100:1 leverage will change.. speak out!! | Page 3 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

High Leverage Trading, Going For A 100 Million, 100% A Week 149 replies

High Leverage Trading, 100k To 100 Million, 100% A Week 23 replies

Speak Out Against Proposed CFTC Leverage Change to 10-1 for all US Brokers. 26 replies

Will premiums for fx options change because of leverage change 5 replies

Attachments: 100:1 leverage will change.. speak out!!
Exit Attachments

100:1 leverage will change.. speak out!!

  • #41
  • Feb 3, 2010 2:21pm Feb 3, 2010 2:21pm
Quoting Slack
I liked Reagan, but for completely different reason than most people because I believe his gov was corrupt. I think it helped to setup the bubble economy we now live in. But, look back at some old footage of Reagan; long before his political life, and it's clear to me he was put on this planet for one mission -- drive a stake into Communism. He truly hated it. Not many enter politics for a completely selfless reason.
The USSR's fate had already been sealed and it was only a matter of time. Reagan sped the process but at the cost of our long term fiscal health. The deficit was 900 Billion when he took office and it was over 3 TRILLION when he left. It took 200 years to get to 900 Billion and he tripled it in 8. You may not like 'tax and spend' but it's a hell of a lot better than 'borrow and spend'. The Vietnam War bankrupted this country and it was never dealt with, and now the roosters have come home to roost. Conservatives supported every policy that led to the financial collapse in 2008, now they're crying about the deficit when the only administration to lower the deficit was Clinton. Then again, these are the guys who are crying about same sex marriage when they're picking up guys in the next toilet stall.
  • #42
  • Feb 3, 2010 4:41pm Feb 3, 2010 4:41pm
  •  onu
  • | Joined Feb 2006 | Status: superior senior member | 746 Posts
Quoting Max Thrax
The USSR's fate had already been sealed and it was only a matter of time. Reagan sped the process but at the cost of our long term fiscal health. The deficit was 900 Billion when he took office and it was over 3 TRILLION when he left. It took 200 years to get to 900 Billion and he tripled it in 8. You may not like 'tax and spend' but it's a hell of a lot better than 'borrow and spend'. The Vietnam War bankrupted this country and it was never dealt with, and now the roosters have come home to roost. Conservatives supported every policy that led to...
Exactly Long live the hypocrisy!

---------------------------------------------
http://www.myfxbook.com/members/pc8multifx
  • #43
  • Feb 3, 2010 4:52pm Feb 3, 2010 4:52pm
Personally I prefer trading on daily time frame so I do not need 100:1 leverage. But I still prefer to have high leverage account in order to have lower margin requirements. I also agree that everyone should have a choice – 10:1 is to low for daytrading


Even if this change will pass, it's still not the end of world. European brokers won't be affected
  • #44
  • Feb 5, 2010 6:20pm Feb 5, 2010 6:20pm
Onu, I don't even think it's about the hypocrisy, the Enlightenment is dead. Murdered by the American people. I doubt the US has more than 10 years left.
  • #45
  • Feb 5, 2010 11:46pm Feb 5, 2010 11:46pm
I am sure that nothing will be changed no matter how many people will vote against that decission.It will be the end of US retail brokerage companies for sure.The only benefit I can see for small companies which wished to leave US market but were afraid to loose reputation, now they have a good reason to do this without loosing face.I do not trade with US brokers but I feel sorry for many traders who do.But no need to be so sad, there is Forex life out of US.
  • #46
  • Feb 6, 2010 4:33pm Feb 6, 2010 4:33pm
Quoting Max Thrax
Onu, I don't even think it's about the hypocrisy, the Enlightenment is dead. Murdered by the American people. I doubt the US has more than 10 years left.

Possible, but don't blame it on the Americans. Every Gov or enlightened period has a life cycle. Not surprising considering they are invented by persons / people with a [very] short life cycle.

And our founding fathers had a fatal flaw in logic when they drafted the blueprint for the US. They thought power could be managed by distribution, which it can... until you have collusion.
  • #47
  • Feb 8, 2010 11:33am Feb 8, 2010 11:33am
A friend of mine who works at a forex dealer told me that CFTC is refusing to post comments because the government thinks "these comments aren't real and are being generated by the dealers."

Flood their website and demand they post trader comments now!

