Monthly % Return

Well, you know what they say: it’s better to be wanted for fraud than not to be wanted at all … :wink:

I would worry more about your access to forex & eventually all other trading vehicles than binary options if I were you.

Once the authorities, aka the professional community, have made it virtually impossible to operate via retail in its current form in North America, whilst continuing to close off the yanks ability to access offshore entities, they will turn their full attention to the rest of the globe.

In fact the first murmurings began surfacing early last year in the UK.
The clock is most definitely ticking.

No, I wasn’t, but its interesting that the FBI are watching

I actually agree with the restrictions being put in place else where and being considered here
Anything that helps protect traders against unscrupulous brokers and their own greed is good in my book

I agree had multiple phone calls from Binary Options brokers with the most incredible promises. How do they get your number.

Usually having a conversation with them for a few minutes tells you everything you need to know about their credibility, not including the high pressure sales tactics they use or try to.

I guess it’s a numbers game. Speak to as many potential mugs as possible.

Just wondering though, is it a hundred percentage rip-off that is do they just bank your money. Or they the buy Binarys with a 50;50, cash in when they win or just forget about you when they lose; gambling with your money.

I’d be more keen to understand why perhaps the authorities would ‘[I]want[/I]’ to stop the retail community from participating in the financial markets - whether that’s trading derivatives via speculating on the underlying financial product, such as retail spot FX, or trading real financial assets via the ‘[I]real[/I]’ markets.

I can’t see the advantage by restricting trading to the extent where by brokers can not operate in a competitive environment above and beyond that of protecting the end consumer. I do agree that in a perfect world we would only ever want true, honest and non-fraudulent retail brokers to exist; but where does the benefit arise from by the authorities stopping retail trading in its entirety (this is certainly the route that seems to be [I]progressing[/I] in the US with a very limited supply of brokers compared to perhaps three years back in time).

This is a question which I can’t answer, but one that I really would like more knowledge on. I’ve always been concerned that big changes could occur in the UK too - it’s not such a great feeling when one is considering making this a career and trying to cross the line from middle of the field to professional.

they are talking about the restrictions being put into place for the forex market. It’s something that most people dont agree with. For example if this CFTC did decrease forex to 10:1,the participation would likely decrease as far as US traders would go. Or more traders will likely look for Offshore brokers.

That is simple. To boost participation within the stock market. If they completely close off access to Forex theres only one place left to go and that is there. But then people would most likely trade penny stocks or stocks under $10.

That’s a ‘[I]stick your finger in air[/I]’ answer right there, lol

Not justifiable, and still no benefit to the authorities of trading stocks over that of FX

A growing number within of the professional community are become more vocal about reducing & restricting unsophisticated, ignorant, cheap thrill chasers into the marketplace.

The majority of complaints in the retail sector about everything under the sun emanate from this segment & the industry as a whole are becoming increasingly fed up with it. It’s a compliance nightmare which ties up time, effort & money, especially when these issues have been ramped & put firmly into the spotlight in the professional space over the past few years.

The primary options apparently being proposed & considered in the UK are minimum entry investment to £50k, much tighter leverage limits than currently available & close monitoring of all fresh applicants following the introduction of a qualifying questionnaire attached to all broker applications to help filter out & spotlight even those inexperienced investors/speculators who can stump up the minimum.

Obviously cross broker checks are available to track an applicant’s footprint & these measures will be integrated into any decision whether or not to green light an application.

Don’t underestimate the power of the old school tie - it still holds sway in this environment.

Its not justifiable, but nonetheless. It’s trying to make markets more exclusive. As in only accessible to the 1% of society. Or higher middle class.

Here is the thread:

http://forums.babypips.com/forextown/83768-uk-government-clamp-down-spread-betting.html?highlight=PipMehappy

Class has got nothing to do with it.
As visualxray pointed out, the emphasis is quite clearly geared towards a more clued up, sophisticated investor/speculator armed with the necessary financial clout & understanding of the type of activity they’re getting themselves involved with.

It’s been bandied around & cogitated on since late 2014 & will begin to gain a lot more traction as Brexit slips into gear & more flexibility surrounding legislation comes into focus.

How do you test who is " geared towards a more clued up, sophisticated investor/speculator armed with the necessary financial clout & understanding of the type of activity they’re getting themselves involved with. "

Because asking someone how long have you been trading for doesn’t mean they are geared for anything. People can have over 10 years trading in the market. What if they have not been profitable at all? Does that mean they shouldn’t be allowed to participate?

I can agree there should be mandatory disclosure of profit:loss ratios. This would actually let people realize that more people are losing then profiting. Also account bonuses are traps so we should not accept them. Most traders will not even make it to the bonus.I don’t agree with capping leverage but I do agree with people having less then 1 year exp should have a “intro” to the market of 1:50 until they have been trading for atleast a year then after allow them to use whatever they please. I thought risk warnings was a thing in every country?

This is a good point…

It is like paying cheap car insurance based on a ten-year no-claim record

when you have just kept your car parked in a garage the whole time: does

that make you a better driver than someone who is out there driving every

single day for ten years who happens to have had one accident over thousands

of miles travelled? Who would you trust getting into the car with more: a person

who is deemed a very low insurance risk but has not driven in ten years, or

someone who is deemed riskier by their insurance but has ten years of driving

experience?

Food for thought.

It’s a self-explanatory statement pal.

The minimum financial commitment & stricter leverage arrangement would sift out & eradicate the vast majority of clueless, dream chasing ne’er-do-wells, which are the ones causing most of the issues & problems necessitating the authorities to put this sector under the spotlight in the first place.

Just take a leisurely stroll around this & other similar forums to witness all the screaming banshee’s wailing about how the rigged market & supposed crooked brokers are scamming them when most of the time they’re shafting themselves due to their own ignorant, imbecilic, irresponsible behaviour.

It’s long overdue if you ask me.

As long as potential changes are directly related to account limitations, and not that of reducing the number of reasonable brokers on offer - as is the case in the US as we speak.

Let’s not forget that having a wide array of brokers increases competition from a pricing, and hopefully customer service prospective. This can’t and should not be overlooked, ever.

That depends on their true objective though doesn’t it :slight_smile:

The types of individuals, not to mention the investment capital involved at this level of the decision making process, generally get what they want & it’s not always to the benefit of the obvious recipients. This is a very slippery, murky business as the american punters are now beginning to realise.

But as with most things, all will be revealed in the fullness of time. Folks will just continue to play their hand until or if the table deals them out.

Even if they only achieve a percentage of what they intend, the likely obstacles they’re clearly seeking to implement courtesy of any revised qualifying criteria, will block & put participation out of reach of most of their target audience, which appears to be the primary objective.

The percentage we expect to get form trading is not necessary that we can find exactly . Profit may fluctuate time to time. Depends what capital you had and how much you had skill of trading you will make % of return monthly. My aim is to make 10% to 20% monthly from my investment.