Just a quick update - as of 10 minutes ago, the MetaTrader4 web platform has been activated in our back-office area.
It’s certainly a useful tool for checking the market, but is aimed more at manual traders as no EA / script support is included.
Dear jmullins9646,
I am sorry to hear to you did not received the reply to your question in your email box. I just asked our support department to check about your request and I see that they have replied to it yesterday at 10 : 22 : 29 (GMT +2). Maybe the message went to your spam folder. I will also reply here. LMFX is an STP broker.
As of the LIVE chat. If you open our website you will see a blue tab at the bottom right corner which says Queelo | Live chat & Help. From there you can access the Live Chat and our one of a kind Q&A system with ready answers to most of your questions.
At LMFX we are using a very unique Live Chat, Support and Ticketing system which brings the communication with the clients to a new level and its fully internal. Basically if you have an account with us all of the communication takes place in our system which makes it very secure.
As of accessing the Live chat in Queelo, when you are asked for login details just press [I][U]Don’t have account yet | Sign Up[/U][/I] and you will be taken to a section where you have to enter your name/nickname and your email address and from there you can start a chat with one of our customer support representatives. Our Live Support is 24/5.
If you have any doubts about the reply sent to you I will ask a person who has access to the email history to also send you an email with a screenshot from our system which shows your request and the reply to you. At LMFX we are serious about what we do and I would like to clear any doubts or concerns you may have.
Update: I was just informed that a screenshot of the reply has also been sent to you.
Thank you very much for the quick response and thorough explanation. I checked my spam folder and didn’t find it in there either. No problem…I guess it just got lost somehow.
Dear Shatners Last Stand,
As I stated yesterday I am replying to your question about the min trade size on the CFD’s. I have sent the request to our management and their reply was that for now we will stick with the current trade sizes which are pretty much a standard for most of the brokers out there. If they decide to make any adjustments in the future we will make a public announcement regarding the changes that will be applied in the CFD trade sizes.
Thanks for your comments, guys.
[B]Berndale Capital[/B] (Australia) and [B]LMFX[/B] (Macedonia) have been added to Group 1 (post #1).
Welcome to our new brokers!
•
Before room can be made for Berndale and LMFX on the [B]Discussion Links[/B] page (post #7), some of the oldest links will have to be removed. (It takes a [I]lot[/I] of keyboard characters to post links, and post #7 continues to bang up against the 15,000-character-per-post forum limit.)
Separating the LINKS from the Group 1 listing has made it possible to put all of Group 1 onto post #1.
I hope this will make the List more readable and user-friendly.
•
The missing information in the Berndale and LMFX listings in post #1 will be filled in as time allows.
Also, I haven’t added Berndale or LMFX to the Alphabetical List yet, but I’ll get to it.
If you find any other errors or omissions in the re-formatted List, please post your findings here.
.
Thank you for the good comments guys and for the opportunity to be included in the list of offshore Forex brokers that accept US clients.
Thanks for the time spent editing and updating information Clint. I believe that everyone here appreciates your efforts!
LMFX,
Thanks for your prompt response. Ok, but your grain contract offerings are not standard. That’s why I asked about them. For example, Traders Way and Forex Broker,Inc offer the grains at .2 Lot (1/5 futures contract), and FX Choice offers them in microlot. Seriously, why would any trader want to pay the $50+ spread plus swap for your “full size” CFD when they can just trade the CME contract at a fraction of the cost?
Dear Shatners Last Stand,
Thanks for the heads up. We take the clients feedback seriously and I will once again forward your request with the updated information that you provided here and will forward it to the management. Will do my best to keep you informed.
Thank you!
Hi Everyone,
I’m putting this in the CFTC thread, even though ATC offers a U.S. regulated brokerage. Along with most of you, we considered putting our trading operation at Tradersway, and then Tallinex and have now settled on ATC in the U.S. As U.S. “beneficiaries” we’re in the same tight spot as you other U.S. forum readers.
Obviously, we have to deal with 50:1 leverage. But in a medium-size trading operation, Leverage is not the biggest issue by far…
So here are the characteristics of ATC’s MetaTrader implementation, and why it is a VIABLE choice for those of you who use EA’s or who are concerned about the TECHNICAL aspects of MetaTrader and, in particular, the FIFO rule.
