A lot of discussion recently seems to paint a very pessimistic picture for those who may be trying to develop a, dare I say it, career in retail trading, or trying to establish a revenue stream from which to live.
However, if this were the case I suppose we should shut up shop now. Unless of course we are dealing in micro accounts for the rest of our lives and therefore posing a threat to no broker in particular. I wonder what the future holds? Is it the case that if/when you start to make decent money in this game you have to move from...Ignored
But you need to be realistic as to what you are up against.
One of your biggest problems is going to be connected 24/5 with no ISP downtime.
If you want to play like the big boys then it comes at a significant cost. My trading floor spends mega bucks on fibre optic links with redundant backup ones just incase one link goes down.
There is obviously a big difference being able to trade 0.01 and 5.00 lots using 100:1 leverage. Using 500:1 is fine if you fully understand that profits are multiplied but so are the potential loses.
You will always get people complaining about brokers and price spikes etc. These really do occur in the markets. Its obviously very annoying when it happens to a retail trader who suddenly loses all his/her account and then goes on a broker witch hunt. When what they should have done is used the correct lotsize/leverage for their account size. This is one area where I think the US proposals are correct because they are sick and tired of all the complaints from retail traders with blown accounts using 500:1 leverage.
Its nice using high leverage but try doing the same trades using 100:1 or 50:1 and see if you are just as profitable overall long term. If you are not then that should answer all your questions.
And you wouldnt want to be in my shoes stuck with just 1:1 or 10:1 max leverage allowed. Its set low for risk control which with all due respect most people here have no clue about.