10:1 could be the new leverage rule

why 100:1? why not X50 or X200? what made them pick this one?

 

If we don't defeat the 10:1 leverage rule this is what will happen:

 

You know what else is too bad? All introducing brokers are going to have to be guaranteed. This means those "ibs" that give you a part of their rebate back for opening account through one of the many fdms they work with will be gonzo.

Too bad - was a nice way to get an addiional 0.4 or so spread reduction for nothing...

 

THIS IS FANTASTIC NEWS!!!!!!! thank you..

wow.. 10:1 thats's great.. and maybe it will save yur arse and many others who get in over there heads

 

http://www.cftc.gov/lawandregulation/federalregister/federalregistercomments/2010/10-001.html


Finally they are starting to post most comments. As you can see toward the bottom of the list they are posting all comments on one line each time. From January they just posted almost 3000 comments! So hopefully our voices will start to be heard.

 

I have counted almost 5,000 letters. And this is just for January! Pour it on boys! Keep those letters coming! FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOM!!!!!!!!

Email secretary@cftc.gov now!

 

CME Group got upgraded by DB (LMAO for obvious reasons)

DB know something about the leverage proposal ??? Me thinks so...

 

Just saw this article on another forum, it seems house lawmakers are very upset about the actual leverage rule in forex and they actually get what will happen if passed and seemed to grill CFTC'S GENSLER. They also stated they made cftc in charge of forex but not to kill it. So this is a piece of good news for our cause:

http://www.easybourse.com/bourse/ac...on-cftc-retail-forex-leverage-proposal-805409

 

Veyron,

Do you happen to own a Veyron 16.4, or is the handle just aspirational?

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/LO0PgyPWE3o&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/LO0PgyPWE3o&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Gordon Murray, designer of the McClaren F1, says: "The most pointless exercise on the planet has got to be this four wheel drive 1,000 horsepower (750 kW) Bugatti. I think it's incredibly childish this thing people have about just one element—top speed, standing kilometre or 0–60. It's about as narrow minded as you can get as a car designer to pick on one element. It's like saying we're going to beat the original Mini because we're going to make a car 10 mph (16 km/h) faster on its top speed—but it's two feet longer and 200 kilos heavier. That's not car designing—that just reeks of a company who are paranoid..."

Your thoughts?

 

Check out this article in the Wall Street Journal where a CFTC Commissioner says they have been overwhelmed with trader comments:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

"The proposal in its entirety is intended to allow us to get on with our job of protecting customers and ensuring the financial integrity of firms engaging in retail forex transactions," said Bart Chilton, a CFTC commissioner. He said the comments from the public—largely centering on the leverage proposal—have come down on the agency "like a winter blizzard," noting that it was more than at any time in the agency's history.