Hello, everybody. True or false:
Currently there are no non-dealing desk brokers, with offices in USA, available to retail FX traders?
Looking forward to your replies.
I don’t know of one (though that doesn’t prove [I]anything[/I]) since IB closed their doors to US-resident [I]leveraged[/I] retail traders with less than $10M capital.
FXCM, of course, pretended to be a no-dealing-desk broker, but the regulators finally exposed them as lying about that (as about so much else in the past) and kicked them out of the country.
None of these problems apply to forex [B][U]futures[/U][/B], though - only to [I]spot[/I] forex.
News has broken just today that you might be interested in.
Oanda has announced a new order-execution protocol for larger accounts:
Raw spreads + commission (with a $10k minimum account balance)
[I][B]Finance Magnates[/B][/I] says this new Oanda account-type [I]eliminates retail market-making[/I] (dealing-desk).
.
That’s really very interesting - thanks, Clint.
I used to recommend Oanda [U]strongly[/U], around here, based on my own experiences there over the years; recently I’ve stopped doing so, after hearing from several people that their spreads are not what they were, when I was there. This might change that, and perhaps be [I]very[/I] good news (at least for those with $10k+ capital available). I really like everything else about Oanda …
Do you seriously believe regulators weren’t in on it all along? I mean, it is regulatory agencies we are talking about. They lay down the rules for the brokers to play by, don’t they?
I am pretty sure someone forgot to share this sweet and juicy forex pie with them. And then one thing led to another and bam; we have an exposed broker, all of a sudden.
I mean seriously, how does one expose a broker of not being an NDD or of being a market maker, for that matter? Is it reflected somewhere in the articles of association what kind of broker they are? I doubt it. Oh wait, what about the license that brokers have to apply for in order practice business. Surely, this document specifies the do’s and don’ts for a broker.
Yes, I do seriously believe that.
And if you don’t, there’s a nice website here, where you’ll fit right in. :rolleyes:
My guess is not (it wouldn’t have to be under UK law, but I don’t know about other countries), but it’s just not really a relevant question: what matters is that they’d been consistently lying to the public, whose money they were taking, about the business model under which they were taking it, for so many years, in spite of an adverse regulatory history of multi-million fines as long as your arm.
There are reasons why independent audits such as those published at leaprate.com show that their customers had consistently fared in the bottom half of all firms reporting, with a very low proportion of their client accounts being profitable, and far behind the industry average - it’s not just some kind of “unlucky coincidence”.
I’m UK based so apologies for interrupting a USA biased thread, but I would like to know which brokers you would recommend Lexys? After several weeks research (on and off), I’m still looking to deposit 2K with a reputable UK broker, preferably NDD (obviously this rules out Oanda and many others with their deposit requirements), preferably with a spread betting account option.
I’m beginning to think there aren’t any…
Anyone? Is there a gap in the market here?
With £2k, and wanting NDD, I think you’re probably right. (Oanda has a new NDD service but with a $10k minimum, I [I][U]think[/U][/I].)
If you’re wanting spread-betting for the tax-free facility (and who can blame you?) my personal recommendation would be London Capital Group (formerly “Capital Spreads”). Not everyone agrees and not everyone likes them. Spread-betting is, by definition, counterparty betting, of course, but LCG automatically offset their [I]net[/I] liabilities in the underlying markets and make their living from the spread, so unlike some spread-betting firms they don’t care which clients win and which lose, and the “bad part” of betting against a counterparty therefore isn’t too relevant. [B]This paragraph is my personal opinion only[/B] and I know that not everyone here agrees with it.
Thanks Lexys, I’ll look into them.