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.

MadMarketScientist

What Do We All Think About the New Forex Rules?

Recommended Posts

Now that the CFTC has finally weighed in on the proposal to reduce the leverage allowed in forex I'm curious what you all think?

 

Here is a summary from them:

 

http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@newsroom/documents/file/forexfinalrule_qa.pdf

 

These go into effect on October 18, 2010 so about 6 week or so.

 

My interpretation is the leverage will be 50:1 on "major pairs" and 20:1 on exotics. It's unclear what is what - but I would assume the usual's like EURUSD, GBPUSD, USDJPY are major - though you have to wonder what the GBPJPY will be considered, etc... That part is unclear plus it appears they are keeping open the ability to move pairs between these two leverages.

 

It does appear that anyone who introduces forex accounts now must be registered though they do not have to be guaranteed by the broker if they meet capital requirements. That doesn't impact the retail trader but gives an indication of the regulations being required.

 

There has been some debate I've seen elsewhere that this somehow removes the ability for US traders to have overseas accounts, which is what many did to avoid the hedging and FIFO rules when those came into effect a year ago. However, I don't see where that is clearly spelled out one way or the other.

 

Obviously there was a fear they could rule and make it 10:1 so this is probably a good development from the worst possible.

 

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is regards what gets classed as a major they will say something like

"USD, GBP, JPY, EUR, AUD (etc:)" and that ANY combinations between these will be classed as majors, the rest and any combinations of those will be considered not major.

 

regards the leverage 50 or 20 to 1 seems about right.

All it will mean is that anyone who is using even more leverage will have to reduce their size.

It may be interesting how it affects spread betting accounts (mainly relevant in the UK)

 

I feel its all about ultimately forcing everything onto a regulated exchange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10:1 would have been too far IMHO...of course the old 500:1, 1000:1, etc. was truly ridiculous (before the last reform)...I don't know that they necessarily needed to push it further...100:1 was ok. I generally just don't like laws that are put in place to protect people from themselves who aren't hurting anyone but themselves (if they're not infringing on anyone else's rights).

 

Like seatbelt laws...

 

Laws like that make the statistics better, but at the cost of freedom/rights.

 

I dunno...lol

Edited by Cory2679

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like seatbelt laws...

 

Laws like that make the statistics better, but at the cost of freedom/rights.

l

 

Off thread a little (or maybe not) but seatbelt laws and similar laws in many places are nothing to do with freedoms. They are put in place because of the costs to society of not having them. Same as the no smoking bans. You can always choose to ignore them, but then in the great freedoms go the costs..... are you going to cover the costs if something goes wrong? or will society?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Off thread a little (or maybe not) but seatbelt laws and similar laws in many places are nothing to do with freedoms. They are put in place because of the costs to society of not having them. Same as the no smoking bans. You can always choose to ignore them, but then in the great freedoms go the costs..... are you going to cover the costs if something goes wrong? or will society?

 

Then perhaps activities that are a burden on society should be taxed...not outlawed (which is, indeed, often the case). Smoking tax, obesity tax, whatever.

 

I guess the seatbelt laws are practically a tax, anyway...I don't know of people being taken away to prison for not wearing a seatbelt...just fined (taxed, in a way).

 

So, perhaps the seatbelt laws aren't so bad if you look at it as a tax rather than a law against having your seatbelt undone (to me, anyway).

 

I don't know of smoking being outlawed (I could certainly be wrong)...smoking bans in public places, restaurants, etc. have to do with smokers infringing on the rights of other people (who presumably have the right to breath smoke-free air).

 

This isn't really even something I have strong opinions about. lol Just some thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smoking is a cool one Cory because it is absolutely not victimless and because it is slipping towards "outlawed." Its not as though you even really get high!

 

In New Zealand it will be outlawed in prisons from mid next year. Outlawed.

 

Why? Because prison officers can sue the state for the damage that passive smoking is doing to them in an environment they can't get away from. So, if you think prison is a deterrent now, imagine if you have to give up smoking when you arrive! I guess they'll put them all on tranqs to get through the grumpy phase!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting given the similarities between anti smoking, seat belt, laws etc and Forex rules.

These are all marketed that they protect us from ourselves.

When in reality, they are usually enacted as a result of a cost benefit analysis.

eg; smoking - as I understand it - it was the US states heath care systems in particular, and court cases in Australia that sued the places whereby passive smoking could cause cancer. The people sued were employers, public places etc.

