Hi everyone
Yesterday I published FINRA’s proposed rule to establish a leverage limitation for Retail Forex to 1.5 to1.
To get the insight of the Forex Retail Industry, I contacted to some of the top U.S. executives of this industry to get their opinnion about it.
I want to thank Drew Niv, CEO at FXCM and James Green, Managing Director & General Counsel at FXDD for their collaboration.
I must remind here us all that FINRA is the largest non-guvernmental independent regulator for all securities firms doing business in the United States. We oversee nearly 5,000 brokerage firms, 172,000 branch offices and 665,000 registered securities representatives.
Top U.S. Executive Comments:
Drew Niv, CEO at FXCM
“Recently many FX brokers in the US sought to shelter them selves from the new regulatory requirements of the NFA and CFTC by becoming broker dealers and switching to Finra. thsi is the regulator’s way of saying that you have to be an FDM under the CFTC/NFA in order to do retail FX.”
James Green, Managing Director & General Counsel at FXDD
“Dear Francesc: At your request I am commenting on FINRA’s new proposed rule to limit leverage in the OTC spot Forex market for transactions conducted with a registered broker dealer to 1.5 to1.
My comments are mine alone and may not necessarily reflect the views of the management of FXDD.
The background set forth in the discussion on the issue is, I believe, accurate from the perspective of a regulator. Their position is to protect customers. However, their justification, again from my perspective, is probably behind the curve.
As we all know, the regulatory function, among other things, is to regulate an orderly marketplace though transparency and to insure that customers are not defrauded. I do not believe that it has ever been a regulatory function to protect customers from bad trading decisions or from their own failure to understand how the market and their dealer functions before they jump in with both feet.
The educational component for the retail Forex market is very deep and very wide thanks to the efforts of participating firms and to the Internet. Good information is free and is accessible by virtually anyone on the planet with a computer and internet connectivity.
The margin call issue, i.e. that a customer would lose their entire investment because they do not receive a margin call from their dealer is, from my perspective, a straw man. Most, if not all, platforms show clients on a mark to market basis the change in their positions and the required margin to hold those positions. Even the most rudimentary trading catechisms include the margin caveat….you must keep your positions properly margined or you will be liquidated. Having said that, positions do get liquidated.
Unlike earlier electronic platforms, where verbal margin calls were made, current platforms are set to liquidate at specific margin : equity levels. To reduce leverage broker dealers can offer to their clients to 1 to 1.5 is, in my opinion, a guaranteed maneuver to keep broker dealers out of the retail spot Forex market.
Whether that is the intended purpose of the proposal or simply a new proof for the law of unintended consequences is irrelevant. However, retail clients want at least 100:1 leverage. Many want 200:1 or 400:1. These levels of leverage correspond to the accepted characterizations of standard size contracts, mini contracts and micro contracts. Thus, clients will go to those firms that offer them what they want. Whether those firms are located in the U.S. or outside the U.S. is becoming, increasingly, irrelevant. Capital goes where it is appreciated and allowed to function.
Along the same lines, the NFA has proposed a new rule to limit leverage in the non-majors to 25:1. If this proposed rule becomes effective I suspect it will have the same net effect as the FINRA proposal. Customers will go where they can get the leverage they want. In both instances (NFA and FINRA) the reference is to that level of leverage that characterizes the futures market. In my view, that reference is outdated and misapplied.
The OTC market is not the futures market and it should be recognized as that. Efforts to squeeze all markets into a one-size-fits-all category by making these markets operate as something they are not is, in my view, counterproductive.
In summary, these types of proposals bear little relevance to how the OTC market actually works. Regulators propose rules so manage situations they believe important. I do not disagree with that standard.
I only hope that both regulatory agencies will listen to their participants and members so as not to drive good clients and their capital out of the USA.
My best regards to you,
Jim”