Clint can you contact some of the others so we can get a nice list. I havent been able to reach saxo bank. They would be a nice option.
WSD appears to accept US clients. The operation doesnt seem that great.
Saxo Bank is a yes, but they do not have MT4, also they have a number of different divisions based on regions, panama, uk etc.
IG is also a yes
Tadawulfx will accept US clients as well, seems like a good option so far. MT4 stp.
Sorry if this is off topic but I read an article, or rather, sifted through it and felt it might be of interest here.
It’s a copy/paste from futuresmag.com October 2010 issue:
The impact on introducing brokers and retail traders
By Karen K. Wuertz
Faced with the daunting task of reading and analyzing the 2,315 pages of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank), an individual may not notice some of the less-publicized aspects of the legislation, especially pertaining to introducing brokers (IBs) and retail over-the-counter (OTC) forex traders. However, that doesn’t diminish the impact certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act will have on these groups.
For example, Section 732 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires futures commission merchants (FCMs) and IBs to implement conflicts-of-interest systems and procedures to ensure that any person within the firm relating to “research or analyses of the price or market” are separated by appropriate informational partitions within the firm from the review, pressure, or oversight of persons whose involvement in trading or clearing activities might potentially bias the judgment or supervision of the persons.
<A HREF="http://oascentral.nationalunderwriter.com/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.ads/www.futures.com/regulations/Issues/2010/October-2010/Pages/What-does-DoddFrank-mean-to-you.aspx/1120109271635@!" TARGET=_top><IMG SRC=“http://oascentral.nationalunderwriter.com/RealMedia/ads/adstream_nx.ads/www.futures.com/regulations/Issues/2010/October-2010/Pages/What-does-DoddFrank-mean-to-you.aspx/1120109271635@!?” BORDER=0></A>
The CFTC has not yet written any rules with respect to Section 732, and, because of the broad nature of the Act’s language, the challenge to the CFTC will be to develop a rule that satisfies the Act’s requirements while not imposing unworkable standards. These new systems and procedures could be particularly burdensome to smaller IBs with limited resources.
The Dodd-Frank Act also contains several provisions that become effective in mid-2011, which close certain regulatory gaps in the retail forex area. First, with regard to Zelener contract forex products or “rolling spot,” the May 2008 Farm Bill ensured that the CFTC has antifraud authority over these Zelener forex transactions, but the dealers that offer these contracts are not required to be one of the enumerated counterparties outlined in the Act and, therefore, retail customers of these firms do not get all of the regulatory protections they need (see Zelener).
The Dodd-Frank Act closes this gap by requiring a person acting as a counterparty to forex Zelener contracts to be registered as an FCM. Presumably, the CFTC also could allow this person to register as a retail foreign exchange dealer. The Act also amends the definition of commodity pool operator (CPO), commodity trading advisor (CTA) and IB to include a registration requirement for other intermediaries that may engage in activity relating to forex Zelener contracts. The legislation goes even further in regard to non-forex Zelener contracts. The Act prohibits retail trading in Zelener-type futures look-alike products other than forex unless the transactions are done on-exchange. Therefore, with certain exceptions, firms will be prohibited from offering these types of contracts to the retail public unless the contracts are traded on-exchange.
A second regulatory gap closed by the Dodd-Frank Act relates to the list of the types of otherwise regulated entities that can act as counterparties to retail customers in off-exchange forex futures. The list currently includes banks, insurance companies, investment bank holding companies, FCMs, broker-dealers and “financial institutions.” Financial institutions are defined to include a range of highly regulated types of businesses, including, for example, federal or state credit unions and depository institutions covered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The definition of “financial institution” also includes “foreign banks” as defined in the International Banking Act of 1973, which covers any institution in any foreign country that engages in activities usually associated with banking in that particular jurisdiction.
