Banning All Retail Forex In The United States? | Page 2 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

United States brokers 5 replies

Best broker for United States residents 136 replies

United States Traders 0 replies

Is Go Markets Banning Trading Account for Indians? 8 replies

Attachments: Banning All Retail Forex In The United States?
Exit Attachments

Banning All Retail Forex In The United States?

  • #21
  • Nov 12, 2014 11:39pm Nov 12, 2014 11:39pm
Hahaha..... The US govt ironically mabbe actually doing a great unintended favor to 99% of the traders here.

GS
  • #22
  • Nov 13, 2014 1:24am Nov 13, 2014 1:24am
Quoting realjumper
{quote} No. If the the US Govt were to try to ban FX trading, it would have to give a reason, and one would assume that the reason would be that FX trading is "gambling." If that's the case, then Las Vegas must also close, not to mention horse racing, dog racing, lotto etc etc etc....iow....never happen. But, even if USA were to ban FX trading, it doesn't follow that the rest of the world would do the same. Because USA restricted the leverage and employed the FIFO rules etc etc, no one else followed suit. The rest of the world can actually think...
We Americans do think we are the center of the Galaxy, don't we?

Now you are supposed to agree, or the U.S.S. Democracy will be at your doorstep to show you the way to freedom.
If you are good at something, never do it for free--Joker
  • #23
  • Nov 13, 2014 1:41am Nov 13, 2014 1:41am
Quoting jmn5611
{quote} We Americans do think we are the center of the Galaxy, don't we? Now you are supposed to agree, or the U.S.S. Democracy will be at your doorstep to show you the way to freedom.

Is that the big ship I can see on the horizon....the one with huge guns pointing this way?

Doing what you like is Freedom. Liking what you do is Happiness.
  • #24
  • Nov 13, 2014 4:31am Nov 13, 2014 4:31am
Never say never. Once the cogs start whirring in the head of the US govt they can take on a life of their own and be very hard to stop, regardless of whether the logic behind the original idea holds up or not.

Look at online poker in the USA - all it took was a couple of zealous lawmakers with a bee in their bonnet deciding that their way was right, and the end justified the means. They drew up an obscure bill banning online gaming, but knew it wouldn't pass so they stapled it to the back of a bill banning al-Qaeda owned ships from docking in US harbors. It was passed unanimously.

You would think a govt would use some common sense and quickly overturn a law passed in such a surreptitious manner but no, it is almost impossible to reverse.

The same could easily happen with currency speculation - governments in some countries, and opposition parties in many more countries, are blaming speculators directly for their countries economic woes. Never underestimate the stupidity of lawmakers, especially when they are trying to impress large numbers of people even more stupid than themselves.
si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
  • #25
  • Nov 13, 2014 5:02am Nov 13, 2014 5:02am
If they really want to stop people losing all their money on forex, why dont they just ban the use of indicators and technical analysis?😅
Where price is now, it has been before, and will be again.
  • #26
  • Edited 7:24pm Nov 13, 2014 9:27am | Edited 7:24pm
well it ain't going to happen in the UK as the UK Gov PLC takes a cut from the losses in a form of gambling tax from the spread betting companies

but if trading Forex is risky what about shares / Oil / Gold and all the other instruments and derivatives
surely these would need to be banned aswell,
so also wont happen especially as the UK Government likes to sell off bits of UK Gov PLC to the every man
and women, every now and again, (as it makes them feel good, helping Mr and Mrs average)

plus the UKs Govs very rich friends and donors own the spread betting company's
MR CMC Markets for instance (is a major Torie or was)
Mr IG was a Torie donor, although he's possibly now UKIP
but still, they have the money to donate to the 3 (or 4) main party's here
all 3 / 4 partys are a greedy bunch, so not likely to bite the hand that feeds them

what about the Bankers profits, if its truly a zero sum game, then the losses from the retail investor need to be transferred to the Bankers and if trading is banned their quarterly profits and yearly bonuses will be down
so they won't be happy

and what about Guns, now they really are dangerous but don't see any move to ban those in the US
which is weird and slightly ironic , as we banned them here in the UK (more or less)
and have many less shootings, so banning things can help

you Americans don't go thinking for can come over here to trade, we are full!
  • #27
  • Nov 13, 2014 10:30am Nov 13, 2014 10:30am
The guy being interviewed is from another generation. I do not like to generalize people but there is a clear correlation between the older generation and relying on fundamental news for their trades. His definition of hedging is the same as us, but with one very distinct characteristic.
While both the stock market investor, as well as the forex retail trader aim to reduce exposure/risk with hedging, the more older generation thinks hedging can solely be done by including fundamental news, in combination with a diverse portfolio.

