Americans : Whatcha Gonna Do About No More Mini Accounts? | Page 2 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Micro, Mini and Standard Accounts? 17 replies

Mini-accounts with trailing stop 15 replies

Whatcha Read Lately? 4 replies

Can I trade with options using ibfx mini accounts? 6 replies

CoesFX - MT4 - Mini Accounts 31 replies

Americans : Whatcha Gonna Do About No More Mini Accounts?

  • #21
  • Jul 12, 2009 4:22pm Jul 12, 2009 4:22pm
Quoting Skippy
Mary...it's not for me, it's for the newbies and beginners-a little info for them to ponder.

Does not apply to me in the slightest,so therefore it's a waste of my time.
As my time is worth thousands of dollars an hour,why is it so hard to understand?

I've been trading FX live and profiting very nicely for almost 6 years now. Excepting holidays, anywhere from 10 to 16 hours a day with multiple 100k lots.

Did you profit 740 pips in four days this week?

Are you going to write me a check to spend half an hour looking up useless,to me, info?...
What the heck are you on about ??
May be you should let me have a try at the stuff you're taking.

Even if I could write you a cheque, I don't see why in the world I should?

You where advocating high leverage as an advantage to newbies with small accounts and the bad NFA is taking that away from them.
I was saying high leverage is dumb.

Because: High leverage + small account = small margin of error

Hence: newbie (making many errors) + high leverage + small account = Rich Broker

Anyways, you still managed to stray off topic and tell us what a big shot you are and too cool for school.

Sorry to hear that you feel you're wasting your time in your thread.
If its any consolation to you, you're not the only one who feels that way.

In the meantime I'll watch out who's roaming this forum, and take things with a pinch of salt.
Be like a post stamp! Stick to it until you get there!
  • #22
  • Jul 13, 2009 10:18am Jul 13, 2009 10:18am
Quoting knightsy
Are you sure that capitalism works?
yeah, but we've never seen it and we probably wont. what we have here in america is NOT capitalism. not even close. the second you start controlling or regulating the markets, it isn't capitalism, and since we've always had rules and regulations, we've never had capitalism.

the thing that people dont realize about capitalism is that it's not always going to be pleasant. there will be hard times. people will suffer. but the market will correct itself. after a few hundred years of these types of cycles the market will obtain an almost equilibrium. but this is how it works. in order to get something good, you have to work for it; there has to be pain. otherwise, whats the point?
  • #23
  • Jul 13, 2009 10:53am Jul 13, 2009 10:53am
Quoting blacksun1
we've never had capitalism.
Show me one significant period in history when truly free markets, without manipulation by regulation or corruption, have even existed.
"If The Fool persists in his Folly he will become wise." - William Blake
  • #24
  • Jul 13, 2009 12:24pm Jul 13, 2009 12:24pm
Quoting The Fool
Show me one significant period in history when truly free markets, without manipulation by regulation or corruption, have even existed.

my quote that you used just said we didn't. good job arguing with the wind dude.
  • #25
  • Jul 13, 2009 12:34pm Jul 13, 2009 12:34pm
Quoting blacksun1
my quote that you used just said we didn't. good job arguing with the wind dude.
Well, I'd take the liberty to say that he didn't mean to argue with you.

However I suspect that he meant that how can one know if it works when it never existed?

About capitalism, I quite agree with you, we'll probably never see it happening in its ideal within our lifetime.

Not sure if it would bring about the best possible of all worlds about even in a few hundred years. Circumstances change, people not so much.

As for me I think Capitalism is rather like Communism: a nice idea in it idealised form.
Be like a post stamp! Stick to it until you get there!
  • #26
  • Jul 13, 2009 12:41pm Jul 13, 2009 12:41pm
There is no onus on me for anything...why do I owe anyone any of my precious time??
15 minutes a week is all this place gets from me.
I get about 50 trading emails a day, it was somewhere in there.Am I gonna waste time trying to find it?


