Thread: CFTC NEW Document - Overseas Accounts OK?

Originally Posted by ;

,
I didn't have an opportunity to listen to the telecon. Was anything said about UK brokers that are controlled by FSA? Thank you

Not actually. No new information was given so we are still in limbo.

I called FXCM

I have a account with FXCM UK

Bottom line....They do not know....When they know they will tell us within an official email.

WE ARE IN LIMBO

Yeah, but whatever the hell happened to the analysis? Does anybody recall hearing? I do not. If anybody else had, I believe we'd have heard about it a lot earlier. Or this is just par for the course, where they do things like this behind the back of everybody? In that case, that is kind of like taxation without representation isn't it? ... albeit they are not exactly raising taxes, but in many ways it is the same.

Originally Posted by ;

okay so lets say any fx broker ouside of those u.s.a. register with the CFTC, will this broker be able to offer there US clients higher leverage, hedging and do not have to be worried about the FIFO principle, or do they must follow CFTC legislation in regards to there US clients witch means lower leverage, no hedging and must perform FIFO rule. Please provide us some kind of feed

The CFTC would state that any broker, wherever based, has to abide by U.S. law with respect to their interaction with U.S. clients. An overseas broker registered with the CFTC as an FCM or RFED has more than probably decided to willingly accept U.S. law in a bid to support U.S. retail clients.

This isn't to state that other overseas brokers will opt not to register and may provide contracts to U.S. retail clients which don't comply with all the CEA or the new regulations. Should overseas brokers choose to provide such contracts, the CFTC could seek to apply U.S. law against them, but many practical truths exist in doing this.

Some additional color with this issue is seen in this article, http://www.investmentlawgroup.com/cf...orex_rules.htm

I am told that someplace in the new regulations is a stipulation which US brokers with offshore entities (like fxcm, fxdd, ibfx and many others ) have up to a year (or close to it) to have the foreign entity register with the cftc and nfa and come into compliance.

I think brokers in this scenario are encouraging traders to transfer accounts to the foreign thing.

After listening to 1 conference call about the new regs it sounds as the cftc goes following brokers rather than traders. So in case you have an account with a foreign broker let them battle it out and an option is to keep trading.

Also one other supposed loophole is if you use a broker that is STP. This status is being applied for by the Collective. Having an STP broker that they do not function as counter party.

That is something that I expect that they discuss on the next Green conference call.

Originally Posted by ;

Additionally one other assumed loophole is if you use a broker that's STP only.

I strongly doubt it. STP doesn't prevent the dilemma of the counter-party, unless you're trading directly with the banks themselves, your STP broker is still acting as your counter-party (all of the ECNs operate this way).

Originally Posted by ;

The Collective is applying for this status.

Applying thru whom? The NFA? No records of any appliion there. The Collective is completely unregistered, and in this point, operating in a gray-area legally as of October 18th (as is another US-based unregistered broker).

Originally Posted by ;

I highly doubt it. STP does not avoid the issue of the counter-party, unless you are trading directly with the banks themselves, your STP broker remains behaving as your counter-party (all the ECNs operate this way).

Applying thru whom? The NFA? No records of any appliion there. The Collective is completely unregistered, and in this time, operating in a gray-area lawfully as of Oct 18th (as is another US-based unregistered broker).

Someone on the Yahoo Metatrader list posted an Email he had obtained from the Collective. The first part had applied to be STP and said they had been intending for the CFTC choice for months. No thought that they applied through. I am not a part of this collective btw.

Sandy

Originally Posted by ;

The initial part stated they were planning for the CFTC decision for months and had implemented to be STP only. No idea who they implemented through. I'm not a part of this btw.

I assume they're essentially a white-label for Citi (or whomever their main LP is currently ), behaving in precisely the same fashion as ATC is for FXCM. They didn't need to enroll before, but they need to now.

When they implemented to the NFA, their appliion could appear in BASIC research on the NFA's site, there is no match currently. They can simply be an IB or a full-fledged FCM/RFED. Their is not any third choice since an STP broker (AFAIK).

At this moment, I wouldn't think anything that your broker says about the matter. If you don't hear it from the horses mouth (CFTC), its all hearsay. From what I know, brokers know just about as much as we all trader do.

The'overseas clause' was released at the Dobb-Frank proposition and CFTC has not, as of yet, commented about it. Since'abroad' is a legal position, so I am convinced CFTC is handle this conversation with kid gloves.

CFTC can't regulate traders, only brokers. Which is part of the'abroad' issue for the CFTC. They do not have jurisdiction over'overseas' brokers. Period. As a result of this, traders may LEGALLY exchange at any broker they enjoy abroad. All of the CFTC can do is ASK brokers (or even non-us governments) loed outside US jurisdiction to never accept US trades. The decision is up to this nation accessible. There will always be that one nation that will not side with US law.

Instead of brokers moving accounts abroad, I am hoping brokers would become banks and proceed from CFTC/NFA/SEC regulations. There are a lot of advantages to trading with a bank, such as capital protections (FDIC). For the ones who don't know what I am talking about, research into CitiFX and DBFX. These brokers banks and therefore are under banking regulations and also do not need to deal with CFTC rules/regulations. Want to see US brokers follow the manners of Dukascopy, SaxoBank, Citi, DBfx.