So it became cheaper to ban smoking.

There are some interesting calls around the world to re-asses the current failed war on drugs, via the exact same approach. Are they better pumping the money into health and rehabilitation rather than fighting what has clearly been a failed attempt to stop supply?

 

So apart from trying to force most people onto exchanges for better, centralised regulation and monitoring, and by reducing excessive leverage (probably not such a bad thing) what other cost benefit analysis would there be in FX? Maybe they should protect us from the banks..... it certainly might be cheaper for us as individuals at least :),

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the benefit is "I did something so you should vote me in"

 

and the second one is that it doesn't impact on campaign contributors who generated the real problems. Fix the little guy to protect political scum. Warms the heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While this regulation has no impact on me as I only leverage up within the 2-5 : 1 area, I think the overall idea is dumb. People can self govern their finances without restriction and also wear the responsibility of the results. What actual benefit does this regulation have? (non-rhetorical).

 

With kind regards,

MK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have been a while since my last post, i just want to say... this is sucks(since my money management work best on 100:1) we should have an options on our own we deserve to choose what ever leverage we need 100:1 400:1 10:1 any leverage we need!

 

BTW if someone can't do their own money management they should not be trading. no matter how big the leverage is if you have good money management will not be a matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the guy who uses the maximum available trading leverage (short of being at risk of margin calls) in order to reduce the 'fiscal risk' (ie of his broker going bust) by parking the majority of his trading fund in a safe regulated bank account? In UK, bank accounts are government guaranteed to £50K per institution - so If I were (hypothetical example with flaws, but it'll do for illustration) to trade £1K on leverage with an unregulated FX or spread betting company based in say Malta, and leave £49K in a UK bank, only £1K is at 'fiscal risk'. By doing so I'd almost certainly decrease my overall risk (particularly at the moment) compared to placing my entire trading fund with that broker, then trading low leverage in my account.

 

Max

Edited by maxr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...I only leverage up within the 2-5 : 1 area, I think the overall idea is dumb.

 

Do you day-trade or only swing/position trade? That seems like fairly low leverage to me for daytrading. If you risk 2% on a position on the EUR/USD with 25 ticks of risk, that means a position that currently requires over 10:1 (and that's if you only have one position on at a time). Just curious.

 

People can self govern their finances without restriction and also wear the responsibility of the results.

 

Absolutely, but that's unfortunately just not the reality...people don't take responsibility for their actions...they want to make excuses and blaim someone else.

 

What actual benefit does this regulation have? (non-rhetorical).

 

Maybe traders who blow up their accounts whine about how their brokers are just out to get them and it's the big bad broker's fault that they're bankrupt. I've seen it many times throughout discussion boards/broker reviews...people 100% blaming their broker for their failure. :doh:

 

I guess the regulation shuts those people up...because maybe those people go spread the word to people who will believe them about how bad brokers/Wall Street/markets are and it's bad press.

 

Also, one might speculate that the CFTC has an agenda to push people toward trading currency futures...where, with some brokers, the day-trading margins to trade the major pairs is much much higher than 50:1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All interesting/good points above.

 

I would agree that much of this comes from those who lose money, then play the blame game. And have complained endlessly to regulators who then feel they need to step in to protect the innocent. Of course those innocent were really just super greedy and didn't want to face the reality of their stupidity.

 

When I lose I have learned that ultimately the buck stops here. Sure, if a broker pulls some shenanigans, or doesn't execute right that's a different story. And, I'm all for the regulators to require these brokers to be registered and put up capital because the reality is when that wasn't the case there were truly brokers simply stealing funds.

 

As to whether we need 100:1 or 200:1, etc... I would say no if we weren't talking about parking funds somewhere else like one of the replies above. Strictly from a trading standpoint I don't see how someone can really utilize 100:1 and make money. If you do, let's say put $1,000 into forex and use the full 100:1 to buy a standard and lose a small amount like 25 pips you are down 25% in one trade. Totally unsustainable and only luck will make this work.

 

I am already getting emails from brokers like FXDD who make it super easy anyway to get around these rules - like using FXDD Malta and I'm sure all the other majors like FXCM have their own alternatives.

 

This is what happens though when there's no personal accountability - we get lots of regulations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are strategies that are less simple than ours MMS that can make use of the extra margin. Some of them are quite good. Its applying 200:1 to straight out single bets without good money management that offers the potential to clean out the account quickly.

