Let the people decide all of us a vote, and take the power back away from the government in power over us. Yes we the people gave our own government the power to take our Freedom away from us, why cant we the people take it back.
The CFTC recently changed to leverage requirements in 2009 requiring investors to maintain a higher margin thereby reducing a considerate amount of speculation. The rationale for a further restrictive change should be thoroughly analyized to determine both the liquidity impacts and market efficiency of increasing retail investors requirements in the FOREX community.
Increases on leverage requirements may not necessarily reduce currency volatility and may prove otherwise as transactions are reduced in the marketplace. Behavioral Finance and other mandated educational classes on both money management and entry/exit decisions should be considered (possible mandated) for retail investors rather than the increased leverage requirements and may prove beneficial for market participants when making decisions and further understanding why human nature is so loss averse (clearly why typically we hold our losers and release our winning trades).
Regarding speculation in equity options vs. FOREX community, analysis between the two may indicate more speculation exists in the option community considering the latter is also a depreciating asset.
In the end, the CFTC should disclose why the agency deems it necessary to change the leverage requirements after recently making them tighter. Does the small retail investor impact the volatlity significantly in the market? If so and the global markets outside the US maintain less restrictions on FOREX leverage requirements, than investors will most likely seek to establish accounts with non-us institutions...not good news for US. If the volatility is not affected by retail investors then education should be the method to enhance awareness on leverage requirements.
Passing this rule, in particular reducing the leverage allowed to retail forex traders to 10:1 vs. the currently allowed ratio of 100:1 will wipe out retail forex trading in the U.S.
The passage of this rule will do great damage to retail forex traders like myself, and will ultimately force traders out of business or force them to take their money to non-US based brokers. This will likely result in loss of jobs and further decreased prosperity for the US economy.
Please DO NOT change the current leverage laws and rules related to trading forex in the US.
We strongly oppose the proposed 10:1 restriction of leverage sizes for retail Forex traders in the United States because it will cost thousands of jobs and will cause us to move our money outside of this country to do the Forex trading.
I believe this regulation does more harm than good. The reasons are rather obvious. I'm signing this petition because, statistically, each signature represents a multiple of number of people that feel the same way but primarily because I get angry when government interferes in things they shouldn't and don't when they should which has caused the failure of some governments in the past and I would think ours would be advanced enough to perceive that without having what others might construe as a rebellion which would not be favorable to our image in the eyes of the world.
Regulating maximum leverage for retail forex accounts to 10:1 reminds me of those TV ads running right now, where the presenter gives the kid a bike, but warns that they cannot ride outside the pink box painted on the floor. The kid looks at the presenter, as if to say, I may be just a kid, but I'm well-aware of the wrong you are doing by me here.
Regulations that enhance the customer's ability to screen brokers in meaningful ways ARE useful, but then I don't suppose many people would argue against that.
It's the order-of-magnitude reduction in leverage from 100:1 to 10:1 that I think represents an extraordinary disservice to traders who have dedicated themselves to practicing their craft.
Those who haven't would be well-served to begin doing so with a smaller amount of leverage, and to have this option is prudent.
But to impose a unilateral maximum leverage on all traders, that's unjust.
Please stop this bill from passing it will endanger US Retail Forex trading customers to move fund overseas to open account with high risk un-regulated forex dealers, which will only endanger US citizens. The US gov't will lose millions in TAX revenue. Also note, large number of capital/professional jobs will be lost specially when our country is unemployment rate is at 10% without much change in new jobs creation.
Have you stopped to think and wonder why the high volume of responses to this proposed rule compared to prior rule proposal responses? Unlike no hedging and other rules adopted before, lowering retail forex margin to 10 to 1 will definitely end retail forex in the U.S. Firms and traders will just transfer account offshore or open new account offshore. Plain and simple. 10 to 1 margin will not allow traders to margin at 10 to 1 because you have to have leeway for a trade initially going against you and have a SL.
Movement in price in Forex are in pips, which is .0001 increments. If an account cannot be properly leveraged the small movements will not produce enough profits to allow people to trade it. Think about what the fule will accomplish, or not, before passing a rule that will kill U.S. retail forex. FXCM already has a UK, branch, IBFX is getting approved by the FSA to open offshore account, and the list goes on.
