Leverage, Inaccessibility for Smaller Traders, and Offshore Threat are Focus of Public Comments
As we’ve discussed in related posts, the CFTC has proposed rules regulating the off-exchange spot forex industry (see Retail FOREX Registration Regulations Proposed). The CFTC has requested comments from the public and there are currently about 100 public comments on CFTC’s website written in response to the new rule. The comments mainly focus on:
- Leverage reduction rule (approx. 75/100 comments)
- Forex industry becoming inaccessible to smaller traders (approx. 35/100 comments)
- Threat of investors moving their money to offshore firms (approx. 25/100 comments)
- Opposition to government interference/regulation (approx. 20/100 comments)
[Note: over the weekend the CFTC published some of the backlog of comments it received. Much of this article was written prior to review of these extra comments (which total approximately 3,663). We will provide an update on such comments in the future.]
To view all of the comments, click here.
The following is our summary of the comments which have been made thus far.
Approximately 75 of the 100 comments mention a strong or very strong opposition to the new leverage proposal of 10:1. The issue with a reduction of leverage to 10:1 is that investors will have to invest much more money in order to trade what they can currently trade with less capital. Comments regarding leverage include phrases like “strongly object”, “terrible idea”, “unintelligent”, and “strongly oppose”. The majority opinion is that people should have the freedom and the choice to trade with a higher amount of leverage, and that the federal government’s attempts to lower leverage to 10:1 are “unnecessary” and “intrusive”. John Yeatman Jr. writes,
Please DO NOT reduce leverage in US Forex trading to 10:1…THIS WOULD HAVE A MAJOR IMPACT ON TENS OF THOUSANDS OF TRADERS AND THEIR FAMILIES WHO RELY ON 100:1 LEVERAGE AVAILABILITY TO SUPPORT THEIR FAMILY AND THIS ECONOMY. Please do your part in helping to keep this country great and it’s [sic] freedoms true BY NOT ALLOWING ANYTHING LESS THAN 100:1.
Other comments regarding the leverage proposal include:
- … strongly objects to new leverage of 10:1
- … proposed reduction not consistent with futures, which allow a significantly higher leverage
- … virtually no flexibility trading at 10:1 leverage unless trader has gigantic account balance
- …reduction in leverage not fair to public…bad for America
- … new leverage line “out of line with general idea of protecting consumers”
- …limiting leverage to 10:1 is “a bad idea”
- …current leverage limit is “more than enough”
- … CFTC is “unintelligent” to change leverage to 10:1
- … terrible idea to lower leverage
- … leverage change is “perversion of the free markets”
- …leverage restriction “grave injustice” for many who work to secure the American dream of prosperity for themselves and families
- …leverage limits would delay achievement of financial independence
- …leverage not dangerous; misuse is
- …leverage decrease will kill forex business and worsen economic situation in states and worldwide
- …amount of leverage needs to be at discretion of investors
Another argument is that lower leverage will making trading inaccessible for smaller traders but leave the door wide open for larger institutions, since lower leverage requires higher margin (meaning that more money needed to be invested in order to trade). Comments regarding this proposed rules potential affect on smaller traders include:
- …will stamp out small-time investor
- …drive smaller guys out of market or offshore
- …anything lower would be insane for small-time traders
- …gets rid of investors with small capital so rich can stay rich and poor can stay poor
- …pushes out small-time investor
- …denies small trader opportunity
- …disparate and unintended impact on small traders with lower capital
- …leave the small, independent traders alone
- …small businesses are heart of US economy
- …all small-scale actors will be stifled
- …10:1 leverage will have unintended consequence of locking out hundreds or thousands of small traders
- …quit treating the small guy like an idiot
- …are you trying to allow only rich to trade forex?
Many of the comments suggest anger with the government for interfering too much with the forex industry. Michael Thomas writes,
I do not live here in this “free” society to have someone from the government babysitting me. The message that your proposed rules send is that 1) we are not free to make our own choices. 2) The federal government believes that we the general public are too stupid to make decisions for ourselves….I don’t need you, or do I want you getting in the way of my being able to trade as I wish in the United States of America.
