New Leverage rule for FX COMING? | Page 8 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

High leverage vs Low leverage 74 replies

High Leverage vs Low Leverage 21 replies

High Leverage vs Low Leverage 20 replies

Leverage is coming down 11 replies

Proposed New Leverage Legislation 10 replies

Attachments: New Leverage rule for FX COMING?
Exit Attachments

New Leverage rule for FX COMING?

  • #141
  • Jan 22, 2010 8:56am Jan 22, 2010 8:56am
Quoting Forexpreneur
If you are worried about protection you should check out dbFX which is Deutsche Bank. According to their website individual accounts are protected to over 1 Billion Euros. PER DEPSOITER! This is backed up by the German Governments' equivelent to the FDIC. There is nothing close to that kind of protection in the US.

I do not work for dbFX, nor does any family member or friend. I do not receive any kind of kickback, pay back, or any other benefit from them and am not associated with them. Just want to be clear.

This is all in good, but I have a friend (US resident) that traded with a global firm from their UK branch and the way they set up their platform gave them a license to steal.

He realized there would be little if anything he could do about it except to recover what he could because he is in the US not the UK. So it's not always about where your money is stored necessarily.

If possible it's always better to trade from your own backyard than someone elses.

This was his response to help you better understand the situation:
"They were supposed to have connected the
bridge between MT4 and ECN. What they did was rebuild the backend of the MT4
platform, and connected it to their regular platform. So the MT4 platform was just
a GUI or Graphical User Interface. The real trades were supposed to be executed on the
regular platform and monitored with a "read only" account. This gave them license to
steal, because basically they could deny any trade on your platform, and say that
it was not executed in the Interbank system. That is exactly what happened to me, and
that is why I withdrew my funds."
  • #142
  • Jan 22, 2010 12:28pm Jan 22, 2010 12:28pm
Hey everyone,

You can see all the comments that other traders are making to the CFTC by going here:

http://www.cftc.gov/lawandregulation...10/10-001.html

Contact [email protected] today and tell the government how you feel about 10:1 leverage!
  • #143
  • Jan 22, 2010 12:34pm Jan 22, 2010 12:34pm
Quoting Leonlorenzo
R

Hell, I think access to the markets is a good thing for me. But I haven't convinced myself that this can be done profitably yet from a retail stance. Maybe I do need protecting? Or not.
What I found to be the biggest hurdle, and it's probably true for many, is that it's the psychological aspect of trading that prevents success. There are many profitable systems that can be learned, and if executed correctly would be profitable if the novice trader can withstand the psychological pitfalls. Many novice traders can't deal with drawdown or freak out when they lose a couple trades in a row, something professional traders have overcome. I've seen it personally, and experienced it early. In fact, despite the fact that I have a system that gives me consistent profit, I still have those moments of irrational fear. Just my two cents.

I've emailed a couple overseas FOREX brokers in the UK, they seem eager to take up the slack if this proposal passes.
  • #144
  • Jan 22, 2010 1:22pm Jan 22, 2010 1:22pm
Quoting Leonlorenzo
But I haven't convinced myself that this can be done profitably yet from a retail stance. Maybe I do need protecting? Or not.
Leon,

Fair enough.

But....for those of us who have decided that we do not need anyone protecting us (except at our borders or against criminal activity), telling us how we may or may not spend or risk our money, telling us how to live our lives, or taking away some of our liberties......I suggest they write a letter of protest.
  • #145
  • Jan 22, 2010 1:35pm Jan 22, 2010 1:35pm
I just sent my email response
  • #146
  • Jan 22, 2010 6:10pm Jan 22, 2010 6:10pm
Quoting Brunite
Leon,

Fair enough.

But....for those of us who have decided that we do not need anyone protecting us (except at our borders or against criminal activity), telling us how we may or may not spend or risk our money, telling us how to live our lives, or taking away some of our liberties......I suggest they write a letter of protest.
You may not be deemed intelligent enough to make rational decisions regarding whats in your best interest. Chances are, if your trading retail, you have very little money and have very little education because you weren't intelligent enough to do well in school. Shouldn't those people in power, those who have something in between their ears, try to look after you? They love you, their fellow countryman, who for whatever reason (genetic or social) are unable to look after yourself. They feel an obligation and a sense of responsibility to ensure your welfare.

Living the adventure in my head.
  • #147
  • Jan 22, 2010 6:15pm Jan 22, 2010 6:15pm
Quoting Leonlorenzo
You may not be deemed intelligent enough to make rational decisions regarding whats in your best interest. Chances are, if your trading retail, you have very little money and have very little education because you weren't intelligent enough to do well in school. Shouldn't those people in power, those who have something in between their ears, try to look after you? They love you, their fellow countryman, who for whatever reason (genetic or social) are unable to look after yourself. They feel an obligation and a sense of responsibility to ensure your...

