Need US broker for a large account | Page 4 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Need a Best Broker for cent account! 36 replies

Need broker for unlimited demo account 12 replies

Large account + large volume - Optimum Clearing Options? 13 replies

When small account becomes LARGE... 19 replies

Need info. for mini account broker 2 replies

Attachments: Need US broker for a large account
Exit Attachments

Need US broker for a large account

  • #61
  • Oct 28, 2016 10:09am Oct 28, 2016 10:09am
With the amount of regulation imposed on NFA regulated brokers it is next to impossible for them to manipulate the trading conditions. Even if they could manipulate the conditions none of the big three left would take that risk due to the massive fines that the NFA hands down if caught. Look at ILQ and FXDD as examples. Both of those firms received massive fines from the NFA and CFTC.

At the end of the day if you are in the United States you have to ask yourself. Do you trust a broker who is setup on some random island with no visibility of who actually owns the company or their financials. Or do you trust brokers who are publicly traded, offer full disclosure on their financials, and are based in the United States.
  • #62
  • Oct 28, 2016 8:40pm Oct 28, 2016 8:40pm
Quoting DrinkForex
With the amount of regulation imposed on NFA regulated brokers it is next to impossible for them to manipulate the trading conditions. Even if they could manipulate the conditions none of the big three left would take that risk due to the massive fines that the NFA hands down if caught. Look at ILQ and FXDD as examples. Both of those firms received massive fines from the NFA and CFTC. At the end of the day if you are in the United States you have to ask yourself. Do you trust a broker who is setup on some random island with no visibility of who...
I'll take the random island. Once again, your money is not protected in either case. Difference is, I only need 10% of the margin, so I am literally risking 90% less money than someone using an NFA regulated broker. The NFA is regulating the trader, only regulation imposed on the broker is their net capital requirement, but it is actually irrelevant as I mentioned it does nothing to protect the traders money. If the NFA were truly concerned about us, the market maker model would be eliminated and our funds would be insured.

This is a classic example of how they brainwash people into believing the regulations actually protect them.
  • #63
  • Oct 28, 2016 11:52pm Oct 28, 2016 11:52pm
Namaste! In the past I have used Oanda US and I have had a good experience with them.

Regards!
  • #64
  • Oct 29, 2016 12:23pm Oct 29, 2016 12:23pm
• In June 2015, there were 8 U.S. retail forex brokers, with market shares as follows:

FXCM - 34%
Gain Capital - 20%
Oanda - 19%
IBFX - 8%
Wedbush Securities - 8%
Interactive Brokers - 7%
MB Trading - 3%
RJ O'Brien - 0%


• By June 2016, the field had dwindled to 5 U.S. retail forex brokers, with market shares as follows:

FXCM - 34%
Oanda - 26%
Gain Capital - 25%
TD Ameritrade - 8%
Interactive Brokers - 7%


Not widely reported at the time, the days were numbered for TD Ameritrade and Interactive Brokers. Those two brokers are SEC-regulated broker-dealers (stock brokers), who also offered retail forex trading to their clients.

On May 20, 2016, the SEC issued a ruling that said: effective July 31 SEC-regulated broker-dealers would no longer be permitted to offer retail forex products to their clients.

LeapRate picked up the story, and published AN ARTICLE on May 25, 2016.

At the time, I was unaware of this action by the SEC. And, as far as I know, there was no mention of it here in the forum until Jason Rogers, the FXCM rep, posted THIS on August 16.

The SEC action has forced TD Ameritrade and Interactive Brokers off the list of 5 brokers, above.


• Now there are just 3 retail forex brokers licensed and regulated in the U.S., with current market shares not yet reported:

FXCM -
Oanda -
Gain Capital -


If you are familiar with the monthly reports put out by the CFTC, titled Selected FCM Financial Data, you know that various financial metrics are reported for Futures Commission Merchants (FCM's) regulated by the CFTC. These firms are classified as follows.

FCM --- commodity brokers (example: Advantage Futures LLC)
FCM-BD --- commodity brokers who also deal in equities (example: Merrill Lynch)
FCM-RFD --- retail forex exchange dealers (example: Gain Capital Group LLC)
FCM-SD --- foreign exchange swaps dealers (example: RJ O'Brien Associates LLC)

Then, there are combinations of these designations, for example:

FCM-BD-SD --- (example: JP Morgan Securities LLC)
FCM-RFD-SD --- (example: FXCM)

(Note that these firms --- the CFTC never refers to them as brokers --- all are referred to as FCM's, which does not necessarily mean that they deal in futures; rather, it denotes that they are CFTC-regulated.)