Mary seems to be yet another non trading wannabe giving out advice.
She can't comprehend my post,yet she accuses me of being on drugs...
go figure that one out.

200:1 is stupid? I use it often,it increases my ROI.
Minis are fine,I learnt on them.

Oh,and mary..instead of getting pissy and spending so much time going after me-why don't you learn how to trade,or make a trades for that matter???

Did you get 157 pips on GBP and 103 on CAD the last 8 hours?
Did you catch anything of the great run the S&P 500 emini had this morning?

Didn't think so.
The harder I work,the luckier I get.
  • #27
  • Jul 13, 2009 12:48pm Jul 13, 2009 12:48pm
Quoting blacksun1
my quote that you used just said we didn't. good job arguing with the wind dude.
Who's arguing,...dude? I merely asked for an example.
"If The Fool persists in his Folly he will become wise." - William Blake
  • #28
  • Jul 13, 2009 12:50pm Jul 13, 2009 12:50pm
Quoting Skippy
There is no onus on me for anything...why do I owe anyone any of my precious time??
15 minutes a week is all this place gets from me.
I get about 50 trading emails a day, it was somewhere in there.Am I gonna waste time trying to find it?


Mary seems to be yet another non trading wannabe giving out advice.
She can't comprehend my post,yet she accuses me of being on drugs...
go figure that one out.

200:1 is stupid? I use it often,it increases my ROI.
Minis are fine,I learnt on them.

Oh,and mary..instead of getting pissy and spending so much...

the people most likely to brag are mostly people with the least to brag about

I'm glad that you like acting like a 13 year old troll. makes me feel old. stop begging for respect and start acting your age.
  • #29
  • Edited 12:54pm Jul 13, 2009 12:50pm | Edited 12:54pm
sorry this was a duplicate post.
  • #30
  • Jul 13, 2009 1:11pm Jul 13, 2009 1:11pm
Quoting Skippy
There is no onus on me for anything...why do I owe anyone any of my precious time??
15 minutes a week is all this place gets from me.
I get about 50 trading emails a day, it was somewhere in there.Am I gonna waste time trying to find it?


Mary seems to be yet another non trading wannabe giving out advice.
She can't comprehend my post,yet she accuses me of being on drugs...
go figure that one out.

200:1 is stupid? I use it often,it increases my ROI.
Minis are fine,I learnt on them.

Oh,and mary..instead of getting pissy and spending so much...


...stop going after me...lol...do you know who I am, I make a lot of pips and get a lot of e-mails I am very important...lol...I have made this and and you not...lol

....awww, look at him now... no need to blow your top kiddo


Oh btw: High leverage for newbies with small accounts is still dumb, much like someones posts here
Be like a post stamp! Stick to it until you get there!
  • #31
  • Jul 13, 2009 4:57pm Jul 13, 2009 4:57pm
Quoting Mary Pippins
Skippy,

Trading with more than 1:100 is plain stupid anyways, especially for newbies.

No better way for a newbie to burn money and make brokers rich by following the carrot of high leverage and the promise to make a million of a $1000 in no time.
Like somebody already said: That question doesn't make sense.

And if the whole "crap" (as you said) doesnt apply to you why bother?

