The FCA recently published a consultation paper proposing changes to the way it currently regulates CFD markets.
- Ban the practice of offering deposit bonuses.
- Limit the amount of leverage that brokers and broker dealers offer retail traders.
So what's the fearful dragon?The FCA's paper references some analysis by both the FCA and other European regulators that look into cross-section data in several European markets (France, Poland, and the UK).
The conclusion is - surprise, surprise - that traders who trade 100+:1 leverage etc. lose their shirts: the CFD market is a fearful dragon devouring poor retail traders, pronto.
[caption id=“attachment_4849” align=“aligncenter” width=“1031”]
The consultation paper is quite interesting, and includes a broad overview of what’s going in the CFD market, not just UK-wise, but globally. It’s here, if you feel like it!
On taming the beast...ESMA (the pan-european) regulator correctly identified that the CFD market had gotten out of hand, and seems to have started a pan-european regulatory crusade to tame the dragon.
This is GOOD. It was about time, and also, it’s appropriate that it’s done in a concerted approach with all national regulators. If the FCA single-handedly took measures, and e.g. the Cypriot regulator didn’t, we’d be in an even deeper mess with even more Cypriot firms leveraging passporting rights to beat FCA regulated brokers with unfair advantage. So - well done on coordination.
Banning the bonuses and hopefully, the binary bet casino, is great too. It’s good for everyone who means well for the future of the retail CFD market, because binary had really gotten out of hand. As to the leverage cap… mixed feelings.
On the plus side - there is such thing as too much risk, and it helps all involved (brokers included) if the FCA enforces rules limiting risk levels. For an agency only broker like us, customer leverage introduces counterparty risk - whenever customers blow up, we have to pay up their negative equity - which is both costly and risky.
On the minus side - the devil is in the details, because Leverage <> risk (or not necessarily). To give you a few examples:
- What is experience? The FCA differentiates between experienced and inexperienced traders - and imposes different leverage caps (50:1 and 25:1 respectively) to either group. Apparently, an experienced trader is a trader who's traded for a year or more... but what if that trader has traded with another broker before? What if he placed 2 trades over the last year? etc. It's well-intentioned, but muddy in the implementation.
- What is the risk? What if an EA has a long trade EURUSD, and a hedging trade short EURUSD - so net risk is negligible (the spread)... and yet gross leverage is the sum of both positions. Does everyone now have to re-write their EAs because of the bluntness of leverage as a proxy for risk.
- Another variation: who has more risk, a scalper who opens 30 second trades with 100:1 leverage, or a novice trader who trades the EURUSD with 25:1 leverage on an NFP friday, and goes for lunch during the news release?
The problem is it feels as though they asked “How much money do people lose?” instead of “Why do people lose so much?”.
And it feels like that, because the FCA have gone about limiting the loss (=taming the dragon), instead of tackling the problem at root.
What the FCA says is: retail traders are children / gamblers / addicts / mentally handicapped individuals who can’t take care of themselves. They’ll lose no matter what (= this dragon can’t be slain), so let’s reduce / slow down the losses (=limit access to the dragon’s cave) - or else this will come back to haunt the regulator.
Why not slain it?The tragedy in all this is: at no point have the FCA actually asked: why do people lose?
If the FCA had tackled that question, they would have realised that a market maker engaging novice retail traders directly, enjoys two massive asymmetries:
- Capital: the house has deeper pockets than the retail trader - more, the more leverage is involved. Sooner or later, the small guy blows up, and the house picks up the pieces
- Information: the market maker knows what all its customers are doing, and uses that information for its own benefit. None of the small guys know what others are up to - and this is a BIG disadvantage.
- Pay up to GBP 1500 for fresh blood (feel free to reach out to us at email@example.com and we'll provide you with proof),
- Get the sucker to deposit GBP 3000 average deposit,
- Take the other side of the sucker's leveraged trades until he blows up,
- Turn a GBP (3000 - 1500) = 1500 profit = 100% return on capital, in 3 months.
- Suckers blow up not in 3 months but perhaps in 6 (ROI falls),
- Yes, other forms of gambling become more attractive without the leverage, so the CFD market will shrink,
If everyone around you (the broker, the IBs, the “educators”, the other suckers) goes leverage, leverage, leverage, leverage, losing is guaranteed. Alas, the leverage CAP does not kill the perverse incentive (=the dragon) - it merely tames it. So - our verdict on the FCA’s proposed changes is: this shoves the mess under the carpet, but it remains a mess.
How to slain the CFD dragonAnd that's the part that beats us.
Has anyone ever heard of a Futures / Equities broker offering 200:1 leverage, deposit bonuses, or any of that crap?
So there you go: futures are listed on an Exchange so that futures brokers have no way (=incentive) to deploy their capital or information edge against their own customers.
So here’s our proposed change: How about you force CFDs on Exchange?
Wouldn’t that be the cleaner (and quicker!) way to solve this mess for good???