Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

Eric Johnson

Major Forex Regulation Proposed

Recommended Posts

The CFTC is trying to change leverage requirements and control all US forex transactions. This will result in maximum leverage of 10 to 1 leverage on all accounts.

The action is open to comment for a time, and I hope it is stopped. I do not want 10 times more of my money deposited to trade the same size lots. For one thing that money is already subject to plenty of regulations. It also makes it subject to loss if there is more large financial problems. I will probably only trade with foreign brokers, and that is so much extra paperwork and expense to make transactions.

 

Here is a link to learn more, sorry it has a pop up, but it was one of the best articles,

 

http://www.fxstreet.com/education/forex-basics/cftc-forex-proposal-us-retail-market-to-disappear/2010-01-19.html

 

here is where to write to send comments

 

http://www.forexcrunch.com/act-against-the-cftc-110-leverage-proposal/

 

I guess this is an active email secretary@cftc.gov

Edited by Eric Johnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as it doesn't effect an American's ability to open, fund, and trade an off shore account, let them do whatever they wish. Personally, I would welcome more liquidity flowing to the CME futures. There actually is an EURJPY listed future, but no one trades it. What a shame!

 

As a friend of mine stated, however, I doubt very many bucket shop customers have the funds to trade futures, so any hoped for increase in trade flows to the listed futures is likely mere misguided wishful thinking.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Thales

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

This is a timely discussion as Obama announces plans to "regulate" the financial sector, and we see stocks go down. It is my bias, but the big funds always seem to have a way around the regulations, and the smaller trader just gets more run arounds. Also they step up their "security anti terrorism " paperwork, that means they freeze your assets and ask questions later if you have anything unusual. It sounds harmless until you are overseas citizen trying to get a bank account without visiting a branch in the USA, (no personal account=no withdrawal) and so on. My point is that these regulatory commissions need to be kept in check. The US regulatory and anti terrorism agenda has a way of forcing it's way around the globe.

As for futures and the CFTC (commodity futures trading commission ), I enjoyed trading futures for years but, the quote prices for futures are high, trades expensive, and ability to vary lot size is less. I don't really want that kind of direction for forex. They would be placing liability demands on brokers that may lead to higher fees. We may see the decrease in volume in FX if regulation goes too far. Also early 2011 the capital gains may be dramatically increased, if the tax cuts are let to expire.

Anyhow, as they say, love it or leave it, I guess I left a long time ago.

Edited by Eric Johnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Eric Johnson said:
Also they step up their "security anti terrorism " paperwork, that means they freeze your assets and ask questions later if you have anything unusual.

 

Hiya,

 

This 'security' has been active for a couple years already. I had this happen with an IB account about 2 years ago. What annoyed me about the whole thing was that they freeze it automatically and didn't bother to tell me about it. It took me well over 6 hours and 4 separate phone calls until I could actually speak to someone that was able to address the problem. I was livid. Someone outside the USA and outside the EU could really garner some solid business if they setup a quality brokerage firm in locations with less absurd regulation.

 

Oh yeah, I also think this forex regulation is dumb. Reduce leverage on FX but you can go right ahead and trade the ES with only $500 day trade margin at some brokers. All the leverage reduction does is reduce the small players, and they are not the ones moving the market anyhow, so what is the point? It's not going to stabilize anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't it just reduce US based forex companies.

 

Its like all the anti-corruption legislation. US businesses in the gulf, india or indonesia become uncompetitive unless they add a middle man who pays the bribes ... and if they do they'd better be able to "prove" they didn't know.

 

The holier than thou ... and can impose it on others ... didn't stop the french and it sure won't stop the chinese. Goodbye US competitiveness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a big difference between trading/leverage regulation and anti-money laundering (AML) anti terrorism regulation and the tax man. The AML and tax man are going to increase regulations regardless - this is what makes opening accounts, closing accounts, freezing accounts a pain. This is different to the leverage regulation -the main killer for a lot of retail traders. (larger retail traders will get around this most likely as they can be registered as companies or have enough money to qualify as non retail, or will have no problems shifting to offshore)

AML and tax are not going to go away - and are a different animal. This is always moving to a more globally focused coverage.