ATC has NO FIFO limitations in the MetaTrader 4 implementation. You can even HEDGE within the same symbol if that’s your cup of tea 
Only the “stupid” brokerages actually limit Trade Operation Sequencing in the platform. So how does ATC do it? They contract with FXCM to use their Back Office facilities, and you are provided with a FIFO-compliant statement. THIS IS THE RIGHT WAY TO DO THINGS. They are otherwise in no way affiliated with FXCM, so don’t worry… They just use their servers, and back office, but they are their own separate operation, and this is their best solution for ATC operations inside the U.S. But read on…
(As a aside, FXDD used to offer FIFO compliant statements to White Label Dukascopy clients, before they went out of the U.S. retail Forex business. Trading operations were UNRESTRICTED by FIFO, but statements were fully compliant with U.S. regulations, since FIFO is an Accounting standard only, and should NOT influence trade sequencing in the platform.)
Bid/Ask spreads at ATC are better than Dukascopy or Tradersway or Tallinex, very tight. Execution is ATC proprietary implementation which does NOT use “Bridges” as other MT4 providers do in their “white label” implementations of MT4. We plan to “spin” volume in scalping (given the tighter spreads) which will to some extent compensate for Leverage loss.
Placement of Limit Orders (and TP and SL) is completely UNRESTRICTED. FXCM, for example, appears to cancel Orders where the Limit is too close to execution, but let’s not go down that Rat Hole. FXCM also imposes a “Net TP and Net SL” limitation on its MT4 which completely F**KS UP any “standard” EA’s, but also I’m not here to say anything much about FXCM.
So, to continue, ATC permits all “standard” MT4 EA’s and maintains “Per Deal” positions, with “Per Deal” TP and SL (unlike FXCM in the U.S.) so it is completely standard in its function. Most U.S. providers impose FIFO and “Net” behaviors which means EA’s can’t be standard… 
but not ATC U.S. (Of course they are also represented outside the U.S. but that’s never an issue, if you are a non U.S. person, then you can laugh or sympathize with what we in the U.S. are facing !!)
ALSO they do currently charge 0.8 R/T Commission, but I am informed they will move to 0.6 in a month or so, and that commissions are negotiable on volume so that makes us very happy. Their lack of “bridge” implementation will mean much FASTER execution, and most likely more reliable operation, with less “links in the chain” to break… All of this means something if you have a 24x5.5 operation in Forex !!! Tight spreads and Limit placements inside the spread can also help to compensate for commissions through “incremental trading” multi-position trading which improves your cost basis.
LOT SIZE is published at ATC as minimum 0.1 Lots, but it is really 0.05 lots. Any position size above 0.05 lots can be increased by 0.01 lots, so 0.05, 0.06, 0.07, 0.08, 0.1, 0.11, etc. are all valid lot sizes (note that those increments are 0.01 lots. This is important for us, because we will enter a 1.0 Lot (aka “standard lot”) position by using up to 20 individual staggered price entries, each 0.05 Lots, which is “incremental scalping”.
We are also free to scale in and out by increasing or reducing exposure by 0.05 increments… but that’s just our strategy…
GENERIC METATRADER can be used on ATC’s implementation, so this opens up our strategic usage of the NJ4X.com framework for multi-terminal and multi-account simultaneous management.
Have I left anything out? I am only providing this info for those traders who are “ramping up” a significant Trading Operation, who are concerned about the continuously changing “Cat and Mouse” games where the offshore brokerages try to get around the Restrictions on money transfers into and out of the U.S. through Correspondent bank arrangements which are constantly changing.
SUMMARY
We took a hard look at the totality of the ATC MT4 offering, and are convinced that ultimately we are better off going with this particular ATC U.S. implementation, than getting more Leverage offshore. The “Devil’s in the Details” in the choice of a brokerages full range of offerings. It ain’t a simple choice, is all I’m sayin’
THIS IS ALL JUST INFORMATIONAL, and given the continual “squeeze” on the offshore brokerages, I just want you all to know that there is an “unpolluted” MT4 possibility in the U.S., despite the fact that 50:1 is a non-negotiable Leverage value.
Remember: Leverage is by no means everything in considering which broker to choose.
I ain’t affiliated with ATC, just telling you the “hoops” we tried to jump through before settling on a final brokerage choice inside the U.S. with ATC. If you’re anticipating a 6-figure trading operation, you’ll know that these considerations are multi-faceted.
SO BY ALL MEANS, use the offshore Forex brokerages. But do it understanding that perhaps it is not in your best interest, if you are a U.S. person operation, to completely “escape” the CFTC ! haha It’s not a laughing matter, and 50:1 leverage seems like a real penalty for U.S. operations, but consider that if you’re going to do “real” trading, that’s not your biggest issue !!
hyperscalper
Nice info hyperscalper. I went offshore, because of the option of high leverage, but of course it is always good to have alternative options. I see that Clint has updated the list as well. Good job!