It seems like you realised you didn't really think through the point you wanted to make and now some people confront you with arguments that unravel your standpoint...
Just my $.02, just coming across this thread, I have to disagree. I do see your point, and I've had this discussion with other traders that I know personally, but just because people are trading money while being uneducated does not mean that any regulatory/government committee should jump in and tell people how they can and cannot spend their own money. I personally started on a 400:1 account after demo trading for a while... The reason being that I didn't have enough money to deposit to get started. Here I am 4 months later, and I can now trade 100:1 with no problems because I was forced to take safe (if you can call them that) trades to slowly build up my account. Without 400:1 as a starting point to me, I wouldn't have worked my way up to where I am. Now I understand that this is an unlikely situation, but the fact is that if the NFA decided that too many people were losing their money because they don't know what the hell they're doing and changed the leverage rules 6 months ago, I might not be trading now. I think the simple fact is that if someone is trading without understanding it, they're going to lose their money either way, whether it be 100:1 or 400:1, the only difference is that on 100:1, they're going to lose a lot more before they hit that margin call. I think that if I work hard at my day job and decide I want to try trading 400:1 without any experience/research/understanding, that would be my own fault, not the broker's, and not the NFA's. I think that sums up my point. I'll take the heat now.
  • #32
  • Jul 14, 2009 1:05am Jul 14, 2009 1:05am
Quoting lucashammer
Just my $.02, just coming across this thread, I have to disagree. I do see your point, and I've had this discussion with other traders that I know personally, but just because people are trading money while being uneducated does not mean that any regulatory/government committee should jump in and tell people how they can and cannot spend their own money. I personally started on a 400:1 account after demo trading for a while... The reason being that I didn't have enough money to deposit to get started. Here I am 4 months later, and I can now trade...

I think part of the difficulty i.e. the reason why this subject is so hotly debated is the question of where to draw the line in terms of responsibilty or from what point do practices become "unfair"?

I see what you're saying and actually very much agree that everyone is responsible for their own actions. However, I think that should include everyone, also the brokers.
Whilst I'm glad that the high leverage actually helped you in a way to form good habits and made it possible to stay in the game, you might agree that you're probably rather the exception than the rule.

If somebody asked you how to go on about starting trading would you advice them to first of all gear up the leverage to 400:1?
You probably wouldn't, would you? At least not as the very first piece of advice and without clearly pointing the downsides out.
Not sure if brokers do that, well, or lets say they do keep the small print small.

People will still lose at 100:1 but at least they had more of a fighting chance since they are more likely to have traded more i.e. not lost their money as fast.
However, this is anyways my opinion on this.
Be like a post stamp! Stick to it until you get there!
  • #33
  • Jul 14, 2009 1:32am Jul 14, 2009 1:32am
wether or not someone wants to trade with 400:1 or 100:1 doesn't matter to me. my broker only allows 100:1 anyways. it's what they're trying to do. next thing you know, they'll ban any and all auotmated strategies or whatever else they can think of banning. they'll may make it as it once was. only people with 100k in their accounts and experience can trade in the US with bank credit. then what will ya do?! me, I already had a non-usa account as it was. never trading with a USA broker anymore. if they change it outside the USA like here, I'll quit forex and go learn comodities asap like i am supposed after i have this down enough.
  • #34
  • Jul 14, 2009 10:21am Jul 14, 2009 10:21am
Quoting Mary Pippins
I think part of the difficulty i.e. the reason why this subject is so hotly debated is the question of where to draw the line in terms of responsibilty or from what point do practices become "unfair"?

I see what you're saying and actually very much agree that everyone is responsible for their own actions. However, I think that should include everyone, also the brokers.
Whilst I'm glad that the high leverage actually helped you in a way to form good habits and made it possible to stay in the game, you might agree that you're probably rather the...