Other comments regarding an opposition to increased government interference include:
- …don’t add more government
- …not intention of our ancestors to create government which controlled/regulated all aspects of citizens’ lives
- …the government has no right to control my ability to make profit
- …unnecessary for Federal government to regulate against individual’s ability to take risks
- …don’t need government protection; we’re adult traders
- …not responsibility of government to take away choice from consumers
- …”big brother” attempt to protect people from “evil” traders and forex hedge funds
- …stay out of trying to run my personal life
In at least 25 of the comments, the public is arguing that the new rules, specifically lower leverage, will drive traders offshore to overseas brokers who may or may not be regulated. Further, a major argument is that the forex industry in the United States will essentially cease altogether as a result of traders moving their forex activities offshore. Comments regarding this offshore threat include:
- …will send business to London and unregulated offshore markets
- …consumers will take accounts offshore
- …will drive smaller guys out of markets entirely or to offshore, unregulated brokers
- …when traders move accounts offshore, CFTC and NFA will have no control of clients’ trading
- …I’ve already moved my account offshore
- …people will do business with offshore brokers
In terms of the new regulation proposal as a whole, some people support more industry regulation while others are against the idea entirely. Bradford Smith writes,
I feel that regulation of firms is needed…regulation is needed to help people understand the risks such as risk disclosure. [Regulating] the retail forex market in a similar fashion to how commodities and futures are regulated is a good idea. Stopping companies from trading against their clients is a high priority issue that needs to be stopped.
John M. Bland, on the other hand, who views the proposal as “unfair”, writes,
…the CFTC has done a lot in recent years to correct many of the problems in the industry…this decision is unfair and anti-competitive.
Other comments regarding opposition to the proposal and/or government interference include:
- …new rules will destroy US financial firms business and lead to loss of thousands of jobs during the worst economy in decades
- …regulation should be aimed at encouraging economic growth and innovation vs. restricting it
- …against proposal
- …how did forex regulation get in the Farm Bill?
- …whoever initiated proposal has no knowledge of forex…this rule is utter nonsense…rules for forex in the USA are already quite strict
- …you are busybody bureaucrats with intrusive minds…you are interested in only one thing: bureaucratic power and complete control of every microscopic aspect of life…you are monsters
- …rules will harm people who make an honest living trading currency
- …important to educate and inform, not regulate and ban
- …proposal is a disaster-in-warning for traders
- …if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it
- …proposal is lunacy-communist-legislation
- …I do not support the proposal…proposal closes doors for forex investors and will make forex market accessible to financial institutions only
- …vehemently against new, narrow-sighted legislation
Agreement/Disagreement with Proposal
Many of the comments discuss that education about forex and trading risk is the best solution. On a similar note, many traders expressed the fact that anyone who trades in the forex market is aware of the inherent risks, so people who decide to trade are willing to take these risks. There is a general consensus that it is the individual’s, and not the government’s, responsibility to evaluate the level of risk that s/he is willing to take. Remember, higher leverage will be reflected in both your profits and your losses. Thus, if you have high leverage and profit, you will profit a lot more than if your trading had not been leveraged. But the same goes for losses; if you lose, you will lose a lot more based on the higher leverage.
Conclusions Thus Far
The biggest concern thus far is the proposed reduction in leverage to 10:1. Almost every comment mentioned a strong opposition to this rule. Furthermore, most people seem to be concerned that the new regulations will significantly decrease forex activity in the US—if not kill it off—and drive most investors overseas to offshore firms. We will continue to monitor comments received until the March 22 due date. Please leave us a comment below with your feedback. Should you feel inclined, you may submit your own comment to the CFTC through the methods listed above.
To view CFTC’s proposed rules, click here.
How to Comment
Comments must be received by March 22, 2010 and can be submitted the following ways:
- Through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov/search/index.jsp. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
- By e-mail: [email protected] Include “Regulation of Retail Forex” in the subject line of the message.
- By fax: (202) 418-5521.
- By mail: Send to David Stawick, Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581.
- Courier: Same as Mail above.
(Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.cftc.gov, including any personal information provided.)
Other related CFTC articles include:
Bart Mallon, Esq. of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP runs the Hedge Fund Law Blog and provides forex registration services to forex managers. Mr. Mallon also runs the Forex Law Blog. He can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.