Originally, [B]IronFX (Cyprus)[/B] was in Group 1 in our List (brokers who will deal with U.S. clients).
Then, they were moved to Group 2 — I don’t recall why, or precisely when.
If you guys can confirm that they will, indeed, open new, live accounts for U.S. residents, I’ll be glad to put them back in Group 1. We need all the new additions to Group 1 that we can find!
On June 11, 2012 I asked Ironfx through their chat window if they accept US traders. They said basically, “Sorry, we do not.” I’ve been having royal hell trying to find a broker as good as TradingPoint was, after what some people might call the Dodd-Frankenstein mindless airheads, shut down TradingPoint’s American trading department. You could trade gold with less than fifty cents and oil with fifteen dollars and the Dow Jones with ten dollars with TradingPoint, a fantastic broker. I plan to go back to them if Romney wins and repeals the very unfair Dodd Frank law. Recently a broker, that I’ve had for about a month, that may ryhme with “EssexGory” pulled some funny stuff on me asking me 4 times consecutively, AFTER I clicked the blue buy tab, if I wanted to buy the Eur/Usd recently when it was in a strong recovery from an earlier sharp selloff. Each time they repeated the question, I clicked yes. Then they asked me again. I think each time they raised the buy price to above the market, then they were maybe planning to use my money (less than $10) to buy at the actual market and make a small profit when I sold, but showing less of a profit, if any, to me since I had agreed to buy above the market price. Then the price moved too much higher for a safe buy, so I gave up on that trade. Otherwise they’re a pretty good broker most of the time, especially with gold. I hate to dump them, but I may if they don’t always give quick trade executions in the future. Paxforex said they have been having some problems receiving their new account email registrations, so I am waiting to open an account with them. I want to thank you other traders for sharing your offshore trading experiences and advice, that’s great. Keep up the good work. If we team together we may be able to start whipping those regulators, who are hindering, not helping the economic recovery attempt. You would think, if the Dodd Frank people wanted to do some real good, that they would immediately shut down all the lotteries, to protect the average Joe from almost surely losing his betting money, where the leverage is millions to one against him, but no, they won’t dare do that, because organized government is making too much money on that to do away with it. There were bullies in high school, and now some of those bullies have grown up and haven’t changed a molecule, it seems, except for making unfairness legal and sophisticated.
It’s not illegal to trade offshore. The illegal part is not paying your taxes as defined by law. Ask Willard.
That’s why you either:
#2 seems better to me.
Could have not said it better. I totally agree and I don’t get why people think off-shore trading is illegal.
You will find out that it is legal for a U.S. citizen to do.
Oops, I made a mistake, sort of. Delete the bad part of what I said a day or two ago about the broker that may rhyme with “EssexGory.” One of the reasons why their trading station may ask you again and again if you want to buy or sell the Eur/Usd is because when that currency really starts moving fast on the 5 minute chart, their trading station charts sometimes fall 10 to 12 minutes behind the actual currency prices. Their charts get current again in about 10 minutes, but any trade entries or closes will always be at the actual current prices. So when their charts get briefly behind, which is not often, I check the up to date, current prices on the Paxforex trading station before making a trade. With Paxforex I think about $32 is needed to trade gold, but with the other broker only about $2 or less is required for gold.
Concerning the grossly defective Dodd Frankenstein (Dodd Frank) law, even if it made it illegal for individuals to trade with offshore brokers, assuming there would be no enforced penalty for doing that, traders would be justified in breaking that law just as Jewish German citizens in 1940’s Germany would have been justified in resisting and fighting the new, also grossly defective German law requiring Jews to be sent off to the concentration camps to be gassed to death. Right is right and wrong is wrong no matter what the sometimes wildly goofy law says.
[B]Update on IronFX[/B]: US clients can be accepted only if they can provide proof of citizenship outside of US as well, here is the email response:
[I]Hi XXXX,
I would like to start by thanking you for contacting IronFX, my name is XXXXX and I will be your contact here.
We can accept US citizens only if you can provide us with a Proof of Residence outside the US, are you able to do so…?
Looking forward to hearing from you soon.
Best regards,
XXXXXX
Account Manager[/I]
Thanks for the update, Klepto.
So, for now, IronFX will stay where they are in Group 2 of our List.
Maybe they will wise up, sometime in the future.
Hi Clint, I’m new to the thread, but I must say keep up the good work! You have a vault of info throughout this thread… I literally have read your thread for hours… I salute and thank you and the others for the great info… Keep the info coming bro!
PS. Is there anyway to block that sman1109 dude… He’s very annoying!
Would you shut up you sheeple… Nobody’s entertained by your slave mentality… Go back to the CFTC and file papers
We’re looking into the idea of installing a bug-zapper next to this thread.
… that should put an end to the nuisance.
BTW, welcome to this forum, and welcome to this thread.
A little while back I decided to check out FXVV. I opened a demo account with them. Yesterday, there was a massive spike across all pairs that obviously didn’t happen in the real world. I haven’t seen a spike to this degree before. Someone that has, could you explain what is going on here? Is it manipulation, or an error? If this happened on live accounts, I’m sure there are a lot of pissed off people. How would something like this be resolved? Or would it be?