I would definitely agree that I'm the exception and not the rule. However, I would take it a step farther to say that all successful traders are the exceptions, not the rule. Regardless of who gives the numbers, I think everyone can agree that the vast majority of traders fail. I do think that those that fail are fully responsible for their own losses. And as for my broker, they did mention (in very small print) that higher leverage increased losses as well as gains. I honestly didn't fully understand it when I was about to start so I researched the crap out of it. If anything, I think it's more of the promoters/system sellers who are to blame with their "Make 100K/month" advertisements instead of the brokers. But I would say that education is the biggest problem with a lot of Forex traders, so I would say that the NFA would be better off requiring anyone who opened up any account at any leverage to watch an instructional video highlighting all of the downfalls of high leverage vs. taking away their option to choose. Well, that's it for now or else I'm sure I'm going to start repeating myself.
  • #35
  • Jul 14, 2009 4:11pm Jul 14, 2009 4:11pm
Quoting lucashammer
I would definitely agree that I'm the exception and not the rule. However, I would take it a step farther to say that all successful traders are the exceptions, not the rule. Regardless of who gives the numbers, I think everyone can agree that the vast majority of traders fail. I do think that those that fail are fully responsible for their own losses. And as for my broker, they did mention (in very small print) that higher leverage increased losses as well as gains. I honestly didn't fully understand it when I was about to start so I researched...
You know what?
I totally agree that education is the main point in all this and I like your idea actually much better than just taking the option of high leverage away.
Be like a post stamp! Stick to it until you get there!
  • #36
  • Jul 14, 2009 4:28pm Jul 14, 2009 4:28pm
Quoting Mary Pippins
You know what?
I totally agree that education is the main point in all this and I like your idea actually much better than just taking the option of high leverage away.
Thanks. And I think it goes beyond just the leverage, to the hedging, etc. The NFA always blame it on "Traders don't know" or "Traders don't understand". I would say the obvious solution is to help traders know and understand. Anyways, glad we agree on this one.
  • #37
  • Jul 21, 2009 10:40am Jul 21, 2009 10:40am
To all those who seem to think NFA rules are somehow connected to the "new crazy communist government" that's trying to take away your freedoms of the america you used to love! Get a grip, stop being idiots.

NFA is self-governing. It was all their ideas. They give their member brokers what they want and ask for. They work for the brokers , not for us.

This is true capitalism boys. The brokers have to right to squeeze every penny out of us. You are supposed to applauding how the brokers are able to live their american dream, that you too believe you will have.

no more hedging.....because we were making money
no more stop loss.....because we were making money
no more modifying open orders......because we were making money
no more individual open orders.....because we were making money
first in/ first out execution........because we were making money

all this will cause us to close our positions more often, and cause us to pay spreads more often.

it is a facade these brokers put on their websites, pretending to "help" us achieve success...but its the same as a casino giving perks.....

so stop blaming any "socialist" government tactics....brokers want to make more money....simple as that....they are capitalists.....they are taking away our trading freedoms because it benefits them.....got it now?
  • #38
  • Jul 21, 2009 12:23pm Jul 21, 2009 12:23pm
I don't think you quite understand the new rule changes and who they effect.

No more hedging: Most traders don't use hedging to begin with (as confirmed by brokers). Institutional traders don't use it all. It's a relatively new feature aimed explicitly at retail traders. Not all brokers offered it. Those who do are tripping over themselves to move their clientele overseas, why? Because their clients are making money hedging? Doubt it, more likely (actually, without a doubt) the opposite

No more stop-losses: What a stupid thought. Stop-losses aren't going anywhere, anyone who is telling you this is actively deceiving you (re: IBFX, other brokers using ridiculous language to get clients to move to the UK).

FIFO: Brings FX more in line with other markets. You do know FIFO is how most markets trade, right? If you bought 100 shares of X company at $20, and then 100 more at $20 later, you don't have two orders of 100 shares at $20. You have 200 shares at $20.
  • #39
  • Jul 21, 2009 1:35pm Jul 21, 2009 1:35pm
These rule changes only affect any trader that uses an american broker.

I am so glad i dont live in the good old USA. Lived in by muppets and run by muppets.

Before long, it will not be the major superpower or most prosperous nation, bring on China anyday.

USA, your days are numbered.
  • #40
  • Jul 21, 2009 1:47pm Jul 21, 2009 1:47pm
Quoting scooby-doo
These rule changes only affect any trader that uses an american broker.

I am so glad i dont live in the good old USA. Lived in by muppets and run by muppets.

Before long, it will not be the major superpower or most prosperous nation, bring on China anyday.

USA, your days are numbered.
They don't affect "any trader who uses an American broker". They affect some traders who use some American Brokers.

Many U.S. brokers' platforms are already FIFO compliant and have been for years.
0 traders viewing now