 

My first thoughts are that it will generally only hurt those companies that are operating on the edge which will then lead to more concentration into the existing bigger brokers, which means less competition which generally leads to higher costs..... never good for anyone.

 

Most of the bigger more established companies already properly focus on the regulations and any costs to them will be marginal - it will hurt the smaller or more lax firms (might be a good thing). Clearly however the growth of the retail FX broking firms in recent years have been the driving force of reducing costs and spreads.....getting rid of competition is never good.

 

However - If it pushes people onto the exchange futures... I am with Thalestrader....that works for me, and I dont necessarily see it as such a bad thing. (I find it hard to sympathise when people complain about the costs and the spreads as they are pretty good.) They will probably introduce minis.They have said previously they are worried about the growth of the largely unregulated retail FX market and at least they may head off possible future problems.

Most retail people probably play with too much leverage. But a 10:1 restriction is probably too harsh.

 

NET RESULT: regulators are missing the point (but are at least trying to head off an issue in the future), regulation is here to stay and going to increase, competition decreases, costs increase (after massive improvements in recent years), US continues to decline in world dominance of markets and trading.

hmmmm.......not much really changing then.;)

 

(I actually don't think the exchanges should ever have been left to run at a profit as private companies - but thats a whole other issue. )

The bigger worry is Wall street not being able to run prop desks.... that is more likely to push up costs and reduce leverage and move people off shore of the US.

Edited by DugDug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  DugDug said:
(I actually don't think the exchanges should ever have been left to run at a profit as private companies - but thats a whole other issue. )

 

I fully agree - exchanges serve a public utility and as such ought to have as a goal to generate revenue enough to cover the costs of operations, and not have the added incentive to increase costs to the public in order to attain a profit over and above the cost of operations..

 

 

Best Wishes,

 

Thales

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks thalestrader - the exact reason why I don't think they should be privately owned. I believe they actually do very little for what amounts to a virtual monopoly (it is slightly different these days as they have opened themselves up to being public and hence competition) but I have always believed that its a paradoxical situation where by we have the best people to regulate the markets ie; the exchanges, also under an obligation to maximise their shareholders profits - hellloooo - potential for conflicts. They take no risk as they are not a market maker, the members and insurance companies are the ones who bail out defaults and are largely protected by government regulation and barriers to entry (as the dark pools and FX are now finding out)....what better type of institution to be operated by the government - yet administered by private enterprise under a different compensation scheme to profit in order to work as a public utility for the good of the participants. Funny - just like the old days when brokers collectively owned it.:roll eyes:

I apologise for the rant.....its a bug bear of mine, and its Friday afternoon. I took my own advice from another thread - made some money and then went to a good old fashioned long lunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been trading for a long time and I've never stopped to actually think about this.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong. :confused:

 

So in comparing margin power of ES to that of spot currencies:

 

Roughly speaking,

ES - $500 in margin allows you to control ($50 x index value of 1100 =) $55,000 in trading power.

 

Eur/Usd - $1600 in margin allows you to control $100,000 in trading power.

 

So $1600 in ES margin gives you $176,000 of trading power vs FX giving you $141,000 basis the Euro/usd.

 

So as margin levels stand presently ES actually offers more leverage the FX does.

 

I don't get it, why are they picking on FX? I agree 100% with regulating the industry to get rid of the fraudsters but why do they think they have to treat traders like a bunch of kids and tell them what is the correct level to speculate (or gamble as some do) with?:angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the CME website

INITIAL MAINTENENCE

S&P 500 (SP)-S&P 500 FUTURES (SP) Spec $28,125 $22,500

Hedge/Member $22,500 $22,500

S&P 500 (SP)-E-MINI S&P 500 FUTURES (ES) Spec $5,625 $4,500

Hedge/Member $4,500 $4,500

 

So I am not sure where smaller margins of $500 comes from.