Email [email protected] today!
  • #48
  • Feb 8, 2010 1:57pm Feb 8, 2010 1:57pm
This is just plain retarded. These leverage regulations do nothing to protect the average trader or any trader for that fact. Everyone should send an email to [email protected] saying you are against this proposal.
  • #49
  • Feb 8, 2010 11:03pm Feb 8, 2010 11:03pm
I do not agree that 10:1 leverage would protect traders from themselves. No Way No how.
Just look at casino gamblers. That is a classic 1:1 leverage and most still walk out the door a loser.

From my point of view, this 10:1 leverage is just a way to suck in more money from traders and into the brokers' coffers.
ie, with 200:1, traders can risk just a small $500 to trade mini lots
now, with 100:1, traders would need $1000 to trade just as much.
but with 10:1, traders would need $10,000 to trade mini lots.

Of course trading minilots with $10K account is the correct way to trade forex. However, for those who thought that way, you are not thinking at the other side of the coin:
NOW, with $10K in his trading account, whether he practice correct trading behaviour or not, a loser will still be a loser and now lose $10K instead of just $1K.

Bottom Line: More money in the hands of losers = more money to lose.

I dont see that as protection but more risk instead...
  • #50
  • Feb 8, 2010 11:21pm Feb 8, 2010 11:21pm
It is a much bigger risk and more money will be lost.

After this is 10:1 is implemented, get ready for the next step: position size controls
  • #51
  • Feb 11, 2010 11:17am Feb 11, 2010 11:17am
Quoting BurgerKing
I do not agree that 10:1 leverage would protect traders from themselves. No Way No how.
Just look at casino gamblers. That is a classic 1:1 leverage and most still walk out the door a loser.

From my point of view, this 10:1 leverage is just a way to suck in more money from traders and into the brokers' coffers.
ie, with 200:1, traders can risk just a small $500 to trade mini lots
now, with 100:1, traders would need $1000 to trade just as much.
but with 10:1, traders would need $10,000 to trade mini lots.

Of course trading minilots with $10K...
Exactly BK. If traders have to put up more money how does that protect them from hucksters? Email [email protected] today and tell them hands off our leverage!!!!
  • #52
  • Feb 11, 2010 1:43pm Feb 11, 2010 1:43pm
Quoting BurgerKing

Of course trading minilots with $10K account is the correct way to trade forex. However, for those who thought that way, you are not thinking at the other side of the coin:
You're assuming no use of stop losses. Of course theres always the possiblility of catastrophic news and huge gap-age but for the most part, proper use of stop loss is all you need. 10-1 is ridiculous.
  • #53
  • Feb 12, 2010 8:30am Feb 12, 2010 8:30am
I was really scared about all this non sense bullshit, was already looking for offshore brokers, but yesterday my broker sent me an email saying they will be moving all accounts to they subsidiary in Malta.

no more NFA and CTFC bullshit, and 200:1 leverage =D
  • #54
  • Feb 12, 2010 12:13pm Feb 12, 2010 12:13pm
Quoting Jack Herer
I was really scared about all this non sense bullshit, was already looking for offshore brokers, but yesterday my broker sent me an email saying they will be moving all accounts to they subsidiary in Malta.

no more NFA and CTFC bullshit, and 200:1 leverage =D
Hi Jack. Which broker do you have? Malta is great
  • #55
  • Feb 12, 2010 2:17pm Feb 12, 2010 2:17pm
Quoting Jack Herer
I was really scared about all this non sense bullshit, was already looking for offshore brokers, but yesterday my broker sent me an email saying they will be moving all accounts to they subsidiary in Malta.

no more NFA and CTFC bullshit, and 200:1 leverage =D
Hi Jack,

Is your broker FXDD by any chance? FXDD is my broker too but I haven't received any email from them about transfer of my account to Malta however I understand they are opening operations in Malta so what you said got me thinking if that is your broker too.
Less is more...
  • #56
  • Feb 12, 2010 5:26pm Feb 12, 2010 5:26pm
Quoting Fana
Hi Jack. Which broker do you have? Malta is great
Quoting ajantala
Hi Jack,

Is your broker FXDD by any chance? FXDD is my broker too but I haven't received any email from them about transfer of my account to Malta however I understand they are opening operations in Malta so what you said got me thinking if that is your broker too.
Hey guys,

you're right, it's FXDD.

On the email they said every account will be transfered to Malta, UNLESS you send them an email requesting not to, so it's all good, by 19th of february they're going to move the accounts, on the 21th everything will be running the same already in Malta, except for the fact that we no longer will have to worry about this huge CFTC/NFA mess.

