US citizens won't be able to have forex accounts overseas | Page 9 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Overseas brokers for US citizens: legal or illegal? 22 replies

Any brokers offering high leverage accounts to US citizens? 22 replies

Broker offering penny accounts to US citizens? 1 reply

I am not able to create virtual accounts anymore 7 replies

CFTC NEW Document - Overseas Accounts OK? 58 replies

Attachments: US citizens won't be able to have forex accounts overseas
Exit Attachments

US citizens won't be able to have forex accounts overseas

  • #161
  • Aug 27, 2010 2:14pm Aug 27, 2010 2:14pm
Quoting pipmutt
Repeating it doesn't make it any more valid, you (like so many others) seem totally unable to support your opinion when challenged, perhaps you'd be better off trying understand what you're saying rather than copy and paste!

Well because you keep bringing up the same points again and again after I have proven to you my point so I would have no choice but to copy and paste. I DO write new arguments to respond to others' comments if you read them more carefully.

Next time when you come up with a new argument other than "high leverage is not needed therefore we can toss it out to the government to be slashed off", then I will come up with a new counter-argument too.

Until then, it's copy-and-paste for you, I am afraid.
Make your losses in demo. Earn your profits live.
  • #162
  • Aug 27, 2010 2:27pm Aug 27, 2010 2:27pm
Quoting Forexia

not sure how the examples would suffice
They'll suffice just fine, just giving one example of how you use 100:1 would tell us all we need to know, it doesn't even have to be a real trade, a hypothetical one will do.

I really can't understand your reluctance, unless you lack the conviction of your statements?

Quoting Forexia

I have proven to you my point
That's the problem, you haven't, I'd be overjoyed if you would, maybe I'll learn something about the benefits of 100:1 leverage and then I'll be able to join you in your petition to keep it! You said you liked helping other traders well now's your chance, spread the word and share your wisdom!

You say you want to retain the option to use 100:1, please just explain why in practical trading terms you would ever need that kind of leverage.

If all you've got to support your argument is some dross about your constitutional rights as a trader then I guess we're done here, which I expect will be the same reaction you'll get from regulators!
  • #163
  • Aug 27, 2010 2:44pm Aug 27, 2010 2:44pm
Ok, to make it a bit more entertaining......

You've been invited as a star guest to appear on Bloomberg TV. The whole financial community is tuned in and riveted to the screen, the cameras are rolling, the spotlight is on you and there's a hush in the studio as everyone waits for you to speak your words of wisdom.....

Interviewer: "As an experienced and internationally well-respected trader, Mr Forexia please share your secret about how you use 100:1 leverage in your forex trading"

Mr Forexia: <this is your cue to reply....go for it!>
  • #164
  • Aug 27, 2010 3:09pm Aug 27, 2010 3:09pm
Quoting pipmutt
They'll suffice just fine, just giving one example of how you use 100:1 would tell us all we need to know, it doesn't even have to be a real trade, a hypothetical one will do.

You say you want to retain the option to use 100:1, please just explain why in practical trading terms you would ever need that kind of leverage.

If all you've got to support your argument is some dross about your constitutional rights as a trader then I guess we're done here, which I expect will be the same reaction you'll get from regulators!
Since I believe that leverage level and/or whether it is or or not needed in trading profitably is IRRELEVANT in this discussion and it is something that the government should certainly leave alone, because leverage is just something that we traders use and use fine. We already have it and we have been using it fine and have already proven it to ourselves. We certainly don't need to do "leverage exercises" to prove to someone else and especially someone who thinks leverage is a "meaningless calculation that you rarely look at".

If there are traders who do not know how to use it, it's not the leverage level that's the problem but the lack of education that those particular traders suffer. And the solution for that is more education and not capping the rates because even if you cap the rates to 1:1, if somebody doesn't know how to trade, he/she will still lose money.

BUT since YOU, believes so vehemently that leverage of a certain level is relevant and cannot be used succesfully to trade profitably whatsoever and therefore should be taken away by the government, then it's YOU who should provide us examples, hypothetical, practical or whatever to prove to us WHY and HOW high leverage is not needed and/or cannot be used successfully to trade profitably. And WHY we cannot retain the current leverage rate and the government should take it away. We are happy to entertain.

