wait and see how it turns out.
  • #372
  • Sep 4, 2007 1:42pm Sep 4, 2007 1:42pm
With the NFA officially hiking the minimum capital requirement to $5 million (http://www.nfa.futures.org/news/new...?ArticleID=1942) all eyes are now on the CFTC. Look for two things:

1) Some kind of formal statement by either the CFTC or the NFA in which CFTC signs off on the NFA proposal (or the unlikely prospect of the CFTC rejecting it.)
2) The new updated CFTC Adjusted Net Capital Report which will be published here: http://www.cftc.gov/marketreports/financialdataforfcms/index.htm

The next updated adjusted net capital report will be particularly revealing. All the firms on this report will have had several months since the proposal was issued to start increasing their reported net capital. While no firm is required to hike their capital yet it will be very telling to see which firms have begun to prepare for the inevitable and which firms continue to hold their cards close to their vest. At this point any firm that isn’t ponying up the dough to capitalize themselves on these reports is really begging the question: is this firm destined to be strapped into the forex dealer electric chair? Or will they get a stay of execution?

My advice to the firms in the Dead Pool is simple: put up the money now and save everyone the trouble of guessing whether or not you will be here a few months from now. If your company capital is tied up and not available at the moment, well, tell the public what it is tied up in and specifically why you are not reporting it. Customers who open accounts with forex brokers are required to detail their own private financial holdings. In light of the seriousness of the capitalization issue, I think forex brokers should be held to the same standard.
  • #373
  • Sep 4, 2007 4:34pm Sep 4, 2007 4:34pm
Quoting forexsavior
The next updated adjusted net capital report will be particularly revealing. All the firms on this report will have had several months since the proposal was issued to start increasing their reported net capital. While no firm is required to hike their capital yet it will be very telling to see which firms have begun to prepare for the inevitable and which firms continue to hold their cards close to their vest. At this point any firm that isn’t ponying up the dough to capitalize themselves on these reports is really begging the question: is this firm destined to be strapped into the forex dealer electric chair? Or will they get a stay of execution?
Or will they simply "pony up the dough" when they need to, in which case, all is fine and always was. Yes, it will be very interesting to see where some of these firms come in...in January.
FXChant Singing the World of Forex
  • #374
  • Edited 11:08am Sep 5, 2007 10:52am | Edited 11:08am
In the last few weeks I have reported on two poorly capitalized/unregulated forex broker dealers who are currently holding customer funds hostage. Well, both firms appear to be in complete chaos judging from what’s going around on various bulletin boards.

We’ll start with NFA regulated One World Capital. Their troubles started earlier this year when the NFA inspected their books and discovered they were not meeting their financial requirements. The NFA said at the time, “One World lacked an understanding of, or was inattentive to, regulatory requirements and was ill prepared to accept customer business as either an FDM or an FCM. The firm had not established adequate systems to enable it to handle customer funds or comply with customer reporting requirements."
http://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/...17&contrib=NFA

Since then One World has been losing staff and appears to be experiencing a severe cash crunch which has resulted in the halting of customer withdrawals, as detailed here:
http://www.goldenmoneytree.com/foru...r=asc&start=100

At the same time that my Inbox has been piling up with messages from distraught One World Capital customers now a report has come out at Forex Factory that One World is revoking a whole series of rollover interest payments on GBP/JPY trades as well:
http://www.forexfactory.com/showthr...700#post1576700

It came to my attention that 1World has resorted to dirty tactics in withholding profits/money from clients.

Sometime ago, 1World gave $40 or so per day in Swaps for LONG GBPJPY. Traders who made money on this have their profits and money withheld (indefinitely?). I also noticed about 6 weeks ago that swap rate for GBPCHF was zero for both long and short. This was already reported at StrategyBuilderFX forum. Was these swap rate an error or a deliberate Trap? After reading the horror stories, I suspect its a trap meant to screw traders.

How does this become a dirty ploy?

Assume you traded GBPJPY, made money in the process with 1World. Later they come to you saying, "Hey Mr Trader, you made money from a wrong swap rates and we are disqualifying them all". This includes the swaps you collected as well as the PIPS you made and to include ALL OTHER TRADES made after these trades; if these GBPJPY trades were not made, you wont have money to make further trades.". Remember, GBPJPY was soaring in June/July and these traders made money from it by going Long GBPJPY..

There are two possibilities being played here:
1. 1World did not hedge your trades with an upper tier broker (1World traded vs you); you made money and they now rescind those trades.
2. 1World hedged your trades with an upper tier broker. However, 1world now claims YOUR profits.
You dont earn swaps. you dont earn Pips. End of Story.
The trap is for traders to make positions on those pairs; if you did and after further trading (even with other pairs) made money, they will go to your account and "cancel" your profits claiming, these could not take place so there is no profit made.