The August 31, 2016, FCM Financial Data report (the most recent one issued) lists only 3 FCM-RFD firms (FXCM, Oanda, and Gain).

However, Retail Forex Obligations (the far right-hand column of the table) are shown for 5 firms, including TD Ameritrade and Interactive Brokers, indicating that customers' forex account balances at TD Ameritrade and Interactive Brokers had not yet been paid out, at the time that data for the August 31 report was compiled.


The September 30 report (which will be released in early November) is expected to show Retail Forex Obligations for only the 3 remaining U.S. retail forex brokers. Those figures will then be used to calculate the market shares of those 3 brokers.

At this time, we can guess that FXCM, Oanda, and Gain will each have about a third of the U.S. retail forex market.


We may never know how much cooperation, collusion, and/or coersion occurred between the CFTC and the SEC, resulting in the SEC ruling reported in the LeapRate article, above. But, my guess is that these regulators work hand-in-hand with one another. It's all part of a step-by-step campaign to destroy off-exchange retail forex trading, first in the U.S, and then if possible around the world.

The next-to-last paragraph in the LeapRate article is chilling:

LeapRate spoke with a senior securities lawyer in the US who believes that this is likely just the first step by US regulators to possibly ban altogether highly leveraged retail forex trading. While the SEC might not have consulted with the futures and forex industry regulators (CFTC, NFA) in making its decision regarding the broker-dealers, those regulators will likely keep an eye on the SEC’s action – and it is not inconceivable that they could take similar action at some point in the future.
  • #65
  • Oct 30, 2016 2:20pm Oct 30, 2016 2:20pm
@pipmaster77 - Yes, the NFA could do more to protect client funds. My vote would be for FX and Futures to fall under SIPC Insurance (same as stocks).

But to say that the NFA only regulates the trader and not the broker is just inaccurate information. Tell that to the countless brokers who have been shut down and/or fined. The NFA does a great job at assuring the broker does not manipulate market movement. You mentioned market making, if you think offshore brokers are STPing your trades you are kidding yourself. Those brokers are 100% B-Booking your trades.

Going back to the money topic. The NFA/CFTC assure that you get your money back. Brokers can't hold your money for any reason, they must return it when asked. This is very different then almost all other jurisdictions you can claim a number of things, and not give you your money back. Shoot, I have personally spoken with numerous traders who had brokers STEAL their money. The broker just kept saying your withdrawal will be processed shortly. A few days passed, same answer, a few days more pass, same answer. Finally the broker just stops responding all together. Now, because there is no regulatory body, the person had nowhere to turn to get their funds back.

At the end of the day I will continue to trade my accounts with NFA regulated brokers. For what its worth though, if I was outside of the United States I would go with an FCA regulated broker. FCA just seems to get it when it comes to FX.
  • #66
  • Oct 30, 2016 3:54pm Oct 30, 2016 3:54pm
Quoting pipmaster77
{quote} I'll take the random island. Once again, your money is not protected in either case. Difference is, I only need 10% of the margin, so I am literally risking 90% less money than someone using an NFA regulated broker. The NFA is regulating the trader, only regulation imposed on the broker is their net capital requirement, but it is actually irrelevant as I mentioned it does nothing to protect the traders money. If the NFA were truly concerned about us, the market maker model would be eliminated and our funds would be insured. This is a classic...
I guess you only listen to your posts, head and think you're the new hotshot poster on this forum, when in reality you cannot tell the difference nor the truth of gambling and trading in the Foreign Exchange market.

Market Makers does not need to liquidate, manipulate, hunt, stop, kill, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT in order for them to win. It's just a business model, it doesn't need to be bad. Market Makers are NOT bad.

Stop listening to yourself and know that I had a good experience with Oanda, the MARKET MAKER.
  • #67
  • Oct 30, 2016 3:56pm Oct 30, 2016 3:56pm
If any U.S. trader is trading with an off-shore broker with no explanation, they do it at their own risk. It's about breaking the regulations.