Yeah and feeding and housing and paying for there 5+ children each, which have children aged 14 these same not intelligent people is working so well for the world.

If you look after the stupid, the stupid will breed and before you know it the entire world only has stupid people, why try to do better.

Watch Idiocracy 200years in the future the way things are going very plausible.


And why should someone who's intelligent but lacks funds for many reasons be restricted by the same rules ??
Nothing to it, but to do it!!! Stick to the plan FOOL!!!!
  • #148
  • Jan 22, 2010 6:37pm Jan 22, 2010 6:37pm
what are the realistic chances of the 10:1 leverage rule actually passing. is this public comment period just a ruse and they plan to pass it anyway or will the cftc truly reconsider this decision. thoughts anyone?
  • #149
  • Jan 22, 2010 6:41pm Jan 22, 2010 6:41pm
Quoting hamlet
what are the realistic chances of the 10:1 leverage rule actually passing. is this public comment period just a ruse and they plan to pass it anyway or will the cftc truly reconsider this decision. thoughts anyone?

They passed the No Hedging rules the no STop Loss Rule ( Maybe confused on that ), the FIFO First in First out rule ( confused as to this being true or not ) and forced everyone to trade from a none US Broker already.

So odds are it'll happen sadly.

Then they'll start working on US Citizens can't have Offshore trading accounts, just like they do with Gambling sites no doubt.
Nothing to it, but to do it!!! Stick to the plan FOOL!!!!
  • #150
  • Jan 22, 2010 7:17pm Jan 22, 2010 7:17pm
Hey, it's nice to know somebody's looking out for "our" protection. Not!
  • #151
  • Jan 22, 2010 7:20pm Jan 22, 2010 7:20pm
Quoting ecTrade
Hey, it's nice to know somebody's looking out for "our" protection. Not!

They don't give you free State Health Care also, because they really care about there people LOL

You'll be Dialing 911 soon and they'll be a $200 call out charge!
Nothing to it, but to do it!!! Stick to the plan FOOL!!!!
  • #152
  • Jan 22, 2010 7:22pm Jan 22, 2010 7:22pm
How about google?? Does anybody know anything about this??
Google was already hosting a spy system that provided the Chinese government, and any other government with user data. They merely had to request that data through a warrant. That internal spy system became the weak spot in Google’s security technology.
But why would the Chinese government try to hack into a system that was already providing it with user data?!
Clearly, the Chinese government was looking at collecting data on all other Google users, not just human rights activists. China was trying to spy on us all! And Google’s internal spy system compromised all its users.
This reveals that Google collects information about all of its users all of the time and in a format that enables it to easily had it over to any government agency that orders a search warrant. This is an embarrasing revelation.
What’s worse is that Google is using the pretext of human rights to hit back at China, when it was a vulnerability in its internal spying system that potentially compromised all Google users, not just human rights activists.
  • #153
  • Jan 22, 2010 7:27pm Jan 22, 2010 7:27pm
Quoting nanningbob
How about google?? Does anybody know anything about this??
Google was already hosting a spy system that provided the Chinese government, and any other government with user data. They merely had to request that data through a warrant. That internal spy system became the weak spot in Google’s security technology.
But why would the Chinese government try to hack into a system that was already providing it with user data?!
Clearly, the Chinese government was looking at collecting data on all other Google users, not just human rights activists. China...

ALL internet activity which is just mind blowing is monitored and certain useages / use of key words gets you red flagged and then a real person reads through your logs to see if your a risk / upto illegal stuff or not.

I know 1 of the people that worked for a company used to review the red flags all day long.

Same as ALL Phone conversations computers scan all of them for certain key words and record all.

SCAREY World we live in.


I pity the person which has to trace though all my internet useage
Nothing to it, but to do it!!! Stick to the plan FOOL!!!!
  • #154
  • Jan 22, 2010 7:46pm Jan 22, 2010 7:46pm
Quoting Turveyd
They passed the No Hedging rules the no STop Loss Rule ( Maybe confused on that ), the FIFO First in First out rule ( confused as to this being true or not ) and forced everyone to trade from a none US Broker already.

So odds are it'll happen sadly.

Then they'll start working on US Citizens can't have Offshore trading accounts, just like they do with Gambling sites no doubt.

hey turveyd...... just a friendly note..... can't speak for all dealers in the states as my experience is limited to ibfx.....

the fifo rule has no impact on my orders in any way and stoplosses are still sent with all orders ..... you wouldn't even know those rules were in effect......

hedging is allowed but you must briefly unhedge during the swap calculation time..... you can then reenter..... if you don't, ibfx will balance out the orders ......