The “foreign bank” exemption has become an increasingly popular means for forex counterparties to circumvent U.S. regulatory requirements designed to protect retail customers. The Dodd-Frank Act addresses this circumvention by providing that a financial institution only qualifies as an enumerated counterparty if it is a United States financial institution. This could dramatically impact U.S. retail customers who currently trade forex with entities located outside the U.S. When this provision becomes effective in mid-2011, it may be illegal for non-U.S. financial institutions to offer retail forex trading to U.S. customers. The Act also eliminates insurance companies and investment bank holding companies from the list of enumerated counterparties.
Even U.S. customers trading OTC retail forex through a U.S. bank or broker-dealer could be affected by the Dodd-Frank Act. Section 742 of the Act provides that if the otherwise regulated “enumerated counterparty” to retail forex OTC transactions (i.e. FCMs, broker-dealers, U.S. financial institutions) has a federal regulatory agency, the agency must issue rules governing OTC retail forex transactions by mid-2011. If the Federal regulatory agency does not issue forex rules, then the counterparty may be prohibited from entering into those OTC retail forex futures transactions.To date, the CFTC is the only federal regulatory agency to issue rules for retail forex, which become effective October 18, 2010. Therefore, unless other federal regulatory agencies act, the impact of this language could be that only FCMs could engage in OTC retail forex futures transactions after mid-2011. At this time, non-FCM counterparties whose federal regulators do not meet Section 742’s requirements could still engage in this activity by registering an affiliate as an FCM subject to the CFTC’s rules.
Although it may be too early to determine accurately the ultimate impact of the Dodd-Frank Act on IBs and retail traders, it’s safe to say the regulatory landscape has definitely changed.
Zelener
The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 sought to (among other things) clarify the CFTC’s authority over retail foreign exchange trading. However, a District court ruled in the CFTC v. Zelener – and the Seventh Circuit Court confirmed in 2004 – that the CFTC did not have authority over certain retail forex trading because the contracts in question were not futures but “rolling spot” contracts and the CFTC authority was only for futures. The CFTC Reauthorization Act of 2008 closed the Zelener loophole and Dodd-Frank requires any entity offering retail forex trading to belong to a Federal regulator, which must have written rules by a specific date.
Karen K. Wuertz is senior vice president, strategic planning and communications at the National Futures Association.
1 Like
Where should I move to I like a warm climate, low taxes, english speaking, nice schools, and safe cities? 
This is starting to piss me off the more I learn about that reform bill. My bank has already started to raise fees I think I know why. Even my liberal wife came to the conclusion that this bill will have very few positive affects for the little guy. Every time congress passes something like this all it does is pass the new costs of doing business down to the consumer. The big guys don’t pay the new bills/taxes imposed by congress we do! :mad:
1 Like
Australia by all means. Or somewhere in the Caribbean (Dominica, Barbados, British Virgin Islands).
I’ve been wanting to move to New Zealand for about 5 years now - but Oz would be nice, as well. They do boast the appealing geographical feature of being almost exactly on the opposite side of the world from where I currently reside. The idea of relocating to (literally) the farthest point on earth from eastern Pennsylvania is really attractive to me.
1 Like
Thank you Clint for the effort. I spent time getting some info, I managed to get through Germany and Switzerland. Tired, I’ll continue the effort later…here’s what I found:
(Caveats: I didn’t go into spreads, this is information I gleaned either directly from the website or through good searches. Also, I only appended a negative review for one broker; reviews are generally non-dispositive, but that broker actually has had trouble with the police so didn’t investigate further).
Again, these are from Clint’s Germany and Switzerland list:
“As of early 2010 Finexo was purchased by SafeCap Investments, an EU regulated broker with a strong financial background and coincidentally enough, also owns GFC markets. As a result of the merge, Finexo no longer accepts U.S. clients.”
Varengold: The Online Broker is a No US Clients Broker
dbfx – Deutsche Bank AGUS Clients: yes 5k minimum deposit deutsche bank is regulated probably a safe broker
Forex web trader; micro accounts; accepts us traders (for now); no metatrader
ACM Another web site of this company is www.ForexPro.com
2009-04-05: There was a police raid against AC Markets. We have an article in our forums about this issue, along with a response from ACM. The FPA recommends using a reasonably high level of caution dealing with this company until more facts come out.
