thes521 it’s funny that you mention Tadaulfx because I was just looking at their site and starting to really consider opening an account with them. It seems like a really polished, professional broker. They do have posted that US customers can’t take advantage of their recently CFD trading because of “US rules and regulations,” so they do choose to enforce some US restrictions on US customers. However nothing indicates that they plan to enforce the stupidity that is the latest CFTC dictates. (I’d love to know why Tadaulfx chooses to enforce some US regulations but not others.)
On another point I came across this recent article (from last month) by FXStreet’s founder, an update that claims that none of the 14 firms sued by the CFTC have responded in court except for one that promised to cease and desist if the suit got dropped. I had hoped that at least one company would fight back, but it looks like they’re all going to get summary judgments placed against them. It makes sense for a foreign company not to respond since they don’t recognize US jurisdiction, but I was hoping for more. This founder of FXStreet, Francesc Riverola, stupidly cheers on the CFTC’s financial dictatorship; of course it’s not too difficult to see why - FXStreet is obviously in bed with the domestic Forex brokers who didn’t fight back for trader freedom in the US and instead went along with the corrupt bargain that tried to make them the only game in town. In a previous article on the subject he blindly went along with the wire service’s headline that claimed the CFTC was going after these firms because of “fraud.” Shameful.
That previous article, however, made another point that I think is worth consideration. It claims that the CFTC went after firms that were not only unregistered with the CFTC but that were also “illegally soliciting” members of the US public to engage in Forex trading. As I think others have pointed out, it may be that as long as foreign brokers aren’t actively soliciting US customers by advertising open acceptance of US customers, the CFTC may not be able to touch them. The CFTC may be hoping that by suing that initial 14 it could scare foreign firms into not doing business with US customers (and some did respond to the scare tactic), but it may not have any ammo passed that. It’s an arguable, unsafe assumption, but I think that if the CFTC thought it could have done so, it would have gone after more than 14 (and remember, IIRC, not all 14 targeted were actually brokers - a number of them were introducing broker affiliated outfits). We’ll have to see how the dust settles in the coming months and years, but I think this may be the loophole that keeps our options open.