If you cannot or not willing to provide us examples, then I take it you do agree with my point but is just not willing. And that's fine.

As for the government, they will make a decision as they see fit as usual. It is just that I hope this time they really do make a "fit" decision.
Make your losses in demo. Earn your profits live.
  • #165
  • Aug 27, 2010 3:24pm Aug 27, 2010 3:24pm
Quoting pipmutt
Ok, to make it a bit more entertaining......

You've been invited as a star guest to appear on Bloomberg TV. The whole financial community is tuned in and riveted to the screen, the cameras are rolling, the spotlight is on you and there's a hush in the studio as everyone waits for you to speak your words of wisdom.....

Interviewer: "As an experienced and internationally well-respected trader, Mr Forexia please share your secret about how you use 100:1 leverage in your forex trading"

Mr Forexia: <this is your cue to reply....go for it!>...
Well, for me, I would've declined the interview in the first place, so this scenario would not happen.

Like I said, I, like countless other traders just prove to ourselves everyday that we trade well with the current leverage rates, we really don't need to show it off in front of others and certainly not some National TV. We are trading not just for fun; we are trading to make a living, to put food on the table for ourselves and our family. All we are asking for from the government is to enact some real laws to protect our genuine interest and capital and otherwise leave us alone.

This is a serious discussion about something that does impact all of us traders, not some mock TV show. However we are still waiting for your "examples" of how leverage of a certain level is bad.

So perhaps you should go to some TV show and talk to some microphones... We are still waiting, btw...
Make your losses in demo. Earn your profits live.
  • #166
  • Edited 3:44pm Aug 27, 2010 3:27pm | Edited 3:44pm
-


Interviewer: "As an experienced and internationally well-respected trader, Mr Forexia please share your secret about how you use 100:1 leverage in your forex trading"

Mr Forexia:

Quoting Forexia
...leverage is just something that we traders use and use fine. We already have it and we have been using it fine and have already proven it to ourselves.....

Yeah with a reply like that I don't think Bloomberg will be inviting you back.....and by the way the producer just shot himself!



Quoting Forexia

So perhaps you should go to some TV show and talk to some microphones......
What, and tell the financial world something they already know from bitter experience? Maybe you need to speak to people like Dick Fuld about the consequences of over leverage!

Or maybe I could share this gem of Forexia trading wisdom with the world......

Quoting Forexia
...the choice of timeframe also depends on the amount of trading capital available. With longer timeframes, the potential price move on each trade could be larger and thus would need larger trading capital to cushion any unfavourable moves....
Hmmm, 'nuff said?

-
  • #167
  • Aug 27, 2010 3:38pm Aug 27, 2010 3:38pm
Quoting pipmutt
Interviewer: "As an experienced and internationally well-respected trader, Mr Forexia please share your secret about how you use 100:1 leverage in your forex trading"

Mr Forexia: <this is your cue to reply....go for it!>




Yeah with a reply like that I don't think Bloomberg will be inviting you back.....and by the way the producer just shot himself!





What, and tell the financial world something that they already know?

Or maybe I could share this gem of Forexia wisdom with the world......
Ok now you are going to a different topic, although I am honored that you actually took the time and effort to search for my posts. Since you have moved to a different topic, so I guess you admit defeat in this debate and this debate is over.
Make your losses in demo. Earn your profits live.
  • #168
  • Aug 27, 2010 3:57pm Aug 27, 2010 3:57pm
Quoting Forexia

Ok now you are going to a different topic, although I am honored that you actually took the time and effort to search for my posts.
I didn't have to search very far, it was only today!

Quoting Forexia

Since you have moved to a different topic, so I guess you admit defeat in this debate and this debate is over.
It's not a different topic at all, it just demonstrates your total lack of understanding about what you're actually doing when it comes to leverage therefore it's extremely on topic.

You're asking to retain something that you a) don't use, and b) don't understand how to use.

Ah no wait, it's your constitutional right blah blah blah.....
  • #169
  • Aug 27, 2010 3:58pm Aug 27, 2010 3:58pm
Quoting pipmutt
-


Or maybe I could share this gem of Forexia trading wisdom with the world......