Meanwhile, in Switzerland…

Tradex Swiss Ag is still at war with itself apparently. The SFBC is fighting with the Tradex office in Boston over who has the right to talk to the customers of Tradex Swiss AG. Meanwhile the customers, who just want their money back, have no choice but to watch this farce from the sidelines. I have posted the two dueling press releases below. UN-BELIEVALBLE:

[b]From: Craig Karlis
Service address: 100 Franklin Street
Boston
Massachusetts
02110

To: All clients of Tradex Swiss AG

Date: 29 August 2007

Dear Clients

Re: "Hostile take-over" of Tradex Swiss AG (Boston office)

As most of you may be aware by now, Tradex Swiss AG is currently being investigated by the Swiss Federal Banking Commission (SFBC). This is not a criminal investigation but was ordered to determine whether Tradex Swiss AG needs a banking license in Switzerland to operate their business and structured products (please see the attached documents from the investigating trustees from Switzerland).

As a precautionary measure, your funds in the Bank of America account of Tradex were frozen on 3 July 2007, by the Swiss authorities in an effort to protect your interests. If protecting your money constitutes a "hostile take-over" as described in the e-mail from the Swiss Management, headed by Mr Nic M Jansen van Rensburg before the Swiss authorities took control of the company, then we are guilty. Since the "freeze" of your money the former management of the Boston office has initiated a suit in a Massachusetts court and obtained an injunction to protect your money - resulting in an injunction that prevents your funds being moved to Switzerland, as well as preventing Bank of America from dispensing any funds without the knowledge of all the parties involved. All legal expenses are solely financed by the previous management of the Boston office while the management in Switzerland has not paid its employees or other operating expenses (infra-structure) of the Boston office since June.

There was no "hostile take-over" by anyone in Boston and there are absolutely no direct or indirect relationship between Tradex Swiss AG and Boston Trading and Research LLC. The Swiss trustees were the ones who originally froze the account. I and the rest of the Boston management took the actions in court solely because they refused to inform any one in Boston as to the status of the accounts, and in fact would not communicate with us in any way. We have taken steps at our expense, to protect your interests and resolve your inconvenience, by getting your funds released and wired to you without delay.

To satisfy yourself about the true facts of the situation, you may consider obtaining concrete evidence/proof of the following from the Swiss Management:
• their efforts since 5 July 2007 to secure and get your money released,
• their response to your withdrawal request;
• the identity of their traders participating in their "capital guaranteed program";
• the opinion of the Swiss Federal Banking Commissions and other regulatory bodies about any guarantee of client funds, especially if it pertains to spot forex transactions (part of why the investigation was sanctioned);
• payroll details for the Boston office employees for July and August;

From myself and the former management of the Boston office of Tradex we can assure you of one thing only: We are doing everything within our power and the law to secure your funds in Bank of America and make sure it gets wired directly to you in terms of the Anti-money laundering regulations as soon as unfortunate matter is resolved. We have the "disadvantage" that we all live in Boston and have to make a living here.

From the attached documents it is clear that the Swiss trustees, appointed by the SFBC, are currently in control of Tradex Swiss AG for the duration of their investigation. If you have any queries feel free to contact any of the Swiss trustees at http://www.lawyerlutz.ch/english/kontakt/index.html or call them at Tel +41 44 560 8080 or Fax +41 44 560 8090 or e-mail to Peter Lutz [color=#0000ff][email protected][/color] ; Romeo Da Rugna [color=#0000ff][email protected][/color] ; Michael Bopp [color=#0000ff][email protected][/color] .

Please accept our most sincere apology for the inconvenience cau sed by the continued transgressions of the SFBC prescriptions by the Swiss Management. In our opinion the best course of action would be to let the legal process, set in motion by myself and the Boston management, continue uninterrupted. I undertake to keep you up to date of any new developments or progress concerning our legal process against the Bank of America and Tradex Swiss AG.
Yours Sincerely
Craig Karlis

The SFBC responded in kind:

Memorandum

Mandate: SFBC / Tradex and Swiss Garant
Subject: Further information to clients of Tradex Swiss AG
to: Clients of Tradex Swiss AG / file
from: Dr Peter Lutz and Romeo Da Rugna
Date: 3 September 2007

Dear Madam, dear Sir,
we have informed earlier that the Swiss Federal Banking Commission (SFBC) has opened an investigation on Tradex Swiss AG ("Tradex"). The purpose of such investigation is to verify, whether the company has been conducting financial activities without the necessary homecountry licence. The SFBC terminated the signatory power of the former signatories of Tradex and appointed the undersigned Dr Peter Lutz and Romeo Da Rugna to carry out the investigation on behalf of the SFBC. The SFBC granted Dr Peter Lutz and Romeo Da Rugna the exclusive authority, with sole signatory power, to represent and act on behalf of Tradex.