Regulations don't play around.
  • #68
  • Oct 30, 2016 6:28pm Oct 30, 2016 6:28pm
Quoting DrinkForex
@pipmaster77 - Yes, the NFA could do more to protect client funds. My vote would be for FX and Futures to fall under SIPC Insurance (same as stocks). But to say that the NFA only regulates the trader and not the broker is just inaccurate information. Tell that to the countless brokers who have been shut down and/or fined. The NFA does a great job at assuring the broker does not manipulate market movement. You mentioned market making, if you think offshore brokers are STPing your trades you are kidding yourself. Those brokers are 100% B-Booking your...
Absolutely agree regarding FCA. So my issue is this, if the NFA has such a sincere interest in protecting the trader as they claim, why can't we trade with an FCA broker? Yes, I do firmly believe my broker is an ECN as I constantly see my trades come within .01 of my stop and not get hit, FXCM, Oanda or Forex.com would absolutely nail those stops.
  • #69
  • Oct 30, 2016 6:33pm Oct 30, 2016 6:33pm
Quoting Noorx
{quote} I guess you only listen to your posts, head and think you're the new hotshot poster on this forum, when in reality you cannot tell the difference nor the truth of gambling and trading in the Foreign Exchange market. Market Makers does not need to liquidate, manipulate, hunt, stop, kill, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT in order for them to win. It's just a business model, it doesn't need to be bad. Market Makers are NOT bad. Stop listening to yourself and know that I had a good experience with Oanda, the MARKET MAKER.
OK, to each his own. I just refuse to be in any game, contest, trade, whatever where the opposition wins when I lose and loses when I win WHERE THEY CONTOL THE OUTCOME, after all it is THEIR SOFTWARE. In addition, the transaction cost with a market maker is 25-35% higher than a tight spread+commission broker. If you are trading any significant volume, this can be tens of thousands of dollars per year. This absolutely affects your bottom line.
  • #70
  • Oct 30, 2016 6:37pm Oct 30, 2016 6:37pm
Quoting Noorx
If any U.S. trader is trading with an off-shore broker with no explanation, they do it at their own risk. It's about breaking the regulations. Regulations don't play around.
There is no regulation prohibiting it. Once again, the brainwashing effects of the US government. I wish people would research and state facts before posting. Everything I post is fact, not opinion.
  • #71
  • Oct 31, 2016 5:55am Oct 31, 2016 5:55am
FXCM is one of the leading Forex broker offering instruments like Forex, CFDs, spreads and related services. They are registered with Futures Commission Merchant with NFA. They are quite transparent in terms of execution and do not have a dealing desk. I think FXCM is one broker, US clients must try!
  • #72
  • Oct 31, 2016 6:31am Oct 31, 2016 6:31am
Quoting ammy
FXCM is one of the leading Forex broker offering instruments like Forex, CFDs, spreads and related services. They are registered with Futures Commission Merchant with NFA. They are quite transparent in terms of execution and do not have a dealing desk. I think FXCM is one broker, US clients must try!
They do have a dealing desk. It depends on your balance. As far as transparency, google search this: FXCM fines. Once again, please do some research before posting non-facts.
  • #73
  • Oct 31, 2016 7:44am Oct 31, 2016 7:44am
@pipmaster77 is correct that it is not against any regulation for a US trader to open an account with an offshore broker. It IS against regulation for that broker to accept US accounts, and for any person based in the United States to act as an introducing broker referring US traders to that broker.

Regarding the fines though, that just helps prove the case for trading with a regulated firm. FXCM was not treating customers fairly, thus they received a fine. There is nobody overseeing FX on those random islands so those brokers are allowed to continue with their unscrupulous behavior with no recourse.
  • #74
  • Oct 31, 2016 6:06pm Oct 31, 2016 6:06pm
Quoting DrinkForex
@pipmaster77 is correct that it is not against any regulation for a US trader to open an account with an offshore broker. It IS against regulation for that broker to accept US accounts, and for any person based in the United States to act as an introducing broker referring US traders to that broker. Regarding the fines though, that just helps prove the case for trading with a regulated firm. FXCM was not treating customers fairly, thus they received a fine. There is nobody overseeing FX on those random islands so those brokers are allowed to continue...
Which brings me to my exact point, I have been with my broker over 2 years. Not once has there been a frozen platform, not once has there been a random spike ( not found anywhere else),and not once have I not received a withdrawal within 2 business days. I trust my broker 1000 times more than I would any US broker. The regulations are there for a revenue stream(fines) for the NFA. They do not care one bit about the trader, although they want you to believe so. The net capital requirements on the broker as well as the reduced leverage on the trader, no hedging, FIFO are all an attempt to completely eliminate retail forex in the US. They want everyone in the markets (futures, equities) which they benefit from.