 

In response to Malta etc won't you just get the (protectionist?) legislation in the US that stops you using overseas purveyors of extra margin similar to the stuff that stops you using spread-betters.

 

On the other hand, if its primarily the industry and politicians protecting their re-elections by being seen to be doing something they'll probably be satisfied with their current effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That part I'm not clear on - whether regulation prevents you from taking advantage of what's offered overseas - like you mention with spread betting (or online gambling for example)

 

I know that up to this point, I know a number of people who have had no problem opening accounts overseas and in many/most cases the funds are still being deposited held in segregated accounts in the U.S. -- I believe FXDD is holding them with Chase in New York.

 

Not sure if this new regulation somehow prevents this -- or how it could be enforced. I'm sure they would lead you to believe it is not allowed but whether in actuality not sure.

 

MMS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tresor
Then perhaps activities that are a burden on society should be taxed...not outlawed (which is, indeed, often the case). Smoking tax, obesity tax, whatever.

 

Please remember that whatever you consider a burden for society may not necessarily be perceived a burden by other members of society.

 

Please remember that whenever a government imposes any tax it does so by initiating violence against YOU and other members of the society, i.e. if you do not pay taxes, you get a court notice, if you fail to show up in a court room, the police will come to arrest you.

 

If - in a hope of being a free human being - you resisit the arrest (which is a violent act of depriving you of your freedoms) you will be shot dead.

 

If you don't have a gun to resist the arrest you will be put in prison. If you decide to escape from the prison and enjoy ''freedom'', you will be shot dead by the guards.

 

Okay, you are enslaved by having to pay taxes. And you want to further enslave members of your community by proposing another tax, and you want to increase violence within your society (taxation is a form of violence initiated by governments).

 

Why at least the hell not let the people trade the leverage they want?

Edited by Tresor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about the guy who uses the maximum available trading leverage (short of being at risk of margin calls) in order to reduce the 'fiscal risk' (ie of his broker going bust) by parking the majority of his trading fund in a safe regulated bank account? In UK, bank accounts are government guaranteed to £50K per institution - so If I were (hypothetical example with flaws, but it'll do for illustration) to trade £1K on leverage with an unregulated FX or spread betting company based in say Malta, and leave £49K in a UK bank, only £1K is at 'fiscal risk'. By doing so I'd almost certainly decrease my overall risk (particularly at the moment) compared to placing my entire trading fund with that broker, then trading low leverage in my account.

 

Max

 

 

You're wrong! You say you're hypothetical argument has flaws. It doesn't at all. It is spot on and well made.

 

This is what REAL money management is about, and exactly how professionals view the situation. brokerage accounts dont pay out interest, so why should anyone want to leave anymore than necessary to manage positions? this is why funds will deposit interest bearing paper as margin with their clearing firm/broker so they are earning interest on their margin as well. The risk concept which you intelligently put forward is another facet of shrewd risk management and money management.

 

Afterall, when you deposit your money with a broker, does anyone really think he keeps it nice and safe under lock and key? Nope. It goes straight into the overnight or bond market to earn the broker free money. This is where a lot of brokers make a good % of their income.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That part I'm not clear on - whether regulation prevents you from taking advantage of what's offered overseas - like you mention with spread betting (or online gambling for example)

 

I know that up to this point, I know a number of people who have had no problem opening accounts overseas and in many/most cases the funds are still being deposited held in segregated accounts in the U.S. -- I believe FXDD is holding them with Chase in New York.

 

Not sure if this new regulation somehow prevents this -- or how it could be enforced. I'm sure they would lead you to believe it is not allowed but whether in actuality not sure.

 

MMS

 

 

You do tend to get surprising levels of cooperation. Maybe pressure is involved but they also don't want the hassle of customer problems when it goes wrong.

 

The spreadbetters (fx buckets by another name) are the most obvious one (try to open an account from the us).

 

Online pharmacies and Amazon is another one ... try to order drugs that are legal in the US but not approved in Australia for Aus and they won't take your order.

 

So, if you get draconian laws in the US you might be surprised, given the linkages in these organizations at their willingness to exclude you guys from overseas operations.