It seems to me that the CFTC has a bias against spot forex and for forex futures. But passing this rule is not going to force spot traders into fx futures. There is not enough liquitidy there, and people are very very upset about the government telling them how to trade. Offshore is where they will go for sure.
Not many traders are going to deposit large sums of money in unsecured U.S. forex accounts because if the broker goes bust, and most will because of this rule, they will lose all their funds. If the CFTC really wanted to protect U.S. retail traders, then they would follow the FSA and required segregated and insured accounts, and allow margin as before or as the FSA mandates.
This rule does not protect U.S retail traders but actually will unprotect the ones that stay and have to fund accounts with high balances in order to trade.
Why do you think that all email responses, as posted to date, oppose this rule? Think this through before making such a bad decision.
Forex Trading & CFTC RULE RIN 3038-AC61
24 People Have Sent 0 Letters and Emails
Sign the Petition
Some recent comments: these messages are published with permission of the signer.
The CFTC recently changed to leverage requirements in 2009 requiring investors to maintain a higher margin thereby reducing a considerate amount of speculation. The rationale for a further restrictive change should be thoroughly analyized to determine both the liquidity impacts and market efficiency of increasing retail investors requirements in the FOREX community.
Increases on leverage requirements may not necessarily reduce currency volatility and may prove otherwise as transactions are reduced in the marketplace. Behavioral Finance and other mandated educational classes on both money management and entry/exit decisions should be considered (possible mandated) for retail investors rather than the increased leverage requirements and may prove beneficial for market participants when making decisions and further understanding why human nature is so loss averse (clearly why typically we hold our losers and release our winning trades).
Regarding speculation in equity options vs. FOREX community, analysis between the two may indicate more speculation exists in the option community considering the latter is also a depreciating asset.
In the end, the CFTC should disclose why the agency deems it necessary to change the leverage requirements after recently making them tighter. Does the small retail investor impact the volatlity significantly in the market? If so and the global markets outside the US maintain less restrictions on FOREX leverage requirements, than investors will most likely seek to establish accounts with non-us institutions...not good news for US. If the volatility is not affected by retail investors then education should be the method to enhance awareness on leverage requirements.
The passage of this rule will do great damage to retail forex traders like myself, and will ultimately force traders out of business or force them to take their money to non-US based brokers. This will likely result in loss of jobs and further decreased prosperity for the US economy.
Please DO NOT change the current leverage laws and rules related to trading forex in the US.
Thank you!!
Regulations that enhance the customer's ability to screen brokers in meaningful ways ARE useful, but then I don't suppose many people would argue against that.
It's the order-of-magnitude reduction in leverage from 100:1 to 10:1 that I think represents an extraordinary disservice to traders who have dedicated themselves to practicing their craft.
Those who haven't would be well-served to begin doing so with a smaller amount of leverage, and to have this option is prudent.
But to impose a unilateral maximum leverage on all traders, that's unjust.
Movement in price in Forex are in pips, which is .0001 increments. If an account cannot be properly leveraged the small movements will not produce enough profits to allow people to trade it. Think about what the fule will accomplish, or not, before passing a rule that will kill U.S. retail forex. FXCM already has a UK, branch, IBFX is getting approved by the FSA to open offshore account, and the list goes on.
It seems to me that the CFTC has a bias against spot forex and for forex futures. But passing this rule is not going to force spot traders into fx futures. There is not enough liquitidy there, and people are very very upset about the government telling them how to trade. Offshore is where they will go for sure.
Not many traders are going to deposit large sums of money in unsecured U.S. forex accounts because if the broker goes bust, and most will because of this rule, they will lose all their funds. If the CFTC really wanted to protect U.S. retail traders, then they would follow the FSA and required segregated and insured accounts, and allow margin as before or as the FSA mandates.
This rule does not protect U.S retail traders but actually will unprotect the ones that stay and have to fund accounts with high balances in order to trade.
Why do you think that all email responses, as posted to date, oppose this rule? Think this through before making such a bad decision.
fxsignalstb.blogspot.com
Sign the Petition