Further to our former information we can give you the following update about the pending investigation: We are at the moment not in a position to complete our investigation since part of the management of Tradex refuses to cooperate with the undersigned and do not deliver requested information and documents in a complete and timely manner.

A part of the management of Tradex even filed a complaint against Tradex in Boston USA. Tradex therefore had to employ US counsel in order to defend this complaint which is seriously obstructing and delaying the pending investigation.

Without the complete information and documentation about all assets and liabilities of Tradex, we are not able to determine which clients and/or creditors have legitimate claims towards Tradex. Therefore, lacking this information and documentation, we can not find out, and we consequently can not exclude, whether there is any risk of preferential treatment of
creditors if now payments are made to individual clients and/or creditors.

Until we do not have a complete overview on all of Tradex' assets and liabilities, we are therefore not in a position to make any transfer to clients and/or creditors of Tradex.

We finally would like to inform that none of the messages which have been sent since 3 July 2007 by the management of Tradex have been authorised by the undersigned. Such messages and information therefore do not reflect the opinion of the undersigned. As soon as the investigation will be completed, you will receive further information.

Yours sincerely
DR PETER LUTZ AND ROMEO DA RUGNA
Investigators appointed by the Swiss Federal Banking Commission

If it is any consolation to the traders stuck in these two firms both the NFA and SFBC are making big changes to try and keep these kinds of things from happening again (NFA by raising capital requirements and SFBC by regulating forex in CHF.) As for everyone else, please conduct your due diligence and avoid poorly capitalized and/or unregulated firms for this is what can happen if you don’t.
  • #375
  • Sep 6, 2007 3:07pm Sep 6, 2007 3:07pm
In July I put out an alert to the FX Community about Dead Pool Member Nations Investments, LLC. Well, shortly there after the NFA went in and closed them down. Now it appears the CFTC has stepped in to collect their pound of flesh. Nations was hauled into court by the scruff of their neck by the Feds and a court receiver has now taken over the defunct firm. Have customers lost money? I'll keep everyone informed.
http://www.cftc.gov/newsroom/enforce...pr5380-07.html

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission Files Action Against Futures Commission Merchant Nations Investments, LLC, for Failure to Maintain the Minimum Amount of Net Capital Required by Federal Law

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced today the filing of a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Nations Investments, LLC (Nations) of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a futures commission merchant (FCM) registered with the CFTC.

The complaint alleges violations of the minimum net capital requirements of the Commodity Exchange Act and Commission regulations. More specifically, according to the CFTC complaint, as of July 21, 2007, and perhaps earlier, Nations’ net capitalization was below the adjusted net capital required by the Act and a Commission regulation. As of July 20, 2007, the complaint charges, Nations’ adjusted net capitalization remained below the required adjusted net capital with Nations’ total liabilities equaling $5 million while its assets were less than $2 million.

On July 30, 2007, the Honorable Marcia G. Cooke, U.S. District Court Judge, issued a restraining order freezing the assets of Nations and prohibiting the defendant from destroying documents or denying CFTC staff access to books and records. The Court also froze the assets of relief defendants Sulaiman “Sal” Husain, a Director, Chief Financial Officer, and principal of Nations, and Sammy Joe Goldman, an owner and former principal of Nations. Husain and Goldman allegedly contributed to the undercapitalization—which ultimately rose to approximately $4.5 million—by withdrawing a total of $1 million from Nations’ accounts.

On August 7, 2007, the court approved the appointing a receiver to marshal the assets of Nations. In the ongoing action, the CFTC seeks an order of permanent injunction against the defendant, monetary penalties, and other relief.
  • #376
  • Sep 7, 2007 11:28am Sep 7, 2007 11:28am
FX Street has put together a very comprehensive review of the NFA Capital Requirement Proposal providing a number of links to magazine articles, current net capital numbers and other tidbits. Worth a look here:

http://www.fxstreet.com/fundamental/analysis-reports/special-coverage/2007-08-30.html
  • #377
  • Sep 10, 2007 12:58am Sep 10, 2007 12:58am
does anyone know or have a link if a firm is under the req capital of $5M when they will be officially shut down by the NFA
  • #378
  • Sep 11, 2007 1:03am Sep 11, 2007 1:03am
Quoting PipJunkie
does anyone know or have a link if a firm is under the req capital of $5M when they will be officially shut down by the NFA
Sometime in 2008.
FXChant Singing the World of Forex
  • #379
  • Sep 11, 2007 10:35am Sep 11, 2007 10:35am
I came across this excellent post about the lack of regulation in Switzerland, as confirmed by Swiss Regulators themselves. Be very wary of doing business with a broker in Switzerland until the market gets regulated over there.

Originally Posted by minter
I requested info regarding a FX Brokerage firm in SWITZERLAND.

