Canadian brokers will not accept U.S. clients because U.S. law forbids them to do so. If they are Canadian residents but not Canadian citizens, possibly - I think the CFTC has exemptions allowing opening accounts for U.S. citizens permanently resident outside the U.S. But they would require very full documentation. I do not know re Europeans. If the Canadian firm will accept the account, then they are covered.
nobody wants to deal with americans. the reason being that you get enmeshed with the US authorities. US authorities like to believe that they have control over firms which have no physical presence in the US registration etc. my guess is that foreigners can open canadian accounts but US residents cannot. why posters have not called for an answer is ....
Therein lies the expectancy. The glasses were an arb, but not a fraud. My point is that there is no precedent for a loss of principal from a failure of an FCM, clearing or otherwise. We can argue NPV to hell and back but that's not the issue. You "suspect" that it will be low. Perhaps clients of Refco US suspected the same; Volume Investors/Klein as well. Of course I agree that outright theft/fraud/embezzlement should be met with client protection. I suspect that some body of govt or the futures industry will make the Peregrine clients whole.
The glasses were an arb? lol. Or was The Times I couldn't read the arb. This line of debate is a real stretch. I'm not arguing NPV. The principal is gone. It might come back but like the glasses it is now gone. I doubt that an eight figure loss (if it ends up there) will be covered in total by anyone. I'm not an advocate of ayone picking up the tab. My point is a simple one: COUNTER PARTY RISK COUNTS!!
So Non-US Clients of US domiciled FCMs got screwed? In which bankruptcy if it is possible to know? I would like to study the case.