-
Btw, I responded to your post responding to my earlier post in another thread "Best Timeframe to Trade" in "Rookie Discussion" section. You didn't take into account everything in your post.
Make your losses in demo. Earn your profits live.
  • #170
  • Aug 27, 2010 4:02pm Aug 27, 2010 4:02pm
Quoting pipmutt
I didn't have to search very far, it was only today!
Still you searched, I am touched.


Quoting pipmutt
It's not a different topic at all, it just demonstrates your total lack of understanding about what you're actually doing when it comes to leverage therefore it's extremely on topic.

You're asking to retain something that you a) don't use, and b) don't understand how to use.
LOL Uh oh, I think I touched a nerve here. Since now you are doing a little personal attack on me, I am not going to respond.
Make your losses in demo. Earn your profits live.
  • #171
  • Aug 27, 2010 4:15pm Aug 27, 2010 4:15pm
Quoting Forexia
I am touched.
Yes, I believe you are!

Quoting Forexia
LOL Uh oh, I think I touched a nerve here. Since now you are doing a little personal attack on me, I am not going to respond.
It wasn't a personal attack, calling you a moron would have been a personal attack but I wouldn't dream of saying that! Going by your posts in this and other threads I think it was a fair appraisal of your understanding of leverage.
  • #172
  • Aug 27, 2010 4:27pm Aug 27, 2010 4:27pm
A:

There was no cop out at all, it's the truth, how many clients put their life savings in these accounts and when the crooked broker went belly up didnt pay them a cent.

B:

As I stated, rather then have 100 million in my trading account I'd only rather have 10 million. That way I can use the other 90 million for my other investments and still maintain the same contract size.

C: What is irritating me is that you speak of constituitional rights and then laugh or put up idiotic smiley faces like it's laughing matter, if you cared so much about the consumer you would be pushing legislation for jail sentences or stiffer fines for these these thieves and illusionists or mandatory course work for new traders.

Quoting pipmutt
Ah that's a cop out but I agree, I would have preferred to see legislation protecting client funds first but hopefully that's in the pipeline. Protection of funds doesn't seem to be the main motive for objection to this leverage reduction though, in fact it's hardly mentioned and only comes up when the validity of other objections fails miserably, kind of a last resort!

See, you would have all been better off going with that argument, at least it has more substance than talking about rights, the constitution, and wanting to get rich quick on a...
Annoying Precision
  • #173
  • Aug 27, 2010 4:29pm Aug 27, 2010 4:29pm
Honestly I think the government hires cronies to try and quell the mob.

We all know if this 10:1 legislation is enacted who is going to MOST benefit from it; U.S. Brokers.
Annoying Precision
  • #174
  • Aug 27, 2010 4:43pm Aug 27, 2010 4:43pm
Quoting erikte279

There was no cop out at all
It was a cop out to the question about how you use 100:1 leverage, you guys always seem to revert to safety of funds when asked about that.

Read back, you'll see.


Quoting erikte279
What is irritating me is that you speak of constituitional rights and then laugh or put up idiotic smiley faces like it's laughing matter
I'm laughing at you using 'constitutional rights' as your reason for opposing the proposed legislation, that's what's laughable, you really think they're going to take that seriously?

At least try and put up a valid argument, like I said before lack of safety of funds would be better than the rights argument and may have actually got you some way to them reviewing that issue.
  • #175
  • Aug 27, 2010 5:15pm Aug 27, 2010 5:15pm
Quoting erikte279
The reason behind high leverage is SIMPLE. Instead of maintaining a larger cash reserve in your trading account you can allocate it elsewhere. How many brokers have you seen go out of business and not pay back clients a nickel? Lots
Erik, don't get me wrong, if I was with a broker I liked and they offered 200:1 leverage, or whatever, I would take it. I can manage it. Personally, I consider it a gift. 50:1 leverage on gold? That means I can (roughly) pay for an ounce of gold and take profit on it's change of value as if I really owned 50 ounces? Duh! Give it to me!