  • #57
  • Feb 13, 2010 10:59am Feb 13, 2010 10:59am
Quoting Jack Herer
Hey guys,

you're right, it's FXDD.

On the email they said every account will be transfered to Malta, UNLESS you send them an email requesting not to, so it's all good, by 19th of february they're going to move the accounts, on the 21th everything will be running the same already in Malta, except for the fact that we no longer will have to worry about this huge CFTC/NFA mess.

Phew! I am so glad about that! I too had started looking for other broker options but just decided to wait till the end of this month to see if FXDD would do something about it. Well I apart from Alpari, I haven't tried any broker other than FXDD but I think they are one of the best brokers around.
Less is more...
  • #58
  • Feb 13, 2010 11:04am Feb 13, 2010 11:04am
Quoting ajantala
Phew! I am so glad about that! I too had started looking for other broker options but just decided to wait till the end of this month to see if FXDD would do something about it. Well I apart from Alpari, I haven't tried any broker other than FXDD but I think they are one of the best brokers around.
I have an FXDD account and have head nothing about this. They only were approved for operations in Malta on Feb 10th, and they're moving all US accounts there on Feb 19th? That doesn't add up. Plus, I'm not sure it's even legal to have your account moved like that without your direct permission; moving an account unless you say not to isn't how stuff like this works.

I have an account with FXCM through ATC brokers, and they recently moved accounts to the UK branch from US, and we all had to sign (not email) a document giving them permission to do so. It wasn't "we're moving your account unless you tell us not to."

Maybe I'm wrong, and I apologize if I am, but if this communication from FXDD (that apparently you and I never received) is authentic, then it's a highly irregular situation to put it mildly...with due respect to Jack, my guess is this is not accurate.
  • #59
  • Feb 13, 2010 1:50pm Feb 13, 2010 1:50pm
will all the brokers be moving accounts if the max leverage becomes 10:1?

specifically wondering what Oanada will do
  • #60
  • Feb 13, 2010 3:22pm Feb 13, 2010 3:22pm
Quoting neo1599
This discussion is a bit out of context:

1- They are not passing this rule on the basis or even consideration of our humble little accounts. They are trying to restrict the BIG players from using an obscene leverage, losing money and then saying "TOO BIG TO FAIL".

2- If you are trading with 1:400 leverage chances of your money going kaput is very high.

3- I agree the govt. should not put any such restrictions but just look at what banks did.

All this might do is make the 95% failure rate go down to 90%.
Forex is not about gambling, even...
I use 400:1 now and if they offered it, I would take 1000:1 in a heartbeat!! I make a lot of money quickly the way I trade, and reducing the leverage to 10:1 would certainly take money out of my pocket!! I had to go to the UK to find 400:1 after November of last year. There is nothing wrong with trading micro or mini lots, it just isn't what I want to be forced toward. I don't care what leverage or lot size anyone else uses....why whould people care what leverage and lot size I use? Leverage doesn't make a good trade or bad trade. It just allows for more buying power, that's all.

The problem is about attempting to "save people from themselves". If I chose to use high leverage, then let that be MY choice, not dictated by someone that has the idea that they have my best interests at heart! I just get tired of hearing people say "400:1 is way too much leverage" or "you should have a gabillion dollars in your account before you buy a full sized lot" or stuff like that. It just shows their own limitations.

Besides, many brokers ratchet down leverage amounts based on account size, so this isn't to keep the big guys in check. And the really big players don't go through brokers at all and already use a lower leverage amount. So this does mainly affect the little guy, although it will have a devestating effect on the entire trading industry. The results for the government is going to be less money, because people can't pay taxes on money they don't make any more, and loss of revenue from the brokers as everyone moves accounts overseas.

Looking at some of the comments on various forums, including FF, I think that some people are confusing leverage amounts with account size risk. 2:1 leverage means you pay roughly $50K for a $100K lot....heck, I might as well go back to daytrading options....I would trade 100 contracts and only a few times did I have over $60K in one trade. That's what was so appealing about currency....an average Joe (or Joline) could make money without having something over $25K starting capital (the amount the SEC requires for pattern daytraders...again, to save people from themselves).

Heck, we are already getting tax increases. It just seems like no matter what leverage you chose to use, all U.S. traders would want the government to stay out of their business and would write in to keep this from getting passed. This may not affect everyone now, but eventually something will be passed that will!

Okay, I'm off the soapbox now.....
0 traders viewing now