The biggest takeaway everyone she be getting is the fact that I am able to trade with 10% of the risk as someone with an NFA broker. The other 90% stays fully insured in my FDIC-insured bank account, earning (minimal) interest. If an NFA broker goes bankrupt, as FXCM was within hours of in 2015, you lose ALL of your money, if my broker disappears into the night, I lose 10%. How everyone does not grasp this, I haven't a clue.
  • #75
  • Oct 31, 2016 8:31pm Oct 31, 2016 8:31pm
Quoting pipmaster77
May I add, I would love to trade with a regulated broker in the UK or Australia, where my funds are protected. But the good ole US(while claiming to protect me) doesn't allow it.
"here here" - nor CFDs. Its bs with a capital "B"
  • #76
  • Nov 1, 2016 5:43am Nov 1, 2016 5:43am
Hi , so what US broker is best in terms of costs to trade ie. spreads + commissions etc ?
Without struggle there is no progress
  • #77
  • Nov 1, 2016 6:39am Nov 1, 2016 6:39am
Quoting DragonNoob
Hi , so what US broker is best in terms of costs to trade ie. spreads + commissions etc ?
. All of them are great. No conflict of interest, when you win, they win, when you lose, they lose. They are 100% invested in your success. Spreads are razor thin, and your money is fully protected. Oh wait, you said US broker, my bad.....
  • #78
  • Nov 4, 2016 9:14pm Nov 4, 2016 9:14pm
Look, the NFA is "protecting" us again.

NFA Financial Requirements Section 12 requires FDMs to collect and maintain a minimum security deposit of 2% of the notional value of transactions in 10 listed major foreign currencies and 5% of the notional value of other transactions. Importantly, Section 12 also permits NFA's Executive Committee to increase these requirements under extraordinary market conditions. Given the recent events involving the U.K. exiting the European Union (Brexit) the Executive Committee has determined to increase the minimum security deposits required to be collected and maintained by FDMs under Section 12 for currency pairs involving the British pound to a minimum of 5%. This increase is effective as of 5 p.m. (CST) on November 7, 2016 and remains in effect until further notice.

FDMs are also reminded that the Executive Committee raised the minimum security deposit required to be collected and maintained under Section 12 for currency pairs involving the Mexican peso to a minimum of 6% in January 2015. Given the recent volatility surrounding the Mexican peso, each FDM must ensure that it continues to adhere to this increased security deposit amount.

If you have any questions on these requirements, please contact Sarah Walsh, Associate Director, Compliance ([email protected] or 312-781-1202) or Shana Dunnigan, Manager, Compliance ([email protected] or 312-781-1379).


So now I need 25 times the deposit for margin in the US than I do with my broker to execute the same trades involving the GBP. But hey why not deposit $25,000 instead of $1,000. Atleast in the US, our funds are protected.
  • #79
  • Nov 5, 2016 7:47am Nov 5, 2016 7:47am
Quoting pipmaster77
{quote} Which brings me to my exact point, I have been with my broker over 2 years. Not once has there been a frozen platform, not once has there been a random spike ( not found anywhere else),and not once have I not received a withdrawal within 2 business days. I trust my broker 1000 times more than I would any US broker. The regulations are there for a revenue stream(fines) for the NFA. They do not care one bit about the trader, although they want you to believe so. The net capital requirements on the broker as well as the reduced leverage on...
As I suspected, there are no rebuttals to this one. If you trade with a US broker, you are either completely naive to what is going on or you know the truth but are too stubborn to admit it. This kind of reminds me of those voting for Hillary.
  • #80
  • Nov 6, 2016 9:03am Nov 6, 2016 9:03am
Pipmaster, you seem wise to trading offshore. Which brokers do you feel safe with? I read the comments on other forums and Tradersway and FXChoice seem to be the best thus far (since Tallinex beame a recent cftc target). But I wonder when these brokers will drop US clients like the others have. I also wonder if and when offshore forex trading for US residents will become illegal without satisfying onerous requirements.
0 traders viewing now