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

    • Be careful who you blame.   I can tell you one thing for sure.   Effective traders don’t blame others when things start to go wrong.   You can hang onto your tendency to play the victim, or the martyr… but if you want to achieve in trading, you have to be prepared to take responsibility.   People assign reasons to outcomes, whether based on internal or external factors.   When traders face losses, it's common for them to blame bad luck, poor advice, or other external factors, rather than reflecting on their own personal attributes like arrogance, fear, or greed.   This is a challenging lesson to grasp in your trading journey, but one that holds immense value.   This is called attribution theory. Taking responsibility for your actions is the key to improving your trading skills. Pause and ask yourself - What role did I play in my financial decisions?   After all, you were the one who listened to that source, and decided to act on that trade based on the rumour. Attributing results solely to external circumstances is what is known as having an ‘external locus of control’.   It's a concept coined by psychologist Julian Rotter in 1954. A trader with an external locus of control might say, "I made a profit because the markets are currently favourable."   Instead, strive to develop an "internal locus of control" and take ownership of your actions.   Assume that all trading results are within your realm of responsibility and actively seek ways to improve your own behaviour.   This is the fastest route to enhancing your trading abilities. A trader with an internal locus of control might proudly state, "My equity curve is rising because I am a disciplined trader who faithfully follows my trading plan." Author: Louise Bedford Source: https://www.tradinggame.com.au/
    • SELF IMPROVEMENT.   The whole self-help industry began when Dale Carnegie published How to Win Friends and Influence People in 1936. Then came other classics like Think And Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill, Awaken the Giant Within by Tony Robbins toward the end of the century.   Today, teaching people how to improve themselves is a business. A pure ruthless business where some people sell utter bullshit.   There are broke Instagrammers and YouTubers with literally no solid background teaching men how to be attractive to women, how to begin a start-up, how to become successful — most of these guys speaking nothing more than hollow motivational words and cliche stuff. They waste your time. Some of these people who present themselves as hugely successful also give talks and write books.   There are so many books on financial advice, self-improvement, love, etc and some people actually try to read them. They are a waste of time, mostly.   When you start reading a dozen books on finance you realize that they all say the same stuff.   You are not going to live forever in the learning phase. Don't procrastinate by reading bull-shit or the same good knowledge in 10 books. What we ought to do is choose wisely.   Yes. A good book can change your life, given you do what it asks you to do.   All the books I have named up to now are worthy of reading. Tim Ferriss, Simon Sinek, Robert Greene — these guys are worthy of reading. These guys teach what others don't. Their books are unique and actually, come from relevant and successful people.   When Richard Branson writes a book about entrepreneurship, go read it. Every line in that book is said by one of the greatest entrepreneurs of our time.   When a Chinese millionaire( he claims to be) Youtuber who releases a video titled “Why reading books keeps you broke” and a year later another one “My recommendation of books for grand success” you should be wise to tell him to jump from Victoria Falls.   These self-improvement gurus sell you delusions.   They say they have those little tricks that only they know that if you use, everything in your life will be perfect. Those little tricks. We are just “making of a to-do-list before sleeping” away from becoming the next Bill Gates.   There are no little tricks.   There is no success-mantra.   Self-improvement is a trap for 99% of the people. You can't do that unless you are very, very strong.   If you are looking for easy ways, you will only keep wasting your time forgetting that your time on this planet is limited, as alive humans that is.   Also, I feel that people who claim to read like a book a day or promote it are idiots. You retain nothing. When you do read a good book, you read slow, sometimes a whole paragraph, again and again, dwelling on it, trying to internalize its knowledge. You try to understand. You think. It takes time.   It's better to read a good book 10 times than 1000 stupid ones.   So be choosy. Read from the guys who actually know something, not some wannabe ‘influencers’.   Edit: Think And Grow Rich was written as a result of a project assigned to Napoleon Hill by Andrew Carnegie(the 2nd richest man in recent history). He was asked to study the most successful people on the planet and document which characteristics made them great. He did extensive work in studying hundreds of the most successful people of that time. The result was that little book.   Nowadays some people just study Instagram algorithms and think of themselves as a Dale Carnegie or Anthony Robbins. By Nupur Nishant, Quora Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/    
    • there is no avoiding loses to be honest, its just how the market is. you win some and hopefully more, but u do lose some. 
    • $CSCO Cisco Systems stock, nice top of range breakout, from Stocks to Watch at https://stockconsultant.com/?CSCOSEPN Septerna stock watch for a bottom breakout, good upside price gap
    • $CSCO Cisco Systems stock, nice top of range breakout, from Stocks to Watch at https://stockconsultant.com/?CSCOSEPN Septerna stock watch for a bottom breakout, good upside price gap
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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