In the UK it’s not an option i.e. if the broker is registered and regulated then client funds must be segregated. As far as I know this applies to the EU as well.
But the onus is on you to check the broker’s blurb about this which is on their website and then go search for them on the website of their regulator. It’s not unknown for a broker to have been registered and regulated and for whatever reason such registration is no longer valid and therefore regulation is no longer in force or that certain exemptions have been granted which, conveniently, may not appear on the broker’s website.
Well, that’s nice for traders who have access to brokers in the U.K. or the EU.
However, U.K. and EU brokers are not an option for U.S. residents, thanks to agreements between the U.S. CFTC and the U.K. and EU regulators. These agreements are called Memoranda of Understanding, and they basically require U.K. and EU regulators to enforce CFTC regulations against U.S. residents who attempt to open accounts in the U.K. or EU.
And the U.K. and EU are not the only jurisdictions controlled in this way by the U.S. CFTC.
As U.S. residents, we are denied access to brokers in the U.K., the EU, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, among others. When this thread began in 2010, we considered all of those jurisdictions to be part of the “offshore” that we wanted to explore. But, the CFTC quickly closed off every one of those regions, through their bloody Memoranda of Collusion, er, I mean Understanding.
Consequently, we have looked for trading opportunities in countries not yet under the thumb of the U.S. Nanny State – countries in eastern Europe and the Middle East, as well as island nations in the Caribbean, the western Pacific, and the Indian Ocean.
This part is coming back to me now from when it started those years ago. I seem to remember taking the stance at the time that it wasn’t a big deal. But at the time I was involved with Bulgaria. In just reading your post and seeing how it has all evolved over the years is it not ironic how it throws US traders to the wolves and leaves them at the mercy of unscrupulous and unethical brokers and with unfair practices which APPARENTLY was what the legislation was intended to protect US traders from in the first place. And knowing what I know of those responsible for the legislation I would find it a stretch to believe that they did not see this as an unintended consequence of such legislation. I am surprised to say the least.
Suffice to say my question of late has been answered. Thank you.
I am in no way throwing in the towel and am
continuing to ramping
up production with my favorite offshore brokers, but… I have to
consider what would I need to do, if I were forced to use
a U.S. broker so just posting this comparison article
which is likely to be quite unbiased for your consideration:
If I had to move onshore, then I would need to reshape code to
respect FIFO and of course lose 10x leverage for the
smaller accounts, etc… Both offer MT4…
More of a "gedanken experiment"
than anything else for me, at this time…
[EDIT] Focus exclusively on what IG’s MT4 offers…
Overall, it looks workable; but is extremely disappointing
with restrictions on MT4 Limit placements, FIFO, Fixed Spreads
with poor pricing (commissions in spread), etc.
But it’s a starting point for me to see
what I could do to accommodate such a trading environment.
Really makes you appreciate what Coinexx and others are
currently offering !!
[EDIT] I see on their Account Types - Number One Capital Markets Ltd.
page that they have unrestricted limit/stop placements
and true ECN variable spread with $5 / round turn ?
costs, so that’s all good.
I looked over their site, and didn’t see any problematic
issues. Looks like maybe Marshall Islands for regulation,
and did not appear to block U.S. persons…
Spreads looked a bit higher, but you can’t know unless
have a real live account. $7 / round trip ? Anyway,
nothing seemed to be an immediate show stopper to me…
Happy to have these additional broker options !!!
Thanks @SmallPaul !
hello Hyperscalper, why use LTC over GUSD or USDC for coinexx deposits? is there faster handling time for LTC over fiat-tethered crypto?
sorry for these nonsense question, I am contemplating opening an account with coinexx but I have never dealt with crypto denoted broker before.
Just open a USD account, and fund with LTC or similar crypto.
The implementation details of their USD accounts, as in what
"backs" their USD accounts, I just haven’t looked into that.
If it looks, acts and spends like USD then, to me, it’s USD !
quote=“HyperScalper, post:7101, topic:35612”]
…I submitted questions to them concerning
MT4 trade server location, market fill latencies, and
commission costs, so let’s see what they say…
[/quote]
For me, it is good that their trade servers are in the
Netherlands, since that is my preferred colocation.
Consistency <250 msecs is pretty good for a retail
Forex broker.
hyperscalper
Here is their reply:
"Hello,
Thank you for reaching out to us, our servers are located in the Netherlands. At N1CM 99% of trades are executed in less than 250 ms.
For all further inquiries, please do not hesitate to contact.
Sincerely
N1CM
+44 203 150 1310 "
COINEXX INTRODUCING 2FA FOR WITHDRAWAL AUTHORIZATION
They are beefing up security requiring an email account
authorization before any withdrawals can be taken,
for security purposes. Coinexx portal logins will require
clients to make a one-time password change.
[EDIT] Google Authenticator is available as an option
for further security. Perhaps it is not an email confirm…
[EDIT2] So clarifying, Coinexx will require a confirmatory
email response for Withdrawals by default; and Google
Authenticator is an optional additional security measure.
The email confirmation was only recently put into force,
and I am aware of a person whose account contents
were emptied probably by a Key Logger interception of
the email and password portal credentials
That should not be possible now.
"In accordance with applicable rules and regulations laid out by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, n1cm.com is not permitted to accept any customers from the United States. "
AT first glance this may not seem related, but in reality I’m pretty freaked out. I figured this was the place to mention it because of our awareness of these international laws. It’s the proposed FATF recommendations to the 36 involved countries and the proposed FinCin changes for American cryptocurrencies MBS classification in regards to banking secrecy. I fear that they could exert pressure even more so on over sea exchanges to ban Americans even harder, and to effectively put an end to anonymous cryptocurrencie exchanges. They want to require money transmitters to know who is sending money to the exchange, and who owns the receiving wallet. It’s basically going to largely invalidate the purpose of cryptocurrencies. It’s also technically not possible with the blockchain, but they are using circumvention by tracking and black listing people who aren’t ‘registered’, enforcing international policing to make crypto money transmitters become ‘licensed’. It’s the FATF’s plan to essentially exclude wallets it can’t audit (say maybe a bunch of money from coinexx suddenly sets off internal flags and now you can’t use bitcoin atm’s or bitpay or coinbase or any american service (and most euro services). It all just seems to be headed in a bad direction.
Law Enforcement will go after money laundering and they should continue to do so. Soceity needs to stop terrorists from blowing up innocent people. This isn’t the problem. The problem is the draconian prohibitions imposed on legitimate businesses.
We traders should not be in a position where we need to jump through hoops to transfer money in the first place.
Thanks for sharing these interesting developments that affect Forex traders, but they should not affect us at all. We are Forex traders, not terrorists.