//----

hope that the 10:1 fails, but if it does not i'll just cowboyup and send in the additional required deposit.......

the sad part is that wealth is by no means a true measure of skill..... many small but skilled traders might not have the extra funds.... they will suffer.....h
to trade and code, keep both simple... no call to impress....h
  • #155
  • Jan 22, 2010 9:58pm Jan 22, 2010 9:58pm
Quoting Rabid
It doesn't apply to accounts, it applies to brokers. US brokers are forbidden from offering leverage above 10:1. Any account with a US broker, regardless of who owns it.
Wrong, read the proposal again. The proposal specifically states that institutional accounts are void of the 10:1 leverage and will remain at 100:1 leverage. This is to squeeze out the common people. Someone got a nice "donation" to try to get this one through.
  • #156
  • Jan 22, 2010 9:59pm Jan 22, 2010 9:59pm
Quoting Turveyd
They passed the No Hedging rules the no STop Loss Rule ( Maybe confused on that ), the FIFO First in First out rule ( confused as to this being true or not ) and forced everyone to trade from a none US Broker already.

So odds are it'll happen sadly.

Then they'll start working on US Citizens can't have Offshore trading accounts, just like they do with Gambling sites no doubt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui_bono

Cui bono ("To whose benefit?", literally "as a benefit to whom?", is a latin adage that is used either to suggest a hidden motive or to indicate that the party responsible for something may not be who it appears at first to be.

Commonly the phrase is used to suggest that the person or people guilty of committing a crime may be found among those who have something to gain, chiefly with an eye toward financial gain


These agencies that claim that they are protecting the consumers, their actions are cloaked in the pretense that they are looking out for the poor inexpirenced noobie that gets taken advantage of by the big bad broker.

The real effect of their actions is only to help the big boys make more money plain and simple.

Why would any government agency choke and industry with over-regulation unless there is another party which would benefit by that action?

Makes me wonder who the people in charge of pushing this though have worked for before or will work for in the future as most of these agency posts are filled by heads of the industries that they are tasked to regulate.
  • #157
  • Jan 22, 2010 10:56pm Jan 22, 2010 10:56pm
Quoting Sinkhole
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui_bono

Cui bono ("To whose benefit?", literally "as a benefit to whom?", is a latin adage that is used either to suggest a hidden motive or to indicate that the party responsible for something may not be who it appears at first to be.

Commonly the phrase is used to suggest that the person or people guilty of committing a crime may be found among those who have something to gain, chiefly with an eye toward financial gain


These agencies that claim that they are protecting the...
Agreed. These self righteous regulating morons, are robbers in my eyes. Of course I don't know their exact motives verified by concrete evidence. Common sense is a valuable skill, though. And to put it bluntly... this S#!T don't smell right.
  • #158
  • Jan 23, 2010 9:15am Jan 23, 2010 9:15am
Quoting Forexpreneur
Wrong, read the proposal again. The proposal specifically states that institutional accounts are void of the 10:1 leverage and will remain at 100:1 leverage. This is to squeeze out the common people. Someone got a nice "donation" to try to get this one through.
I just did, institutional accounts at retail forex brokers are not exempt.

If you have an account with an FCM or a RFED then that account will be subject to a 10:1 leverage limit. If you go thru a non-retail broker (not sure what qualifies for that) or have enough money to qualify as an eligible participant (a legally defined party) then you can avoid the limit, but the limitation is not at the account level. The limitation is at the retail broker level, all retail broker accounts, regardless of owner, seem affected by this.

The only way around it in the US is to qualify as an eligible participant and register as such with the CFTC.
  • #159
  • Jan 23, 2010 11:36am Jan 23, 2010 11:36am
the cftc site says we have until march 22 to make a statement about the 10 to 1 leverage rule. then they will consider and decide. so i think the decision will be made in late march or early april. thoughts?
  • #160
  • Jan 23, 2010 12:42pm Jan 23, 2010 12:42pm
Quoting hayseed
hey turveyd...... just a friendly note..... can't speak for all dealers in the states as my experience is limited to ibfx.....

the fifo rule has no impact on my orders in any way and stoplosses are still sent with all orders ..... you wouldn't even know those rules were in effect......

hedging is allowed but you must briefly unhedge during the swap calculation time..... you can then reenter..... if you don't, ibfx will balance out the orders ......

//----

hope that the 10:1 fails, but if it does not i'll just cowboyup and send in the additional...
Thanks hayseed, UK account so not seen thee effect, find it hard to believe they'd make life that hard for traders.


Sadly its all the people that can't stump up all the extra cash and also for the ones that can still trade the potentially slower lower volume market conditions, which don't suite scalping at all.

If these Mini orders even really go to a Market and the brokers don't just take our losses completely ( and quickly push out the profitable people )
Nothing to it, but to do it!!! Stick to the plan FOOL!!!!
0 traders viewing now