Clearly segregation of client funds has been shown to present significant risk in futures. Yet there is another level of risk that is not commonly understood. US segregation rules apply only when you are trading on US Exchanges. Once you use exchanges located in other jurisdictions you fall under a different set -- or even many different sets -- of rules even when using a US broker. And of course FX is even more of a problem. It is 10PM do you know what rules apply to you, your $$ and your open positions? My bet is 1% of those who execute on foreign exchanges do know. Do not be one of the 99%.
Swan Noir, I'll keep repeating until it happens that it's client funds insurance that's required, regardless of regulations, meanwhile what do you mean ? "And of course FX is even more of a problem." - I must be one of the 99%
Insurance is clearly the way to go ... I don't disagree. I like the SIPC model and it would be fairly easy to implement. The reason FX "is even more of a problem" is historically FX brokers were not required to segregate so you had (have?) straight up counter party risk and no preference in a bankruptcy. Since I do not trade FX it is possible my information is dated.
apex ... the details depend on each specific exchange. You need to research those exchanges you trade on.
I stopped trading FDAX several weeks ago - no clear answers from my clearing firms. CME group and Mother Fuc**** Global high tech theft is bad enough.
you could eliminate some of the counterparty risk by just trading fx futures through cme AND using ib. the mf incidient is very disturbing b/c i always thought cme was on top of things.
US segregration rules didnt add up to dogshit did they? Segregration rules are even more strict in some counties than in the US and in some other countries they are worse.