Is there some reason why we should believe a broker offering $500 E-mini margins is as safe as a more conservative broker? Do not these low margins increase the chance of large customer losses collapsing any broker in an unusual market event, so that the other customers won't get their money back? Can you support your assertions with evidence, or with rational arguments, to counter the information already offered in this thread? Or are you just making unsupported assertions, and expecting people to believe them, as though they were little more than mindless sheep? I believe your claim that RCG segregates each customer's futures trading account from the accounts of other customers is totally false. I believe it is not permitted by United States futures regulators. US regulators mandate that the funds and property, in your futures trading account, must be pooled with those of other customers, and must be seized, if necessary, to cover the losses incurred by other customers in your pool, in the event the broker goes bankrupt. These pooled customer accounts are called "segregated" because they are segregated from the broker's assets, and cannot be used to pay the broker's debts, except for covering losses incurred by other customers in the same pool. Assets of customers, however, are not segregated from assets of other customers; they are instead pooled. I have already posted a CME link confirming this information. I therefore challenge you to provide proof that RCG's "segregated" accounts provide the type of segregation between individual customers you claim, instead of the different and far weaker type of segregation which I have explained.