I'll try any brokers I like, thank you. I will NEVER just use a single broker ever. Your comment doesn't really add any value to the original post intent.
I opened a UK limited company account with them earlier this year, i now have two accounts with AMP. I never had any problems opening either account.
Really? How about if all employers in your town and all supermarkets in your town do not want to do business with you personally. They just don't like you. "Don't take it personal", its their choice whom to do business with.
The Philippines are not on that list at all, also you notice that the linked list contains way less country than AMP lists. Am I missing something?
If all the budiness in your town don't like you and don't want to do business with you,then you must have done something very bad, like refusing to save lives of a hundred people when you can. So you are deserved to be treated that way.
OK, what can I say. This was my experience and like the original poster - no reason was given. That is the point of this thread topic.
You are the one who was complaining in your post that AMP rejects applications with invalid reasons "/QUOTE="MidKnight, post: 5592325, member: 33876"]that is a complete lie AMP_Global. I also have had an application denied and the reason given was simply "too risky" - WTF. I have never ever had the same entity rejected by another broker in my 17 years trading futures. A complete lie with the reason given. And like the original poster, I had the same nonsense as them. /QUOTE" and that's why I was suggesting that you stick with the same broker that you had 17 years of trading experience with. If you stuck with them for 17 years, they obviously have done something right. I was trying to help you and you are obviously just trolling. Putting you @MidKnight on Ignore. Not wasting time with useless trolls.
And? It's a self proclaimed industry watch dog that does not seem to appear in any CFTC or SEC rulebook at all. Where does any SEC or CFTC rules state that a US based broker cannot do ANY business with any resident of any of the countries on the list of that "organization"? It rather sounds like a convenient way to exclude hundreds of millions of people that may fall into the "not profitable enough to service" category without getting slammed as being racist. FATF states "FATF is a "policy-making body" that works to generate the necessary political will to bring about national legislative and regulatory reforms in these areas" And more importantly "The United States is now compliant on 9 of the 40 Recommendations and largely compliant on 22 of them. It remains partially compliant on 5 of the 40 Recommendations and not compliant on 4 of them." Does that sound like a law or obligation to you or just a G7 initiative that issues recommendations? By the way FATF NOWHERE states that businesses are either not recommended or prohibited from conducting business with residents in any of the countries on their list of nations that they are monitoring. So, I still do not see how you conclude that US brokers cannot service accounts of residents from any of the countries on that list.