But traders see this issue of a reduction in the spot leverage allowed as an assault on their rights, etc. In fact, the regulation is aimed at the brokers and at their capitalization requirements. The money has to come from somewhere - if a broker offers 100:1 leverage he has to maintain capital reserves to cover that. Lower leverage allowance means the brokers can operate more safely with lower capital reserves. An answer to the question you pose above is: that's right, brokers go out of business and traders get burned - but one of the reasons that may be more likely to happen is because the broker is operating under the hgih leverage casino business model, which is risky.

We can talk about - well they're just trying to shut down spot forex and kick all that business into the regulated exchanges ....and, hey why don't they pick on the really huge most risky end of the OTC derivatives game, CDS's etc....and etc, etc. Well I think they are trying.

You may have noticed, we just went through a near catastrophic meltdown of the global financial system over the last few years. All of these high-risk investment activities were and still are at the heart of that. Regulation is a good thing and without it we'll just have more of the same.

I wouldn't want to be a regulator. For every one of them the richest industry interests can throw up multiple lobbyists and corporate attorneys and paid media hacks. But, really, as in everything else, eventually you have to decide whose side you are on.
"If The Fool persists in his Folly he will become wise." - William Blake
  • #176
  • Aug 27, 2010 5:20pm Aug 27, 2010 5:20pm
Are you asking for a trade example? This ties into your Risk/ Reward. I'f I have a system built around 10 pip stops (risk) and a 250 pip take profit (reward) I would have 1:25 RR. With such small stops this enables me use higher contract sizes in relation to the equity in my account, hence the use of higher leverage.

As I said before, it is my "Right" to choose which leverage I want to, I dont see how this isnt a valid argument and if they dont take that seriously they should be thrown out of office.

I'f they really have the consumers interest in mind they should pass regulation requiring aspiring traders to complete some kind of exams or limit their losses for the first year or 2.

Quoting pipmutt
It was a cop out to the question about how you use 100:1 leverage, you guys always seem to revert to safety of funds when asked about that.

Read back, you'll see.



I'm laughing at you using 'constitutional rights' as your reason for opposing the proposed legislation, that's what's laughable, you really think they're going to take that seriously?

At least try and put up a valid argument, like I said before lack of safety of funds would be better than the rights argument and may have actually got you some way to them reviewing that...
Annoying Precision
  • #177
  • Aug 27, 2010 5:27pm Aug 27, 2010 5:27pm
Explaining it that way is more logical and acceptable for me. I could see them applying it to any business that invest's opm. But to apply to the retail trader is draconian.

Quoting The Fool
Erik, don't get me wrong, if I was with a broker I liked and they offered 200:1 leverage, or whatever, I would take it. I can manage it. Personally, I consider it a gift. 50:1 leverage on gold? That means I can (roughly) pay for an ounce of gold and take profit on it's change of value as if I really owned 50 ounces? Duh! Give it to me!

But traders see this issue of a reduction in the spot leverage allowed as an assault on their rights, etc. In fact, the regulation is aimed at the brokers and at their capitalization requirements. The money has...
Annoying Precision
  • #178
  • Aug 27, 2010 5:28pm Aug 27, 2010 5:28pm
Quoting erikte279
Are you asking for a trade example? This ties into your Risk/ Reward. I'f I have a system built around 10 pip stops (risk) and a 250 pip take profit (reward) I would have 1:25 RR. With such small stops this enables me use higher contract sizes in relation to the equity in my account, hence the use of higher leverage.
Thanks for that.

But I wasn't so much interested in the reward side as the risk side, what would be your average/maximum risk in percentage of account terms?
  • #179
  • Aug 27, 2010 5:34pm Aug 27, 2010 5:34pm
That's a personal question. I would say any amount that enables you to survive your backtested system's MAX loss stretch.

Quoting pipmutt
Thanks for that.

But I wasn't so much interested in the reward side as the risk side, what would be your average/maximum risk in percentage of account terms?
Annoying Precision
  • #180
  • Aug 27, 2010 5:37pm Aug 27, 2010 5:37pm
Quoting erikte279
That's a personal question. I would say any amount that enables you survive your backtested system's MAX loss stretch.
I don't mean dollar amount, just %, you don't need to mention account size or anything.

Sorry, might have misunderstood the meaning of 'personal', did you mean personal to one's strategy or personal as in confidential?
0 traders viewing now