The beauty is that the electronic market can be as complex as you want it to be. The guy being interviewed is obviously not into deeper meanings/variables that create the market. He solely acts on concrete information he sees, but avoids all the unseen information, while it is exactly the unseen information that creates the forex market in the first place.
  • #28
  • Nov 13, 2014 10:48am Nov 13, 2014 10:48am
I can assure you there is a deeper agenda behind it, they wouldn't care less if the american people are loosing money on forex, I mean, that is for sure! maybe they want to move the dollar abroad? to what purpose? maybe that is what they are trying to accomplish?, what do the americans think they can do about forex? nothing! they don't rule the intire earth like they seem to think, and certanly not the international foreign exchange, the US is just a tiny blip on the map, just take your money abroad and get a lot better trading conditions.
Bulls are stupid Animals!especially when Im short!
  • #29
  • Nov 13, 2014 10:55am Nov 13, 2014 10:55am
Believe me this professor lost a lot of money in forex business.

AND NOW ... HE IS ANGRY!

  • #30
  • Nov 13, 2014 8:36pm Nov 13, 2014 8:36pm
They need to raise the required balance amount for Forex brokers. Why? Because a lot of losers think that they can throw their last thousand dollars into a market that is known for its difficulty. They then blow the account then the begging and complaining about brokers comes in. A higher required balance would cut down on the loser pipe dream 500 dollar account traders under the delusion that trading .01 lots will change their financial situation. This seems drastic but if you look around even here on FF you will find these type of people under this delusion that .01 trading will help their shitty situation. On top of that it would cut down on these "Trade your way to millions with just 500 dollars" scammers. Above all it would make people take the spot market way more seriously and you wouldn't have people calling for retail Forex to be banned.
  • #31
  • Nov 14, 2014 7:53am Nov 14, 2014 7:53am
Quoting Jenx
If they really want to stop people losing all their money on forex, why dont they just ban the use of indicators and technical analysis?😅
JENX FOR PREZ!!!

...a truly beautiful piece of literature....
"Holy Grail" exists - accepting where is the first step.
  • #32
  • Nov 14, 2014 8:15am Nov 14, 2014 8:15am
O P.....you are such a clear thinker.......proud to know ya!!
  • #33
  • Nov 14, 2014 8:42am Nov 14, 2014 8:42am
Quoting Carlsberg
well it ain't going to happen in the UK as the UK Gov PLC takes a cut from the losses in a form of gambling tax from the spread betting companies but if trading Forex is risky what about shares / Oil / Gold and all the other instruments and derivatives surely these would need to be banned aswell, so also wont happen especially as the UK Government likes to sell off bits of UK Gov PLC to the every man and women, every now and again, (as it makes them feel good, helping Mr and Mrs average) plus the UKs Govs very rich friends and donors own the spread...
I also don't think it'll happen here - we already got 3+ categories of trading forex - Spread betting - forex - derivatives - we know already that it's gambling - why would they ban any of them.

Might be different in US tho - If they can implement FIFO and FATCA they can do anything
  • #34
  • Nov 14, 2014 10:19am Nov 14, 2014 10:19am
Quoting stewrigh
{quote} I also don't think it'll happen here - we already got 3+ categories of trading forex - Spread betting - forex - derivatives - we know already that it's gambling - why would they ban any of them. Might be different in US tho - If they can implement FIFO and FATCA they can do anything
we're lucky here in the UK as we will probably always be can gamble to our hearts are content
(or no money left in the bank)
and the abundance of gambling and casino ads on TV does n't seem to be stopping anytime soon (unfortunately)

Murdochs SKY casino and the all other casinos would have to be banned, and Horse race betting
the Queen loves to bet on the Horses so that can't be banned

half of the 5 trillion a day FX market is actually swap transactions, so someone probably has n't thought the idea through properly and unlikely it will really be banned in the US, and would likely trigger a knock on effect

but agree with Acroix70 there ought to be tighter regulation limiting only the very serious who have saved enough to open maybe at least a 10k account,
although plenty of people who do open 10k accounts also loose and often much more trying again
sometimes 60-70k before they finally pack up

does seem alittle strange though, maybe some of the Illuminate want to keep all the Markets to themselves?
even they should see sense once they realise how much money they will loose (and boat fuel is not cheap)

if congress really wanted to help they should spend less time betting on the Markets,
and hand over some of the tips they frequently get from the big institutions
  • #35
  • Nov 16, 2014 1:57am Nov 16, 2014 1:57am
Quoting Carlsberg
{quote} we're lucky here in the UK as we will probably always be can gamble to our hearts are content (or no money left in the bank) and the abundance of gambling and casino ads on TV does n't seem to be stopping anytime soon (unfortunately) Murdochs SKY casino and the all other casinos would have to be banned, and Horse race betting the Queen loves to bet on the Horses so that can't be banned half of the 5 trillion a day FX market is actually swap transactions, so someone probably has n't thought the idea through properly and unlikely it will really...

