The CFTC cannot make rules for entities operating outside the US. They have no jurisdiction to mandate anything for a non-US broker.
They can do a lot of things. They can make it necessary to register with CFTC if they want to solicit US citizens, like it is now for banks and brokerage firms wishing to do business here. They can make it illegal to open an account with a foreign broker trading spot currencies, like the US Gov't did by making it illegal to send money off shore for internet gambling to discourage that.
Agreed. Sadly... Open season on retail speculators is apparently easier than dealing with the big dogs.
Especially when the Regulators ARE the big dogs. Incestuous. And the natural evolution of Capitalism.
Have to disagree there. It's more like the evolution of corporatism/fascism, which is what we have. There would be no "too big to fail" or gov't-sponsored frauds in a real free market. The financial landscape would have totally changed without any "reform" bills.
This is from a post on forexfactory: "just chatted with ibfx and they said that with the dodd-frank act. as u.s citizen you will be coerced to have an acct here in the u.s. so if you have a uk acct there your broker will have till the end of the year to transfer you back to u.s acct. this is just plain bullsh*t. thank you very much obama. just love how you control us. hows that hope and change working now people?" Again...this is not my post or my conversation with ibfx...just what someone else posted.
Again, I agree Capitalism > Corporate Fascism > Plutocratic Dictatorship. It's undeniable we're swiftly moving towards vast industrial consolidation. Regulators are now just an extension of Big Business. Impossible compliance and entry barriers are happily erected to bankrupt smaller competition and engorge market share. Further, after every FED-induced crisis, Government bureaucrats pick winners and losers (with taxpayers money). Bailouts go to the ruling banking oligarchy, which coincidentally, hold the most sway over regulators and Congress. Nobody talks about the incestuous relationship between Bankers, Congress and Regulators. Nope. Apparently, it's trivial. Not even worth mentioning. La La Land.
as posted previously, here in British Columbia, Canada, the regulator changed the rules requiring brokers to now have a physical office located in the province in order to do business with BC residents FXCM required all their BC clients - including me to close their account, which left me with a choice of - at last count 3 Canadian brokers. each province/terrritory has its own regulator, but brokers can get a 'universal' registration - non BC location NO US or UK broker will accept a BC resident account application - i know i've tried and FXCM state it on their web sites as do others also, other off-shore brokers may yet cancel service to current 'off-shore' clients this statement is an absolute crock of shit: "These rules of the road will help protect the American public in the largest area of retail fraud that the CFTC oversees: retail foreign exchange," CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler said in a statement there's no longer ANY fraud committed in retail fx, but just think back over the last couple of years of all that's gone on in the 'financial marketplace', not only the all tens of thousands of investors and traders who've lost their money but those who've lost their employment, homes and future to the fraud that's taken place throughout the 'financial industry' â with the exception of any committed by retail fx brokers my guess is the "largest area of retail fraud" remains CTAs while the CFTC isn't responsible for the rest of the financial marketplace which is an ocean of fraud, the CFTC's done no more than it's supposed to have done â regulate the fx industry, prosecute and eliminate criminal activity; but no doubt from time to time someone will pop-up with a scam of some sort no doubt also that fx brokers are happy with the lower leverage, they lose less at 50:1 than at 500:1 , and may be having a snigger at brokers still providing 500:1 unfortunately we don't have 'a right' to 500:1 leverage, and Oanda for one have only and always had a max of 50:1 , but someone who loses with a leverage of 500:1 is still going to lose with a leverage of 1:1 , tho they can of course stay in the game longer; and as atticus said, in the UK pure betting shops offer fx and everything else at high leverage - and without it being taxed as capital gains i don't know what accounts for the puritanical ? attitudes not only of US regulators but here in BC; not only is BC and other provincial regulators recipients of 50% of any and all lotteries/tickets (excepting non-profit) they also collect the same amount from casinos, and recently the province of BC started its online gambling site - and will no doubt have to have a 'compulsive gambler registry', may face a suit or two from the 'compulsive gambler' who wasn't prevented from gambling, as well as starting an 'anti compulsive gambling education' program so i do have to wonder why 'they' want to limit the retail fx trader from trading and why do 'they' want only 'local' brokers to be the providers of trading accounts particularly as regulation in many other countries - that is in my case the US and the EU countries is equal to or better than the domestic regulation . . . do 'they' know you have a trading account ? do 'they' know your account number and account balance ?
It's the unregistered managers that are the "largest area of retail fraud", not CTAs. If anything, CTAs have been thrown under a bus over the years from the endless number of exposed forex ponzi schemes the world over.