Below is a link to an image of the phantom spike.
http://s8.postimage.org/uzeu505dx/spike.jpg
I have an account with them as well Yesterday they were in a meeting with there mt4 platform provider about there feed fees that what you experienced I know because they called me. that is why I have account with 2 different forex broker so when one acts up I can trade with the other one
I noticed within the last month that it is now totally impossible to use Skrill Moneybookers to send money to an offshore forex broker. Skrill has a statement that says basically US citizens cannot send money to foreign forex brokers, gambling casinos, etc., lumping good forex brokers with “gambling casinos, etc.” So apparently the Dodd Frank people have done something to tighten their stranglehold death grip on trading offshore by starting to make it impossible to transfer money to offshore accounts. But oh no, they don’t dare even look at domestic lotteries to shut them down because they help feed free money into government coffers to pay excessively fat government pensions, possibly even including the pensions of the Dodd Frank people. (Frank, a homosexual, has retired from Congress now.)
A word to the wise: Maybe you should get some money into a foreign account now while the getting is still good. It is conceivable that the Dodd Frank people may actually have enough power to make it illegal to use [B]ANY METHOD [/B]to move money into an offshore forex broker.
Romney, Romney, please come quickly to save us from the Dodd Frankers.
I have used mazooma with Moneybookers. I also have an account with FXVV my account manager has called me and suggested a western union deposit in my account managers name. I have not done this.
have you guys seen the lawsuit against Dodd frank law that is circulating in the net, do you guys think they have a solid case. A Texas community bank on June 21 filed what lawyers say is the first suit directly challenging the constitutionality of the Dodd-Frank Act and the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Represented by former White House counsel C. Boyden Gray, the State National Bank of Big Spring, Tex., along with The Competitive Enterprise Institute and the 60 Plus Association allege that the law lacks effective checks and balances to assure the public of accountability.
“As a whole, Dodd-Frank aggregates the power of all three branches of government in one unelected, unsupervised and unaccountable bureaucrat,” said Gray, founder of Boyden Gray & Associates in Washington, in a statement.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, targets Title 1 and Title 10 of Dodd-Frank, Gray said in an interview. Title 1 focuses on the government’s designation of systemically risky enterprises, while Title 10 covers the creation of the CFPB. The suit also challenges the January recess appointment of CFPB head Richard Cordray on the grounds that the Senate was not in recess, Gray said.
According to a news release detailing the complaint, which at press time was not available, the plaintiffs complain that Congress “exercises no ‘power of the purse’ over the CFPB, because the agency’s budget — administered essentially by one person — comes from the Federal Reserve, amounting to approximately $400 million that Congress cannot touch or regulate.”
The other banking regulators — the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency — are also funded independently from the Congressional appropriations process. Those agencies are not targeted in the suit.
Gray pointed out that the FDIC’s role is different than the CFPB, since it is funded by fees from banks that are “the recipients of government largess in the form of deposit insurance.” He said the suit seeks to make the CFPB subject to the appropriations process.
The plaintiffs also complain that “the President cannot carry out his constitutional obligation to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed’ because the President cannot remove the CFPB Director except under limited circumstances.”
Courts have held the president lacks the power to remove the leaders of all independent agencies on policy grounds (as opposed to gross wrongdoing) based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1935 decision that President Franklin Roosevelt acted unconstitutionally when he fired a member of the Federal Trade Commission.
Gray said the suit seeks to give the president authority to fire the head of the CFPB, much like cabinet members can be fired.The plaintiffs also complain that “Judicial review of the CFPB’s actions is limited, because Dodd-Frank requires the courts to give extra deference to the CFPB’s legal interpretations.”
The U.S. Supreme Court in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. held that courts should defer to agency interpretations of statutes unless they are unreasonable.
The Dodd-Frank suit focuses on Section 1022 of the act, which states that “the deference that a court affords to the [CFPB]…shall be applied as if the Bureau were the only agency authorized to apply, enforce, interpret, or administer the provisions of such Federal consumer financial law.”
Gray said it was unprecedented to include such a deference standard in a law — as opposed to allowing courts to apply it as they see fit. “It takes discretion away from the courts,” he said.
While Gray acknowledged that “all individual features we challenge, you can find here and there in other agencies,” he said the CFPB combines them all, with a resulting lack of accountability.
One thing unique about the CFPB is that it is overseen by the Dodd-Frank Financial Stability Oversight Council, but the plaintiffs say the council’s review “is practically nonexistent” and that it can “overturn a CFPB regulation under only limited circumstances.”
A CFPB spokeswoman said the suit is little more than a rehash of faulty allegations.
“This lawsuit appears to dredge up old arguments that have already been discredited,” said CFPB spokeswoman Jen Howard via email. “We’re going to keep our focus on the important work Congress created us to do — making markets work for consumers and responsible providers.”
This article originally appeared in The National Law Journal.
I hope this lawsuit is successful. Dodd Frankenstein has required so much extra paperwork, etc. for all banks including even small community banks that had absolutely nothing to do with the 2008 financial crises that it has limited and reduced loans from small banks, an unintended, bad consequence of the new law. Even if the lawsuit is not successful I think it is just a matter of time that Dodd Frankenstein will be repealed or greatly weakened. According to what I have read I am under the impression that historically in America during economic depressions legislation was passed that usually to often made the depression worse or prolonged it, then those laws were later finally rescinded or weakened. It was the high leverage trading practices of the super big banks that caused this current crises, not the trading practices of individual currency or commodity traders. Dodd Frankenstein is basically an unthought-through, emotional knee jerk reaction to 2008 just as the Iraq and Afganistan wars were an emotional, unnecessary knee jerk reaction to 9-11-2001. We had Saddam Hussein completely boxed in and contained in the air, and he would come in real handy today to help thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
That’s how Mitch Romney wins.
Very well spoken.
I found this last night while surfing:
ghanafx dot com
I didn’t look further into it, and I didn’t look at your new updated list either. If it’s already on there just ignore this post. Just thought about all of you when I found it last night! 
Suzanne - forexdude12
