Educating Clikr
Clikr you really need to go back and actually READ what the national futures association says in its own proposal, which you clearly have not done because you are acting as if the problems they cite are no big deal.
FACT 1: the vast majority of fraud and insolvencies in the retail forex industry has occurred amongst small retail forex firms. This is direclty from the National Futures Association.
FACT 2: the national futures association is raising capital requirements precisely becaue of fact number one.
FACT 3: when this proposal is adopted (and you can play all the little games you want about how this isn't going to happen but it most definitely will and when it does I look forward to hearing your apology for trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes by downplaying the significance of the rule change) if you don't have $5 million you will be forced to shut down.
If you don't like the tone, hey to each his own. But your attempt to cloud these facts by attacking the messenger does nothing to help customers who may lose all their funds when these companies start going under. In fact, they are ALREADY going under. Why don't you go explain to the people at UGMFX, whose funds are now frozen, how they have nothing to worry about since, after all, the CFTC report you just linked to still shows them with over $1,000,000 capital!
As for you statement about your experience watching financial firms calmly unwind their business you obviously haven't been watching how it is done in the forex world. One of the reasons retail fx has such a bad name is precisely because when forex brokers get into bad shape the owners grab the money and head for the hills leaving the customers high and dry. One need only check out the legions of CFTC fraud cases to see the sad history of what happens when a forex broker goes bust.
I think the FX Retail world has a right to know this. You don't. Fine. But please don't lecture me on "fairness." This is real people's money at stake. Not some academic debate.
|