They are IB of FXCM, since you use their back office, you deposit your money to FXCM company who almost went out business last year, and I almost lost 50k. During the SWISS bonanza last year when I called ATC, they said I need to call FXCM about my account money.
It doesn’t concern us that FXCM holds the money. You say they “almost” went out of business. What is important to us is that we are not using FXCM’s platform so, in that sense, they are not a simple IB for FXCM at all. They simply choose this business arrangement in the U.S. and provide traders with a nearly perfect MT4 implementation. A simple “IB” arrangement would mean clients use FXCM’s platform with all of its defects. So I think that in some sense, yes, they are an “IB” for FXCM; but in the areas that matter to traders, it’s not FXCM. And so I think you don’t actually know ATC’s plans, or the precise business arrangement between ATC (a separate company) and FXCM.
I’m an optimist, and if I were unconcerned about placing $50k in an offshore brokerage, do you think it makes sense to worry about it at a regulated U.S. brokerage?
hyperscalper
Read the previous threads, man. The regulation does not mean anything, if the broker goes out business you get cents on dollar.
It seems you got some business with ATC, and you try to promote it or something, at least be honest. It is better to open offshore broker with less money and higher leverage.
Hey, man, I’m a trader like the rest of you. I’m just giving info; and as I use it, I’ll share some more with this forum… Like i said, I’m just giving you the facts, and how “the devil’s in the details” when it comes to broker choice. I’m as disgusted with the situation in the U.S. as everyone else; but it ain’t the end of the world, thanks to this CFTC Offshore thread, and some creativity by the collective audience.
hyperscalper
Quick question, what was the criteria used to specify a broker as trusted on the front page?
• Discussion about designating Trusted Brokers began almost 1 year ago.
Here is the first post in which I proposed the idea:
http://forums.babypips.com/forex-brokers/36221-going-offshore-escape-cftc-post682529.html#post682529
• Based on discussion (not formal voting), I concluded that the consensus (among those participating in the discussion) was that FX Choice and Tallinex deserved the Trusted Broker designation. Here is the post where I announced that decision:
http://forums.babypips.com/forex-brokers/36221-going-offshore-escape-cftc-post684591.html#post684591
• Then, we — [I]meaning those members who chose to participate[/I] — discussed, vetted and voted on several additional brokers from our List. Our voting process resulted in a ranking of 6 additional brokers, with Trader’s Way at the top of the ranking, and ProfiForex running a close second to Trader’s Way.
Here is a summary of the voting:
http://forums.babypips.com/forex-brokers/36221-going-offshore-escape-cftc-post691942.html#post691942
• Based on that polling result, I added the Trusted Broker designation to the Trader’s Way listing. Here is the post where I announced that decision:
http://forums.babypips.com/forex-brokers/36221-going-offshore-escape-cftc-post692439.html#post692439
That’s where we stand today.
• Take note of the last paragraph in the second link (above), which reads:
Trusted broker status should not be a “lifetime appointment”. A broker who deserves this designation must continue to deserve it in the future, in order to retain the designation. To the extent that it’s possible and practical, this thread should be a democracy. As such, we can vote brokers into — or out of — the trusted broker category.
.
2 Likes
Thanks for the info Clint!
May I ask what the status is on Skrill / Neteller / debit card deposits for US customers…?
1 Like
One thing I’ve learned when probing for available funds transfer arrangements is that the “cat and mouse” game where CFTC and/or NFA seeks to starve these offshore brokers, has as a necessary consequence that NOT ALL FUNDS TRANSFER ARRANGEMENTS may be published on a broker’s website.
So, if you have a concern about money transfer arrangements; it is best to contact the broker and have a conversation as to the range of available options.
Being public and transparent about these arrangements causes these offshore brokers, who are constantly under threat from CFTC-related compliance actions, to become tight-lipped, knowing that U.S. regulators are mostly likely listening on forums such as this one for further ways they can put pressure on non-compliant brokers through squeezing their money transfer options. 'Nuff said here… 
WINK
hyperscalper
2 Likes
Thanks. That’s why posted my question with one of Paul’s (Tallinex’s) quote where he spoke of funding options in one of his prior posts. I appreciate your feedback but, I’ll wait for Paul’s response.