The first reply is from SBFC (Swiss Federal Banking Commission) and the second reply is from MLCA (Money Laundering Controlling Authority) .I personally do not feel the SWISS regulators are not as proactive as the US side .What about UK 's FSA ? I will try to find out .

Dear Sir ,

For the time being, financial intermediaries providing foreign exchange trading are not subject to licensing by the SFBC, provided that they exclusively deal in foreign exchange on the spot market. It is however intended to amend the law to the effect that foreign exchange trading becomes a privilege of authorised banks.

Foreign Exchange dealers fall under the scope of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA). As such, they may be subject - unless they are a member of a recognised self regulatory body - to direct supervision by the AML Control Authority (Anti-Money Laundering Control Authority AMLCA) at the Swiss Federal Finance Administration, Christoffelgasse 5, 3003 Berne, phone +41 31 323 39 94, fax +41 31 323 52 61, www.gwg.admin.ch/e/index.htm. You may check this authority concerning forex brokers in Switzerland.

We hope that we were able to help you further.

Yours sincerely


Secretariat of the
SWISS FEDERAL BANKING COMMISSION


sig. Christina Bürgi sig. Simone Flach
Communication&Media Communication&Media

Schwanengasse 12
P.O. Box
CH-3001 Berne
Phone +41 31 322 60 69
Fax +41 31 322 69 26
mailto:[email protected]
http://www.ebk.admin.ch




[color=#493007][email protected]CH-3003 Bern, FFA, AMLCA, bdu
By email



Sir ,
Our reference: 10-9/VER2007/wj

Bern, 31 August 2007

Re: List of regulated forex brokers in Switzerland
[/color]
Dear Sir,

We acknowledge receipt of your inquiry of 30 August 2007 and have to inform you that we cannot supply you with the requested list. Forex companies are not under prudential supervision. No security for deposited funds is therefore given and no supervision of the quality of the services provided takes place.

Yours faithfully,

Anti-Money Laundering Control Authority
Brigitte Dumont Judith Wyss
Adm. Assistant Adm. assistant
  • #380
  • Sep 17, 2007 4:46pm Sep 17, 2007 4:46pm
The CFTC has just released the latest Adjusted Net Capital Numbers.
http://www.cftc.gov/marketreports/fi...fcms/index.htm

Now that the NFA has officially raised the minimum capital requirement to $5 million (http://www.nfa.futures.org/news/news...ArticleID=1942) these numbers are more important than ever so pay close attention everyone.

Poorly Capitalized Firms
Advanced Markets ($1,042,000)
American National Trading Corp (Merged with PFG)
Bacera Corporation (Shutdown!)
Cal Financial Corporation (Shutdown!)
Direct Forex ($1,117,000)
Easy Forex ($4,731,000)
E FX Options ($3,342,000)
Forex Club ($3,715,000)
FiniFX (Not Accepting New Customers)
Forward Forex (Shutdown!)
FX Option1 Inc (Shutdown!)
GFS Futures & Forex ($3,259,000)
Hamilton Williams ($1,004,000)
MB Trading ($2,393,000)
Nations Investments (Shutdown!)
One World Capital ($1,078,000)
Performance Capital International (Vanished)
Royal Forex Trading (Merged with IKON)
SNC Investments ($1,130,000)
Solid Gold Financial ($1,955,000)
Spencer Financial (Shutdown!)
Trend Commodities (Shutdown!)
United Global Markets (Shutdown!)
Worldwide Clearing (Shutdown!)
Wall Street Derivatives ($1,220,000)

Unregulated Firms (Buyer Beware)
FXDD (?)
GCI (?)
WestCapFX (?)
ACM (?)
MIG (?)
DukasCopy (?)
GFX Group (Forex.CH) (?)
Crown Forex (?)
Krusty's Currency Trading (?)
Tradex Swiss AG (Shutdown!)
NorthFinance (?)

We have just about reached the time for choosing. The brokers in the Dead Pool have known about the NFA’s plans to increase capital requirements for some time now. And yet most have not made much of an effort to increase their reported adjusted net capital (with the exception of Money Garden who just raised the reported capital to $5 million. As a result they have been removed from the pool.)

That’s a major red flag in my book. As such I will continue my dispatches on the Dead Pool and warn traders to avoid these firms until they show they can meet the new capital requirement passed by the NFA and awaiting approval by the CFTC.

One final note, I have included Swiss brokers in the “Unregulated Firms Buyer Beware” list. I have two words for anyone considering opening an account with an unregulated Swiss broker “Tradex Swiss.” Don’t make the same mistake the poor traders at Tradex Swiss AG made and trade with an unlicensed broker that is unaccountable to anyone because should the firm get into trouble NO ONE is going to help you get your money back.
1 trader viewing now