well funny and hypocrite, since in futures you easily have 200:1 leverage intra day and in good hands its great, mening you dont need to keep much money in account, tough lesson taught to many by mfg and pfg and miriad of fx dealers
In some ways, but futures are not aggressively marketed in the UK as “easy money” in the way that FX and particularly Binary Options are. I think the irresponsible marketing by a lot of companies is what has attracted the notice of the FCA and caused them to wield the big stick.
If you read the FCA release, remember an important term ‘retail customers’
That the authorities seek to protect consumers for this type of product is quite normal.
In fact the solution is simple, be cataloged as a professional trader according to MiFid standards, and consumer standards do not apply.
I just opened an account at Squared Financial, which only accepts professional traders and insitutionals. It’s a bit more complicated but I opened my account as a professional.
So in my opinion, if we take the trading seriously, as much to be cataloged ‘pro’ according to MiFid guidelines, and normally the broker will be able to give us a higher lever if really necessary.
Leverage 1:50, 1:25 is more than enough to trade. You can still easily blown your account with that leverage if you want.
This way Darwinex’s algos will have much less interventions. And traders will be more steady too. All good.
The FCA is asking for feedback on their Consultation Paper.
You can share your feedback with them here: https://www.fca.org.uk/cp16-40-response-form
The Bafin in Germany is planning something similar but I could not download the pdf where the proposals were announced. They were criticising the possibility of negative balance and that you can’t calculate the risk of cfds because of that. I hope this won’t affect my trading with a UK-regulated broker.
@juancolonbo just put up a fantastic blog post with his views on this - highly recommend everyone to read and share.
Very interesting article and agree with @juancolonbo that it probably won’t solve the issue but more just drive “traders” to other solutions - even though I fully agree that bonuses should be made illegal as they are more likely to draw in those who can afford it the least.
@themarketbank it really does look like this time it’s for real http://www.leaprate.com/forex/regulations/cysec-gets-tougher-on-bonus-schemes-banning-referral-payments-trading-competitions-and-cash-rebates/
This has large pan-european implications, as Cypriot approved brokers passporting out into the rest of the EU will have to abide by these rules. Looks like turkeys DO eventually come home to roost…
Are FCA brokers like Darwinex also impacted by these rules?
Will the CySeq standards become the benchmark? What a paradox!
@Medialux From a regulatory standpoint, these proposals only affect brokers whose home regulator is CySec.
If/how this affects Darwinex is a subject for debate. My personal take is:
- The “punting” section of the FX market will shrink as a result of the combined pan-european push to reduce leverage & questionable marketing practices
- Nothing would please us more than this accelerating our ongoing growth in market share
The effect of this can only be good long term - for as long as FX continues to be a “pariah” asset class on account of unscrupulous marketing, this can only affect all of us negatively.
@juancolonbo How will this passporting affect Darwinex post Brexit, as Darwinex is currently regulated by the FCA, which is a UK authority?
@SATFX if passporting goes away (which seems likely), the principle of equivalence will likely apply - e.g. we will seek a new EU regulation in one of the countries where we currently have operational presence. Either way, there will be an extended transition period from the point where Brexit kicks in… so for now it’s a bit of wait and see.