CIM bank minimum deposit 5k (unsure if accepts us residents) waiting response.
Dukascopy – will not be accepting us residents
MIG bank accepts us customers 2k minimum deposit (no micro accounts, call the smallest account a “micro”). Has Swiss and EU regulation, appears to have expert advisors but I didn’t see a mt4 download so that may have to be configured. Sounds like a very solid, well capitalized broker
Tadawul FX has mt4, min 500 to open, waiting for word on us residents
Good night.
2 Likes
(thought I was done for the night after my last post).
CMS Forex — Forex - Forex Trading - FX - FX Trading - CMS Forex UK
Activ Trades — Activtrades - Forex, CFD, Futures. New MT4.Low or Zero Commission
Alpari UK — Forex trading (FX) with Alpari UK - Online currency trading
Finotec — Forex, Forex Trading, Online Forex Trading Platform - Finotec UK Trading
HY Markets — HY Markets Home
MF Global — Stock Trading, Shares & Currency Market Trading System | MF Global
One Financial — One Financial Markets | Trading Broker –Regulated by FSA | London, UK
ODL Markets — Forex Trading, Broker & Software provider for FX, Spead betting, CFDs- ODL Markets (Powered by FXCM)
ODL does not accept US clients
One financial; yes to us clients, 250 minimum deposit, has mt4
MF Global: facing class action lawsuit in US
HY Markets
Mini - $50 min. deposit, 2,000 unit min. trade size, 7 pip variable spread on EUR/USD;
Standard - $750 min. deposit, 10,000 unit min. trade size, 5 pip variable spread on EUR/USD;
Premium - $2,500 min. deposit, 100,000 unit min. trade size, 3 pip variable spread on EUR/USD;
7 PIPS! OUCH! Don’t think so…
Alpari - centered in Russia. Not my cup of tea, so didn’t go any further.
Finotec has us branches so is subject to new rules
Activtrades no us traders
CMS Forex no us traders
2 Likes
[B]dragofx[/B] and [B]marionette[/B] — Thank you both, for the research you are doing.
[B]Shr1k[/B], [B]bravehoststamps[/B], [B]MerchantPrince[/B] and [B]sandpipper[/B] — Thanks for your participation in this conversation.
[B]o990l6mh[/B] — Thanks for the [I]Futures[/I] article, Magnus. It’s not off-topic, at all.
I found the following paragraphs to be especially chilling (I have added the red highlighting):
A second regulatory gap closed by the Dodd-Frank Act relates to the list of the types of otherwise regulated entities that can act as counterparties to retail customers in off-exchange forex futures. The list currently includes banks, insurance companies, investment bank holding companies, FCMs, broker-dealers and “financial institutions.” Financial institutions are defined to include a range of highly regulated types of businesses, including, for example, federal or state credit unions and depository institutions covered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The definition of “financial institution” also includes “foreign banks” as defined in the International Banking Act of 1973, which covers any institution in any foreign country that engages in activities usually associated with banking in that particular jurisdiction.
The “foreign bank” exemption has become an increasingly popular means for forex counterparties to circumvent U.S. regulatory requirements designed to protect retail customers. The Dodd-Frank Act addresses this circumvention by providing that a financial institution only qualifies as an enumerated counterparty if it is a United States financial institution. This could dramatically impact U.S. retail customers who currently trade forex with entities located outside the U.S. When this provision becomes effective in mid-2011, it may be illegal for non-U.S. financial institutions to offer retail forex trading to U.S. customers. The Act also eliminates insurance companies and investment bank holding companies from the list of enumerated counterparties.
My comments: Notice the word “futures” in the first sentence above. Currency futures and spot forex are two entirely different markets. The word “futures” may have slipped into that sentence inadvertently. But, you would expect precision in the use of that word by a “senior vice president” at the National [B]Futures[/B] Association.
If that word “futures” is straight out of the legislation, then possibly it can be argued that this part of the law does not (yet) apply to the spot forex market. However, if such a loophole exists, it’s only a matter of time before it’s closed.