It would be the best plan of action to raise the account requirement amount for all brokers. .01 micro account traders are no different than the penny slot machine users who think they will win it big on those machines. It's the same delusional pathetic mentality.
  • #36
  • Nov 16, 2014 6:24am Nov 16, 2014 6:24am
Quoting Acroix70
They need to raise the required balance amount for Forex brokers. Why? Because a lot of losers think that they can throw their last thousand dollars into a market that is known for its difficulty. They then blow the account then the begging and complaining about brokers comes in. A higher required balance would cut down on the loser pipe dream 500 dollar account traders under the delusion that trading .01 lots will change their financial situation. This seems drastic but if you look around even here on FF you will find these type of people under...
This must be one of the most stupid things I ever heard, why would you think that by raising the balance would make these bucket shops more honest?
the result would be that the intire industri would lose customers and also, for those few that could afford to trade, would still loose , but only more.
that just doesn't ring as a good plan to my ears. why would it be better to loose more? I think it is a good thing everyone can afford trading,
this is a birthright! it brings hope for a lot of people and is important. the scam brokers must be dealt with in another way, the small traders should not be suffering from their misstakes, I wish all brokers was doing microlots, it's better for money management! and it's better to start out small, so pleace, climb down to earth.
Bulls are stupid Animals!especially when Im short!
  • #37
  • Nov 16, 2014 8:30am Nov 16, 2014 8:30am
I think raising minimum accounts sizes would worsen the problem because being able to trade .01 lots only improves the situation of the small-time trader. Why? Because he can trade with the same calm mentality of the large fund manager. For a newbie trader, losing $5 is the same as losing $50,000 for a professional - at least in terms of account size (though not in utility value).

Years ago I only traded S&P futures - and this was prior to the E-Mini rollout in 1998. Minimum margin? $20,000 to hold overnight, $10,000 to day trade. At the time, I made $18,000 a year painting and sandblasting for a living - hard, miserable work. Let me tell you, it's damned tough to get good at trading when you have to use OPM (like I did) or take years to save enough for an account. The psychological pressure is unbelievable - especially when there's a high probability you'll blow yourself up and might never get another opportunity to do what you love to do. Having a high entrance fee like a larger account balance only increases the risk and raises the probability for failure. It serves nobody except the folks who would like to remain in the 1%.

What I wouldn't have given for a market like Forex. I could have developed good habits early on and the losses wouldn't have hurt. I could have protected my mind from the ravages of my own mistakes. Hell, I could have even had a demo account (which didn't exist back then) and worked it all out for free, without the pain of loss. I could have spent time evaluating my decision-making process instead of forgiving myself for losing yet another $5k.

I think the low entry into Forex makes the 1% nervous. It means that ANYBODY with good instincts, a determination to win and the patience to make it happen can turn his life around; it means he can overthrow the plans of the rich - to make him a wage slave and to serve their selfish, pathetic interests. It means that he can learn to rob those F!!CKERS blind - and he should rob them every chance he gets - for their sakes as well as his own.

Yeah, I know most people will fail at this. But guess what? Most people fail at anything that pays well. Raising the entry fee only ensures that a select group of people have access to the opportunity, not the guarantee of the outcome.
  • #38
  • Nov 16, 2014 9:15am Nov 16, 2014 9:15am
Quoting Almuten
I think raising minimum accounts sizes would worsen the problem because being able to trade .01 lots only improves the situation of the small-time trader. Why? Because he can trade with the same calm mentality of the large fund manager. For a newbie trader, losing $5 is the same as losing $50,000 for a professional - at least in terms of account size (though not in utility value). Years ago I only traded S&P futures - and this was prior to the E-Mini rollout in 1998. Minimum margin? $20,000 to hold overnight, $10,000 to day trade. At the time, I...
What a great post!
Ghost Rider - WWTBMD?
  • #39
  • Nov 16, 2014 10:51am Nov 16, 2014 10:51am
If they were able to control the trade sizes and number of trades for new/smaller accounts, that would help the situation. Like a probation period of 3-6 months.

Changing the minimum balance requirements is actually worse. It just gives more ammunition for the potentially new/bad trader to throw more money at the brokers.
  • #40
  • Nov 16, 2014 12:15pm Nov 16, 2014 12:15pm
I think entertaining arguments the government makes in the least bit will only serve to guide the conversation toward the same mentality of the Nanny State. All of a sudden we'll be trying to decide on "what's best for people" or in what way compromises can be made. Granted, some mischief can be mitigated by regulating people's limits on how much they can hurt themselves, but at what cost? Think about the overall cost.

It's like those freaking seat-belt laws we have in the U.S: we get fined if we don't wear one. On the face of it, it would seem like this "is a good thing." While probably true on one level, is the government's presumption for the benefit of the people? Hardly. Rather, it's to get them accustomed to being physically regulated "for their own good" - hapless children that they are. But this is always the tack the government takes. It takes something that's true and then twists it into an argument that's designed to remove your freedom and in so doing, enhances its power.

Politicians are professional manipulators and they know how the mind works. A lot of them are trained in philosophy and law; they understand the power of an accepted premise and what acceptance of that premise subsequently leads to. In the case of seat-belt laws, the end result is that you no longer have rights over your own body. That's what that law is really for; it's what it actually means to the mind of a manipulator. Look at how far that premise has been pushed in the last ten years!

Apply this strategy to the current situation. Who's end would regulating or outlawing Forex serve? Would fewer people go broke? I think not. People who want to take risks will find ways to do so. Heck, before Forex I lost plenty in the options market! Others will do it in a casino or by playing the lottery. And maybe that's what the real focus is here: Keeping lost money in the United States and lining the purses of the Establishment.
0 traders viewing now