 

Also I think they are largely looking to pick on FX for a few reasons ....

1) there has been phenomenal growth in the retail FX market in recent years - this always worries people due to bubbles, regulation not keeping up with progress and companies being able to over things like 500 x leverage.

2) its not on an exchange - one of the key ideas is that they are trying to push a lot of OTC business onto exchanges including the things that a lot of the institutions do.

3) FX retail is an easy target. However I would not forget that some of the big banks and institutions are getting close to being massively overhauled as well - its just they have better lobbyists to fight or at least delay and better influence the politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have traded with many brokerages, companies like JR futures have small S+P mini margin levels, and forex brokers offer varied leverage. Basically I hope that those who are concerned do send an email, and we can hope these regulators can understand things like decreased tax revenues, brokerages losing money, investment going overseas, and so on. I think I read that there will be a restructuring of brokerage liability, and that may include excess cash reserve, or insurance for them, aka higher fees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  DugDug said:
So I am not sure where smaller margins of $500 comes from..

 

Hi Dug Dug,

 

Many futures brokers allow special "day trade"margin for the e-mini's, with $500/contract having become fairly common. Funny that the CFTC is coming after FX margin, but no one seems to mind the e-mini futures margin. That is why I suspect this has everything to do with Obama & Chicago and nothing to do with a saving retail traders and there $500 bucket shop accounts. The motive is not consumer protection - it is to move more trade flow to the CME. If the government were smart, they'd treat bucket shop bets like table gaming bets, and collect a 1/10th of a pip "tax" on every bucket shop bet. As far as I know, there is no limit on how much someone can bet at a casino. Why is the governent worried I might lose some chicken scratch with a bucket shop but allows me to ose my house to the Sands? Why else would the government suddenly become interested in the "well being" of three figure accounts? It is hard for me to see how this is not related to directing trade flows to the exchanges.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Thales

Best Wishes,

 

Thales

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree thalestrader, thats why in the other parts of my post points I think that the retail FX due to their growth and the fact they are off market are an easy target. Ideally by the better lobbyists to push things onto exchanges. How better to save retail traders!

 

I thought if you were actually trading via the exchange there was a minimum requirement of the margin set by the exchange as a client, unless the broker amalgamates everyone's trades via the day and acted as the one client. - you learn something new every day. thanks.

Maybe that will be the next easy target.

 

My view is that if firms are offering excessive leverage to retail clients who cant prove themselves as competent traders first. ie; they start off with lower levels first, then its much the same as a bank continually sending out credit cards to people who can least afford it, casinos who encourage the poor to gamble knowing the odds are against them and such similar often frowned upon practices. (even if you or I don't necessarily frown upon them)

Ultimately it is up to/or should be up to the individual to police themselves.

 

Did you notice Goldmans CEO Lloyd Blankfein distance himself from being a bank in the recent hearings..... in summary I heard the gist being - we are a market maker, we are not there to act in the best interests of our clients, they were big enough and professional enough to know what they were getting themselves into. PYA seems the name of the game.... always has. Always will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  DugDug said:
Ultimately it is up to/or should be up to the individual to police themselves.

 

With respect to financial risk taking, I agree (I would not presume murderers and rapists could be expected to "police themselves," for example).

 

I also would have let the banks fail. The real kick will come if these corporations which were saved only by government aid ultimately fail anyway.

 

Capitalism is dead! Long live Capitalism!

 

Best Wishes,

 

Thales

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  i trade said:

I don't get it, why are they picking on FX? I agree 100% with regulating the industry to get rid of the fraudsters but why do they think they have to treat traders like a bunch of kids and tell them what is the correct level to speculate (or gamble as some do) with?:angry:

 

Because there's money to be made in regulation, which is why an unregulated CFD market operating in the US just isn't allowed :angry:

 

Obama is a nice guy but he's looking pretty shaky on the second term if a half decent candidate steps up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.