Proposed NFA Capital Requirement

Come on, you must be kidding!! Only agent I suspect here is forexsavior and a couple of his supporters who’s recently turned his whole agenda in the thread. Remarkably he’s now apposed to raising caps, or maybe apposed to the reform part of this new bill but yet the think of a good reason why.

Gee that’s strange I can’t see how stronger laws and higher caps can hurt traders, so to me forexsavior is the one we should be weary about here.

Listen I’m not making this stuff up, I’m pointing facts with links to verifiable sources. If you don’t like the truth don’t read and you will learn the hard way!

To you that do care to learn I ask you do your own looking into this and stop reeling of some made up screen names to lead your way..
 
Quote from TGsts:

This new bill would be a wonderful leap forward for the retail FX markets, Anyone can raise 20 million to meet a cap so that's no issue, but now under the new laws qualifications will certainly prevent the scammers from entering.
More...

I think you are mistaken if you think 'anyone' can raise 20 million. If you look at the number of firms dropping just because of the 5 mil cap, the 20 mil cap will be a bloodbath.
 
Quote from BigGun:

Come on, you must be kidding!! Only agent I suspect here is forexsavior and a couple of his supporters who’s recently turned his whole agenda in the thread. Remarkably he’s now apposed to raising caps, or maybe apposed to the reform part of this new bill but yet the think of a good reason why.

Gee that’s strange I can’t see how stronger laws and higher caps can hurt traders, so to me forexsavior is the one we should be weary about here.

Listen I’m not making this stuff up, I’m pointing facts with links to verifiable sources. If you don’t like the truth don’t read and you will learn the hard way!

To you that do care to learn I ask you do your own looking into this and stop reeling of some made up screen names to lead your way..
More...

Please, his argumentation is perfectly clear. Do you really think spreads would be as tight as they are today without (former) small firms shaking everything up? I know for a fact that would not be the case.

Don't attack him, counter his arguments.
 
Quote from Bongo972:

Actually some of the tightest spreads come from Oanda which is one of the big ones.
More...

Oanda is one of the big ones now, they used to be small. That's exactly the problem with the 20 mil cap, you prevent small companies from entering the market and thus limiting competition. If there would have been a 20 mil cap when Oanda started their business, I don't know if they would have started their forex business at all.

The 20 mil cap will prevent the 'future Oanda' from ever existing.
 
Were exactly did you read OANDA was a small player in FX once, on the contrary OANDA is and always has been owned by Olsen a huge financial tech company out of Switzerland http://www.olsen.ch/about/index.html


So you’re saying they should not increases caps and implement stronger regulations simply for the sake of under funded -5m visionaries? My argument would be for every one legitimist under funded -5m visionaries, their will be 100s of adequately funded +5m scam operations, put up 5m open up shop, heavily market low spreads and drew in a huge profit by churning their client base.
 
Quote from Ivanovich:

I would gladly sacrifice spread in order to gain safety of funds.
More...

I agree 100%, although I think the ones opposed to this new bill passing are using the higher spreads and underdog visionary theory’s as leverage to appeal to the masses, one thing they know “spreads” and “underdog visionary” speak volumes to the inexperienced trader, so they use it to gain supporter.
 
I am completely fine with the concept of 6 or so big players, and that's it. As long as said players are solvent and able to send me my money when I ask for it. I think most traders who have decent size accounts feel this way.

So I get nickel and dimed for a pip here and there. I make far more in profits than the spread of a few pips. The real big deal is if I can't get my money.
 
I don't see where you get your information that Olsen / Oanda has always been a 'huge financial company'. Especially a marketing page without concrete numbers with a message about their position today does not help.

edit: I checked the CFTC archives and the first report Oanda shows up, they only had 2 mil in capital: http://www.cftc.gov/files/tm/fcm/tmfcmdata0303.pdf
/

I think Oanda has done some great things that would not have been around if they were not here today. Incumbent firms get lazy without entry from new firms.

It's for regulators to find the proper balance between fund / firm safety and other factors such as the effect of regulation on competition. How can you propose to quadruple the capital requirement without even knowing how the current five fold increase has worked out? Just wait and see how the recent increase works out. If you want more safety yourself, choose a better funded broker.

If we would choose your line of reasoning, why not increase the minimum fund requirement to 100 mil, that will give even more protection. And leave only two competitors, but who cares, at least your funds are save. No?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top