The handwriting is on the wall: people like Dodd and Frank, and agencies like the CFTC, are intent on making all U.S. residents hostages of financial institutions which they — the ruling class — regulate and control.
Senator Christopher Dodd and Representative Barney Frank — who are largely responsible for the Fanny Mae / Freddie Mac housing bubble and its worldwide consequences — have now inflicted their megalomania on the broader financial landscape.
These two moral reprobates represent everything that is wrong with American government.
Would go for fxopen, or fxpro.
from tadawulf:
"Thank you for your e-mail,
Tadawulf accepts US, for spread info, go to
Please note that we still accept clients from the US."
Spread | Compare Forex Spreads from 1 pip spread with TDFX
The following was disconcerting. I’ve not run across a broker yet that won’t publicize its capitalization, many even post that information on their web page:
“We are unable to publicize the company’s capitalization.”
Looks like a DD…
1 Like
I was told that tadawul is STP. I will verify and report.
The good news is that there are still plenty of solid options for quality offshore brokerage.
One financial just told me they are unable to accept US clients. Where did you get your info on them?
Anybody know anything about Broco Forex
I have a friend who just moved his accounts to them due to this cftc nfa crap and another who has his beer money account with them. Great spreads and amazing amount of tradeable instruments, but they Russian. For the record they are accepting US accounts.
1 Like
I talked to my lawyer friend in Dallas about trading out of the US and she says you need to separate FX (which she says is not regulated in the Eu in their MIFID Regulations) from EU regulated products like stocks, futures, CFDs etc. Because Fx is not regulated there is very little that the CFTC can do if the fx broker has no office in the US. If the fx broker does, the CFTC can bear pressure on the broker not to sell products to US clients in Europe which are illegal in the US. Makes sense. As far as Regulated Products go, "The SEC’s interpretation of U.S. federal securities laws limits Non U.S. Broker-Dealers to working with those permanently resident outside the USA. Non U.S. broker-dealers cannot approach and/ or solicit U.S. resident persons because an Internet Web site is interpreted by the SEC as being the same as a telephone call to a client.
Non U.S. broker-dealers maintaining an Internet Web site can thus only accept a U.S. person if he or she has not been solicited either directly or indirectly through accessing their web sites under the ‘unsolicited’ exemption Rule 15a-6. U.S. customers wanting to work with Non U.S. broker-dealers can thus only approach Non U.S. broker-dealers under Rule 15a-6 if they have not been to their web sites and should be prepared to certify this fact in writing to ensure compliance with applicable law."
To cut a long story short, it looks like it’s ok to trade fx outside the US with reputable brokers for the moment but I wouldn’t trade e.g. stocks and forex together at the same broker unless I could qualify for exemption Rule 15a-6 having being referred to the broker by a friend, fr example …Kind of bizarre, eh?
1 Like
I have read in a couple of places that Dukascopy is no longer accepting US clients. That is incorrect. I just got done asking a customer rep about this and he said that they welcome US traders. They just don’t accept managed US clients.
I currently have an account with them and am real happy with their service. To me it is a no brainer when comparing brokers as they keep segregated accounts, are an ecn, are a bank regulated by swiss laws etc.
I prob sound like a shill, but I am in no way benefiting from people signing up with them. My previous brokers were fxcm uk and cmsfx uk and I like dukascopy much better.
I should say that I do have 2 gripes with dukascopy.
- Their reports are super difficult to read and figure out.
- They have been delaying mt4 for forever and are now saying that there is a possibility they won’t ever get it done. The holdup lies in the fact that they are trying to get it to operate seamlessly with their other java programs. This isn’t a big deal, as I chart on quote tracker charts, except that it prevents me from using fx tracking programs like myfxbook or currensee or whatever babypips might have.
2 annoying things about em…other than that no gripes.
1 Like
I would tend to agree with you Sandpipper, be it I have no experience with them. If I decide to leave Oanda I will certainly consider Dukascopy.